January 2006 - KCLUG

pros/cons of running services from inetd vs standalone daemons
by hanasaki 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Any opinions on the reasons to run services from inetd vs leaving them running as daemons? The main thing that comes to mind is for busy services like an MTA/email or Samba there is less overhead because there aren't alot of processes being spawned / forked.

6 5

Disappointed in Google
by Nick Manley 18 Jan '06

18 Jan '06

Is anyone else really disappointed in Google recently? Do no evil my ass. Don't get me wrong, I love Google (or used to anyway, I'm on the fence now) but this Google Pack <http://pack.google.com/> stuff is really pathetic. Norton and RealPlayer?! I would only put that on the system of my worst enemy. I do realize Google is getting paid for this service by some of these companies but does that really fit the "do no evil" slogan? That's not the only thing. Its a mass of things that Google has done wrong and this one finally sent me over the edge. As you can see I use gmail despite it being sub par compared to other free services and now executable are blocked in email attachments. Thanks Google. It's nice that you are trying to protect the newbies but at the very least give me the option to disable it. It is MY email! Development has been crappy to say the least. I still remember reading an article on Google Rumors <http://www.googlerumors.com/>about the possibility of a calendar. Still isn't here. I am not saying that I am completely expected one since it was never official and that Google is a free service that I am not paying for, thus they can provide what they want, but its been a while since Google has done anything worth while for their users. I realize this is a Linux mailing list and that most of Google's software is for Windows XP but I still want to hear your opinion on the matter. Is this the beginning of the end? Is Google finally following in the footsteps of their older brothers and becoming corrupt? Ok ok... Maybe I am looking into it too much, but it just seems lacking. Google is still good in other areas though. There support for open source and the summer of code project is a great idea! I feel that Google should set sights on doing a service and doing it well. There search is second to none. For the other stuff.... well, a little more time creating a quality product would do them and everyone else a lot better instead of trying to move on to other projects. Am I going overboard or ranting to much or do you agree with me. So many intelligent computer users (read slashdotters) have built up Google to be a god and to some it would seem sinful to bash Google in any light. Any thoughts?

11 10

RE: Anonym.OS LiveCD
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 17 Jan '06

17 Jan '06

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/anonym-os/anonymos-shmoo.iso?download So have you got it yet? I'm getting it now. I'd like to see what they consider easy for the average user. I like that they strive towards that, but I like options to be available to the average or above average geek who wants to do more. Most LiveCDs end up in this situation and come up with some sort of modules or a fork of project. In any case it is nice to have good average default options for a user's first time with a thing like this, rather than mysterious, cryptic, bad or no default options. -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Leo Mauler Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:55 AM I apologize if this is old news, but I found an OpenBSD LiveCD called Anonym.OS which, when you boot it up on your PC, promises some level of anonymity over the Internet. Wired covered the story here: http://tinyurl.com/ck6ar

2 1

OT: Wired.com CSS
by Josh Charles 17 Jan '06

17 Jan '06

is anyone else having difficulty getting wired.com showing up as it's supposed to. I'm using firefox 1.5, and I the css never loads. I tried it in IE as well, and it didn't load there either. Is it just my machine? josh

2 1

Re: Taking a poll on mail client reply
by Tom Bruno 17 Jan '06

17 Jan '06

Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > On 1/3/06, *Tom Bruno* <tom(a)limesg.com <mailto:tom@limesg.com>> wrote: > > I'm tired of hitting reply and then realizing my reply went > directly to the person and not the list. > > It doesn't make sense to _ME_ to default replying to off list because > the whole > point of the list is to see the questions and the answers. > > So i propose that we change the mailing list to put > kclug(a)kclug.org <mailto:kclug@kclug.org> first > in the list of whom to reply so that when people hit reply they > reply to > the list > since technically the list sent them the message. > The only time I can see having the user who emailed in the reply is if it is a mailing list that allows non-subscribers to post. Since, a non-subscriber would not see the reply if it was only sent to the list. This is a closed, subscriber only list though. There's no reason to even send the message to the users e-mail. A "reply to all" the original poster gets the message twice. That of course is not what I'm asking. Leave the user's email or don't, i just want the list's email listed first. > I aggree, it seems silly for any mailing list would not have thigns > setup that way.

7 9

Anyone have a spare machine?
by Arthur Pemberton 17 Jan '06

17 Jan '06

I would like to do testing for Fedora, but do not have the spare machine which I had anticipated. So I just thought I would ask the lis if anyone has a spare machine they are willing to give up or sell for a small price to do testing. Thank you. -- As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins.

8 18

Anonym.OS LiveCD
by Leo Mauler 17 Jan '06

17 Jan '06

I apologize if this is old news, but I found an OpenBSD LiveCD called Anonym.OS which, when you boot it up on your PC, promises some level of anonymity over the Internet. Wired covered the story here: http://tinyurl.com/ck6ar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: wireless cards for laptop
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 15 Jan '06

15 Jan '06

If you can find a Netgear card that is a 511T, the T is the key, then it will work with the Atheros driver. -----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of curt Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:38 AM To: kclug(a)kclug.org Subject: Re: wireless cards for laptop Actually, the response I was hoping for would be kinda like the following: I just picked up the XXXbrand wireless notebook adapter model # XXXXXX at Microcenter for $5 after rebate, plugged it in and Bam! I was connected... :') On Friday 06 January 2006 11:20 am, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote: > www.linux-wlan.org/ links to a list > http://www.linux-wlan.org/docs/wlan_adapters.html.gz > and additional info, > http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Jean_Tourrilhes/Linux/Wireless.html and > http://at76c503a.berlios.de/devices.html > > That's where I refer people all the time to look. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf > Of curt > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:04 AM > To: kclug(a)kclug.org > Subject: wireless cards for laptop > > Hi All, > I've been searching for info on supported pcmcia wireless cards for my > laptop. > A Thinkpad T23... > As yet I have found little info other than some comments regarding the > chipset. I would really prefer to simply purchase a card, plug it in and > be > done with it. The problem seems to be that no manufacturer seems > forthcoming > with chipset info. Can someone suggest a card that they have had success > with > and tell me the "Retail" brandname and model number? Beats the hell out > of > buying one, taking it home, dicovering it has an unsupported chipset, > returning it and repeating the process again and again. > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug > > > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug(a)kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

2 1

where to shove the spare machines
by David Nicol 14 Jan '06

14 Jan '06

On 1/3/06, Jon Pruente <jdpruente(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've got pare machines out the wazoo. My wife would love it if I > could trim it down a bit. What spec level are you looking for? If > anyone else is looking for low or low-mid spec machines, drop me a > line. > > Jon. Me too. And there are others like us. We need something practical to do with the low and low-mid spec machines. We know from experience that they make perfectly dandy low-volume servers and firewalls for instance. If only there was a boot floppy that would turn the dust magnet into something that would be of use. Or if there was a need for text terminals. Or even X terminal. X servers are entirely dandy on anything faster than 150 Mhz. Really they are. Please contact me off-list if you would like to be involved in a project to recycle spare computers into something useful -- or on-list if you think that such a project makes sense as a LUG project. -- David L Nicol "our community is healthier because they had the power to make that mistake" -- ESR

4 3

RE: where to shove the spare machines
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 13 Jan '06

13 Jan '06

I can confirm that. I ran Ipcop back in those halcyon floppy days, right after Freesco started blowing chunks and couldn't keep up on kernel versions, fixes. Search Google for "linux floppy firewall" and you will find even more options. Coyote pops up quite a bit. I recall a cool website, where you put in various info about the box you are making into a firewall, and what rules you want and then it builds a floppy.img for you with the right modules for your NICs and is pre-setup for routing. -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of David Spake Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 8:28 AM To: kclug(a)kclug.org Subject: RE: where to shove the spare machines Coming into the discussion late, but if you are looking for a firewall to run on a 386, you might consider older versions of Smoothwall (say .99) or IPCop. Check the IPCop forums (ipcop.org) and search thru the user forum. I found multiple hits on '386' where people talk about installing Smoothwall .99 on a 386, and IPCop on 486's with 16 meg of ram. Seems IPcop won't install with 8 meg, but if you populate it to 24, and then install you can reduce it back down to 16 (or maybe even 8) and run. I would suspect that you could search the Smoothwall forums for the same thing. Dave P.S. arrgh... damn web email client. Apologies for the empty post. --- "Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO" wrote: > Also look into mulinux. It was small before > either of those. Now on > http://mulinux.dotsrc.org/ version 14r0. Not under > active development, > but will work on a 386. There is also Tom's > rootboot and many others. > > -----Original Message----- > > > Monty J. Harder wrote: > | On 1/4/06, *David Nicol* < > | > | If only there was a boot floppy that would > turn the dust magnet into something > | that would be of use. > | > | http://www.linuxrouter.org/ > > ...which has been fairly dead for a while. For more > recent (but still > fits > on a floppy and runs on almost any old hardware) > versions: > > http://www.leaf-project.org/ > > The current uClibc based Bering release is an > excellent way to turn most > any > spare PC into a > router/stateful-firewall/vpn-gateway/whatever. >

2 1