Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34753 discussions

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 ia64 libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 2. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 ia64 gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 3. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 axp libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 4. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 axp gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 5. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 3 ia64 gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 6. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 3 ia64 libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 7. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 s390(x) gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 8. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 s390(x) libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 9. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 3 s390(x) libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 10. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 3 s390(x) gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 11. CESA-2006:0608 Critical CentOS 3 ia64 seamonkey - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:40:44 +0300 From: Pasi Pirhonen <upi(a)centos.fi> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 ia64 libtiff - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20060804194044.GB12771(a)centos.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2006:0603 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0603.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: files: updates/ia64/RPMS/libtiff-3.6.1-12.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/libtiff-devel-3.6.1-12.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi(a)iki.fi - http://pasi.pirhonen.eu/ Top-postings silently ignored

1 0

RE: RE: Re: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > >> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" >> and THAT is when I responded the way I did. > >And was that the best way to respond ? > >You could have said who you were, and why your firewall document is >important to the community. Or simply ignored him. > Maybe I did overreact. And the onus is on me for that. However, he shouldn't have fricken posted if he didn't care. I apologize to the group, as a whole for the overreaction. However, I won't respond for "sticking up for myself" when I was flamed. The forums for CentOS set the tone for WHY I overreacted. Right or wrong, the vocal "minotiry" of any group sets the "public face" of that group. You can have 500 people, but if the 10 "loudest" people in the group act in a certain manner then the group as a whole gets the reputation of being that way. >Kind regards, >-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Infromational Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>John Masters wrote: >> >> >> On 8/4/06, *Paul Heinlein* <heinlein(a)madboa.com >> <mailto:heinlein@madboa.com>> wrote: >> >> >> You forgot to politely inquire about the identity of this "Matthew >> Miller.". >> >> >> I resent the implication that my mental facilities are impaired. Or, >> in the words of the Carry On team "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it >> in for me." > ><tinfoil hat> > >Hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get >you.... > ></tinfoil hat> > You know what? Forget it. It's not worth all of the bullshit. I will just keep my documents and such to myself. I was gonna upload it to the wiki site. That's what I get for trying to be helpful. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. I will go back to lurking since the information that I wanted to impart isn't; this has been made readily apparent to me; wanted nor appreciated. Now I know why TLDP doesn't have many current documents. > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: >>> Well, with an attitude like that, I can say that I don't think your >>> absence on the list will be missed. That's a mighty big chip on your >>> shoulder. It must be heavy. >>> >>> *shrug* >>> >>> >> >> And YOU wouldn't have a big chip on your shoulder if you OFFERED something >you worked for many months on up to people and got flamed for your troubles? >> > > >Nobody flamed you. Someone who was likely quite busy asked in a curt >way who you were why your message was relevant. The flaming didn't >begin until you started behaving like a scorned girlfriend over it. Get >over it already. You're simply digging yourself in deeper. Just stop it. > >sheeesh.... > If he was so fricken busy why did he even bother to reply? I will tell you why. He was having a bad day and decided that he needed to vent on someone. The problem is he picked someone that will stick up for themselves. > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by Ian Kaufman 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>>"For those of us who have neither?" > > Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at all.....*eyeroll* I see no hostility in someone asking a question that directly acknowledges what your original post stated: "For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available." He plainly asks what if we don't have the older version or are not keeping track of it, but are otherwise interested? I think you are reading in to it too much. Someone not privy to your original thread announcing the document shows interest, and you basically retort it's none of his business (and less politely I might add). Now who's the elitist? Ian

3 2

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>Frank Tanner III wrote: >> >> My characterization of the community is spot-on with regards to >> the way >> that I have been treated both on the forums and in the mailing >> list >> over-all. >> >> I go out of my way to provide a document that I think might be >> useful to >> others and get nothing but harsh criticism for it. How would >> YOU feel >> if the roles were reversed? I wasn't looking for a "Thank you >> thank you >> for providing a wonderful document.", however I was not looking >> for a >> "You asshole. We have no idea what you are talking about. Piss >> off." >> either. And the latter is what I got. >> >> This whole thing could have been avoided had he either not >> responded at >> all if the message didn't concern him, respond with some USEFUL >> feedback, or apologize for being a jerk to begin with. >> >> As far as the "community" as a whole, go out there and read the >> trade >> publications and the publications that business decision makers >> base >> their decisions about the community on. They all, pretty much, >> say the >> same thing. Open Source is great. The people are not. That's >> what it >> boils down to. >> >> > > >Well, with an attitude like that, I can say that I don't think your >absence on the list will be missed. That's a mighty big chip on your >shoulder. It must be heavy. > >*shrug* > And YOU wouldn't have a big chip on your shoulder if you OFFERED something you worked for many months on up to people and got flamed for your troubles? > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

5 4

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>Frank Tanner III wrote: > >> There goes YOUR attitude again. I *SPECIFICALLY* stated in my initial >> e-mail "or those of you that either have an older revision of my >> firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new >> version available.". > >if you want your own private mailing list, go start one. bye bye! If you >are going to post something here, making it meaningful to people who >read the list - is a good thing, and expected from all posters. > It *WAS* meaningful. For the people that it was applicable to. Then people decided that because it wasn't applicable to them that they should flame me. It's attitudes such as this as to why people say, "You can never get good support with Open Source software." I came onto the list trying to be HJELPFUL, and got burnt to the ground instead. JUST like in the forums. I guess they'er right. No good deed goes unpunished. Now I understand why nobody has offered a document like this to the community before. It certainly makes me want to keep all of my future documents to myself. They're OBVIOUSLY only a bother to everyone and nobody wants them. >-K >-- >Karanbir Singh {kbsingh(a)centos.org} >The CentOS Project, http://www.centos.org/ >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's changed rather significantly in some areas.

15 26

RE: Re: Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>> Well, that's not the way it came across. > >To you perhaps. They have medications to help with this. >If you think that one or two people are being hostile, then maybe they >are. When you're operating under the impression that EVERYONE is being >hostile to you... you have to at least consider the possibility that >it's NOT THEM with the issues. > >Grow the thickness of skin required to survive on mailing lists and >irc. Don't respond to hostile posts with hostility, you'll only draw >fire. EIther contribute, or quit whining about how you're being >persecuted. You've been offered at least 3 different hosting areas >during this trainwreck of a thread. > Actually, I've been chatting online for about 20 years now. First on BBSes and then in IRC. Again, the CentOS forums and the people on this mailing list that I had problems with are the only ones that I have encountered this issue with. Those offers came AFTER the flame-fest began, not before. >To everyone else: > >LET THIS THREAD DIE THE DEATH IT DESERVES. > > > >-- >During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary >act. >George Orwell >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

RE: Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 04 Aug '06

04 Aug '06

>>>"For those of us who have neither?" >> >> Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at >all.....*eyeroll* > >I see no hostility in someone asking a question that directly acknowledges >what your original post stated: > >"For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, >or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available." > >He plainly asks what if we don't have the older version or are not keeping >track >of it, but are otherwise interested? I think you are reading in to it too >much. >Someone not privy to your original thread announcing the document shows >interest, >and you basically retort it's none of his business (and less politely I might >add). > >Now who's the elitist? > Well, that's not the way it came across. >Ian >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss