The question mark means that there's a sign-in page (such as in a cafe. )
--
Sent from my Android phone with GMX Mail. Please excuse my brevity.Steven Stern wrote:
The wifi is working, but it's switch to a question mark icon: See
http://imgur.com/m1G7n9o
F21
--
On 2014-12-29 15:03, Greg Woods wrote:
Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys
[root@localhost ~]#
Clue, please?
I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup. I
ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks of doing that) so
that I could g
On Dec 29, 2014 11:23 AM, "Robert Moskowitz" wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2014 12:55 PM, Pete Travis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2014 10:18 AM, "Robert Moskowitz" wrote:
>> >
>> > I have two F21 systems on the same subnet. Client and server.
>> >
>> > On the server I created a directory /root/tftp with
On 12/30/14 06:47, Tim wrote:
There are plenty of other CSS tricks you can do, if needed, but just
start off with getting the bare basics to work, first. Bearing in mind
that if you try to do something sensible like force all fonts to be a
useful readable size, you can get hamstrung by pages wh
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 03:41:04PM -0500, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
> In a few F21 GUI panels the icons are grotesquely large - 1.75 inches
> square on a 15 inch wide monitor. Normal size would be ~0.25 in.
> This makes the panel nearly incomprehensible. This occurs in, eg,
> system-config-
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:04:51 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
[]
> I've attached an old xorg.conf file of mine. If you take the "Screen",
> "Monitor" and possibly "ServerLayout" from that file and put them in
> separate files or a single file in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d xorg will read
> those a
Robert !!
Thanks you...
All my point was.. >> was, what's the app "supposed" to be doing, and
is it correctly doing it! I really don't care what the answer is, and
I've got no dog in the fight. Just that whatever the "?" was/is
supposed to represent is documented, or is a bug!!
The issue of whet
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:03:07 -0700, Greg Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> Downloading failed: Didn't install any keys [root@localhost ~]#
>>
>> Clue, please?
>>
>>
> I never could get the GPG part of the Rpmfusion repo to work with fedup.
> I ended up using --nogpgcheck (yes I am aware of the risks
On 12/30/2014 11:31 AM, Temlakos wrote:
> On 12/30/2014 12:27 PM, Steven Stern wrote:
>> The wifi is working, but it's switch to a question mark icon: See
>> http://imgur.com/m1G7n9o
>>
>> F21
>>
>
> It sounds as though it is trying to find a hotspot to connect to, and
> can't.
>
> It can't beca
On 12/30/2014 12:27 PM, Steven Stern wrote:
The wifi is working, but it's switch to a question mark icon: See
http://imgur.com/m1G7n9o
F21
It sounds as though it is trying to find a hotspot to connect to, and can't.
It can't because you still have to specify not just the ESSID but also
the
The wifi is working, but it's switch to a question mark icon: See
http://imgur.com/m1G7n9o
F21
--
-- Steve
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fe
On 12/28/2014 02:34 AM, antonio montagnani wrote:
> I am connected to a Picostation as repeater: sometimes laptop is
> disconnected and I see a question mark on the top line wireless icon,
> and it connects again only if I switch of and then on the wirelss...
> in F20 it never happened.Smarthphone
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 05:32:03PM +0100, antonio wrote:
> as network is a an extension of an office network, I do not want
> anybody even see that network is extended
With all due respect, it doesn't matter. The Bad Guys(Tm) *will* see it,
SSID or not. WiFi scanning tools return all channel
Tim ha scrito il 30/12/2014 alle 15:47:
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2014, bruce sent:
whether or not hiding does any good or not isn't the issue with what
antonio was/is presenting..
he;s simply saying/asking if there should be a bug filed in this case,
or if seeing a "?" is the correct
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:13:18AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Eventhough I wrote the paper on the Myth of hiding SSIDs in '03 and
> provided the method for exposing hidden SSIDs, many wireless
> professionals still push this as a valuable tool to protect your
> networks.
You can't kill some
On 12/30/2014 06:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 18:13 +0100, antonio wrote:
if this behaviour is connected to hidden SSID
You're only hurting yourself by hiding it. Seriously, hiding it doesn't
do you *any* good.
Eventhough I wrote the paper on the Myth of hiding SSIDs in '03 and
bruce ha scrito il 30/12/2014 alle 13:57:
whether or not hiding does any good or not isn't the issue with what
antonio was/is presenting..
he;s simply saying/asking if there should be a bug filed in this case,
or if seeing a "?" is the correct behaviour in the case of there being
hidden SSIDs?
Allegedly, on or about 30 December 2014, bruce sent:
> whether or not hiding does any good or not isn't the issue with what
> antonio was/is presenting..
>
> he;s simply saying/asking if there should be a bug filed in this case,
> or if seeing a "?" is the correct behaviour in the case of there be
Tim:
>> I shall ask the obvious question: Did you completely quit Firefox so
>> that there were no other running Firefox processes?
Andre Robatino:
> You're right, that must have been the problem. Last night I noticed
> that there was a running Firefox process even after quitting the
> graphical
On 12/30/2014 06:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:37:27 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
And it is installed on the system. Or it seems so:
# java -version
openjdk version "1.8.0_25"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_25-b18)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.25-b0
On my server, after updating f20->f21, shell startup is _extremely_ slow.
Using strace, it appears that the problem is dbus
08:22:57 connect(5, {sa_family=AF_LOCAL,
sun_path="/var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket"}, 33) = 0
...
08:22:57 recvmsg(5, 0x7fff640c3970, MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC) = -1 EAGAIN (Resourc
Search engines are your friend. From the release notes:
Added a no-more-sessi...@openssh.com global request extension that is
sent from ssh(1) to sshd(8) when the client knows that it will never
request another session (i.e. when session multiplexing is disabled).
This allows a server to disallow
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:10:58 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> ssh -v nbecker7
> ...
>
> Authenticated to nbecker7 ([10.32.112.225]:22).
> debug1: channel 0: new [client-session]
> debug1: Requesting no-more-sessi...@openssh.com
> ...
>
> What is that??
$ rpm -qd openssh
/usr/share/doc/openssh/CR
ssh -v nbecker7
...
Authenticated to nbecker7 ([10.32.112.225]:22).
debug1: channel 0: new [client-session]
debug1: Requesting no-more-sessi...@openssh.com
...
What is that??
--
-- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
whether or not hiding does any good or not isn't the issue with what
antonio was/is presenting..
he;s simply saying/asking if there should be a bug filed in this case,
or if seeing a "?" is the correct behaviour in the case of there being
hidden SSIDs?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Tim wrot
Tim yahoo.com.au> writes:
> On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 16:09 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > Firefox's Add-ons/Extensions still shows 2.6.4, even after quitting
> > and restarting Firefox, and removing and reinstalling
> > mozilla-adblockplus.
>
> I shall ask the obvious question: Did you completel
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 16:09 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Firefox's Add-ons/Extensions still shows 2.6.4, even after quitting
> and restarting Firefox, and removing and reinstalling
> mozilla-adblockplus.
I shall ask the obvious question: Did you completely quit Firefox so
that there were no oth
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 18:13 +0100, antonio wrote:
> if this behaviour is connected to hidden SSID
You're only hurting yourself by hiding it. Seriously, hiding it doesn't
do you *any* good.
--
tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.17.7-200.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Wed Dec 17 04:08:31 UTC 2014 i686
A
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 23:37:27 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> And it is installed on the system. Or it seems so:
>
>
> # java -version
> openjdk version "1.8.0_25"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_25-b18)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.25-b02, mixed mode)
>
> So what is Firefox
On Mon, 2014-12-29 at 12:57 -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Firefox 34.0 in an updated Fedora-21 64 bit XFCE etc.
Here, Firefox 34.0 on up to date Fedora 20.
The uname -rsvp in my signatures (I couldn't resist putting the options
in that order) is a script that always shows the specs of whatever
co
On 29.12.2014, Andre Robatino wrote:
> I have mozilla-adblockplus-2.6.6-1 installed in F21 (was just pushed stable
> in F19, F20, and F21). Firefox's Add-ons/Extensions still shows
> 2.6.4.
My firefox shows the correct version. A quick grep into the
Fedora 21 adblockplus src.rpm does not reveal
On 12/29/14 13:11, Neal Becker wrote:
114:[20.255] (EE) [drm] KMS not enabled
115:[20.255] (EE) [drm] KMS not enabled
116:[20.255] (EE) [drm] KMS not enabled
117:[20.255] (EE) [drm] KMS not enabled
118:[20.255] (EE) [drm] KMS not enabled
A hunch, tak
32 matches
Mail list logo
