Discuss June 2007

discuss@lists.centos.org

280 participants
339 discussions

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. > > Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. > > Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. > > This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. > > While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. Understood, that's your right. It seems kind of silly, though, to go to the trouble of writing so much, then limit yourself with sharing to only a very small percentage of the CentOS community by broadcasting a message to e-mail you for documentation. Documentation is supposed to be readily available, that's the point of it, at least from my perspective, no matter what the license or stipulations of the content are. Although you can pick out a license for your material that would cover protecting the interests you have expressed, yet at the same time allowing others to share in your material. One of the Creative Commons license, or another, would do the trick. That said, do you not have a place to host the document then? It seems that if you've gone to that much trouble to write something, then perhaps you just need a spot somewhere to host the document? ---------------------------------------- Currently I have a domain, yes, however my bandwidth is rather limited. By cost, not by speed. I don't feel like incurring hundreds of dollars in usage fees to post this on my domain. Licensing is good and fine, except for the fact that once you post something on a wiki, in most cases, anyone that comes along can freely add to and modify the content of what you've posted. This happens on Wikipedia quite frequently. This doesn't cover the "It's your fault because you wrote the document" blame that gets lumped on you when something goes wrong from a change that someone else made. The person who's name is on the document is the one that is going to get his or her neck wrung by the pissed off person. I've had it happen in the past. I don't care to repeat it. I really don't like lawyers sending me letters because of stupidity like that. I originally chose the method that I use for disseminating it because, to be honest, I don't really see that there is enough interest in it to invest the time or money into something larger. I have, however, considered asking the admins of the IEEE Computer Society, LOPSA, or AZSAGE if I could post it on their sites when I renew my memberships. Regards, Max -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGZtJgHoeeepPau2ERAvcMAJ4voQ+EUg/StcW3vEg5ZhLMGv3NcQCgpsha podiuZE3dvwhaV4GUcI3C5Y= =n8/R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

> Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the community. In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all CentOS users. ----------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

7 7

Modules from a newer kernel with older kernel?
by Miguel Medalha 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Is it possible to use driver modules from Fedora 7 with CentOS 5? That is to say, modules from a kernel version 2.6.21 with a kernel version 2.6.18. I would like to try libata.ko, ata_piix.ko and some other with the kernel I am using with CentOS 5. Will it be safe? Thank you!

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On 6/6/07, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: > > Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? > > Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the > community. > In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all > CentOS users. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. [...] Please don't start this again. You can view last year's argument about this here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-August/thread.html#67803 PCtech: You are certainly entitled to control your copyrighted material however you like, but if you look at how the rest of the open source community handles this type of information, you must be able to see that the method you are using is not typical. It's the type of thing that makes other people uncomfortable. Again, you are completely entitled to handle it however you like, but you need to expect people will consider your method unsavory. -------------------------------------------------- It is VERY typical in the open source community. Name me ONE open source project that just ANYONE can submit changes to that will go live without some sort of vetting process. You can't. Because there are none. A large percentage of the open source projects don't even accept submissions from people that aren't on the development team. I don't need to expect anything of the sort. I don't HAVE to offer this document, or any of the future ones, to people. I do it because I WANT to. For the good of the community as it were. That doesn't mean that I have to give up all of my rights to who can actually change the document that I spent the time to write. How is the way I am disseminating it ANY less "savory" than posting it on a web site for people to download? Because I choose e-mail? It allows ME to control the cost of disseminating the information. It allows ME to control the alterations to my document. I've tried disseminating things in a wiki format before. No thanks. One letter from a lawyer was quite enough. I don't know about you, but *I* don't want to have to defend myself against someone for something that I give out for free and wrote, initially, for myself. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 5

How to set up maxium masseage size per user basic
by Indunil Jayasooriya 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi All, I am runnig sendmail 8.13.8 with MailScanner-4.58.9-1 on CentOS 5. I want to setup a rule which filters message sizes. Below is the situation. I have 20 users. They currently have full freedom to send and recive mails. No message size checking is done. Now I want to limit message size per user basic. Let's say that 5 users can only send mails up to 7 MB and they can recieve up to 5 MB. 10 users can only send mails up to 10 MB and they can recieve up to 7 MB. and the remaining 5 users can only send mails up to 2MB and they can recieve up to 3 MB How to set a rule like this. In Mailscanner, There is a file called max.message.size.rules It is given below. I wrote a rule. But it still does not work. pls see below [root@mailgw rules]# cat max.message.size.rules To: userx(a)example.com 5M To: *(a)example.com 3M From: userx(a)example.com 7M From: *(a)example.com 2M # FromOrTo: default 0 Could you pls let me know where I have gone wrong? -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. Did you miss the 'revision history' link that removes all doubt about who said what? -------------------------------------------------- Yeah. I saw it. Your snippy comment just shows EXACTLY what I am talking about. I also know, for a fact, that a large percentage of the people that read a wiki ignore that when something goes wrong and go straight to the source. I've seen it far too many times. I've seen the "Well, your information is wrong. You said this." "No I didn't." "Yes you did. Look at your wiki." "No I didn't. Look at the revision history. Someone else did." "It's your posting, you're responsible, so it's your fault and your information is wrong." You might be surprised how few people even care who said what. They hold the original author responsible. No thanks. I don't need that drama. This started out as a project solely for my own use. Nothing more and nothing less. It morphed to what it is today because I didn't see anything like it out on the 'Net at the time. At the end of the day, it has my name on it, so it's my heartburn if someone marks it up and it's wrong. If people don't want it because of my chosen distribution method, that's fine by me. I'll just keep my documents to myself and then they don't have to worry about it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

6 7

what is extra/ updates/ and weak-updates/ under /lib/modules/<kernel>/ directories?
by Robinson Tiemuqinke 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi, there are three 'extra' directories under /lib/modules/<kernel>/ directories for each kernel version. Any one can explain what is the real functions for these three directories, and how to use them correctly? I found a document talks a little about it at http://linux.dell.com/files/presentations/Red_Hat_Summit_May_2006/Driver_Up…, but would like to know more real alive examples to see how I can really use the kernel driver update mechanism. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

1 0

Error on sound files with totem removed
by Mark Hull-Richter 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

I decided to go ahead and remove totem (don't much care for it anyway), and when I double-click a sound file in nautilus, it runs mplayer to play the file, but I also get an error window (from mplayer) that says "[AO OSS] audio_setup: Can't open audio device /dev/dsp: Device or resource busy" but it is playing the sound file just fine. I can close the error window and everything works; if I close mplayer instead, both mplayer and the error window disappear. What gives? -- Mark Hull-Richter DATAllegro (www.datallegro.com) 85 Enterprise, 2nd Floor, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Ofc: 949-680-3082 fax: 949-680-3001

2 2

Yum (dependency) problem on latest 4.5 updates
by fredex 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

Hi! running a Centos 4.5 system here. This week when I do "yum update" I get this output: # yum update Loading "protectbase" plugin Setting up Update Process Setting up repositories kbs-CentOS-Extras 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 update 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 pidgin 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 rpmforge 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files 122 packages excluded due to repository protections Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package mpeg2dec.i386 0:0.4.1-2.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package x264.i386 0:0.0.0-0.4.20070529.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package mutt.i386 5:1.4.1-12.0.3.el4 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libx264.so.54 for package: vlc --> Processing Dependency: libx264.so.54 for package: ffmpeg --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libx264.so.54 is needed by package vlc Error: Missing Dependency: libx264.so.54 is needed by package ffmpeg which is a problem I've never encountered before. One odd thing about it is that I've ALREADY GOT libx264.so.54, it comes as part of the x264 rpm. I also noticed today that a 4.5 box there is having the same problem, so I'm left to assume that there's something wrong with this last batch of updates?????? Advice would be appreciated. Thanks! -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. ------------------------------ Philippians 4:13 -------------------------------

5 6

Unrecognized character \xED at perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm line 1
by beast 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

I've just install centos 5.0 on new PC. However it gives this error while installing per-Date-Calc: [root@piranha tmp]# perl -ivh perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm Unrecognized character \xED at perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm line 1. what could be the problem? --beast

3 3

← Newer
1
...
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss June 2007