On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 08:24:21AM +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> Heiko Baums wrote:
>
> Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400
> schrieb Dave Reisner :
>
> > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed
> > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide e
Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400
schrieb Dave Reisner :
> I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed
> on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
> audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189
> now
Op maandag 27 augustus 2012 07:59:52 schreef Heiko Baums:
> Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400
>
> schrieb Dave Reisner :
> > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed
> > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
> > audience. Some of you hav
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 07:59:52AM +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
> Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400
> schrieb Dave Reisner :
>
> > I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed
> > on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
> > audience. Some of you
Am Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:39 -0400
schrieb Dave Reisner :
> I apologize for this being somewhat after-the-fact. It was discussed
> on IRC, but that of course doesn't necessarily cater to a wide enough
> audience. Some of you have probably already noticed that systemd 189
> now provides, conflicts,
On 08/26/12 at 10:17pm, Chris Evans wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: rafael ff1
> To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
>
> 2012/8/27 C Anthony Risinger :
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 201
From: rafael ff1
To: General Discussion about Arch Linux
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll
2012/8/27 C Anthony Risinger :
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> A bum on
2012/8/27 C Anthony Risinger :
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but
>> he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word
>> at face value (or almost anyone for that
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but
> he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word
> at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says
> there was a
On 08/26/12 at 07:55pm, Bigby James wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras <
> felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James wrote:
> >
> > > Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can
> > > say without equ
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James wrote:
>
> > Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can
> > say without equivocation that Felipe is not trying to "reason" with
> >
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
> Is there any way to debug iptables, Juan,
Another good way to debug IPTables (if you can limit the traffic to the box
to just what you are troubleshooting) use the command :
sudo iptables -Z && sudo watch -n .5 iptables -nvL
^zeros t
Dear Juan,
see the section on logging in the wiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Iptables#Logging
Cheers
Bastian
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Juan Diego Tascón wrote:
> Thanks for both replies. The graphic does it a lot more
> understandable. Is there any way to debug iptables, I me
Thanks for both replies. The graphic does it a lot more
understandable. Is there any way to debug iptables, I mean, like a
tool where I can visualize the path of a packet and where exactly it
gets dropped/accepted and also realtime packets headers (src, dst,
proto, dport, sport, etc)?
On Sat, Aug
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 03:34:00PM +0200, R??my Oudompheng wrote:
> The cumulated amount of time spent on these endless discussions has
> now almost certainly get past the amount of time necessary to fix
> initscripts.
init scripts are irredeemable. The argument is more one of whether
systemd is
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:19:00AM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > For all its faults, being incapabel of giving you a boot
> > time advantage is _not_ one of them.
>
> Yes, that's *in theory*, but in practice that's not what I see, and I
> already investigated the culprit:
It's more like "if
The cumulated amount of time spent on these endless discussions has
now almost certainly get past the amount of time necessary to fix
initscripts.
Fix them instead of feeding trolls.
Rémy.
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:15:26PM +0530, gt wrote:
> Maybe you can test the AUR package and see if works as good as your own
> setup, and maybe you can contribute to that package if you ever find the
> time to do so.
What I'd offer to the AUR is run scripts for common services like
apache, sshd,
Hi,
>
> We should probably add [1] to our 3.5.3 kernel as well, if it isn't int
> he stable kernel already. According to the bug report, this will fix
> your problem.
This would be nice. Yes, the issue seems to be fixed in 3.6rc3, it
doesn't appear on my laptop.
regards
Bjoern
--
xmpp: b...@sc
19 matches
Mail list logo
