I've been able to compile and run bfgminer on my 64bit machine with no
problems.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 12:14 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> > You are better off buying bitcoin than mining it right now. Last I
> > checked it
You are better off buying bitcoin than mining it right now. Last I checked
it's down in the $450s (from last year's bubble of above $1,500)
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:57 AM, cheng chen wrote:
> Oh man.It's already too late
>
>
> 2014-05-02 16:46 GMT+02:00 Bruno Wolff III :
>
> On Fri, May
Besides the time changing, I'm also dying to know how (or WHY rather) it
also decided to stop all those services.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> This f20 server has been running just fine for months. Today it became
> unresponsive. Couldn't ssh into it (ping ok). Not
Yeah. I realize that's probably what's getting jdow confused as well.
Hopefully my previous message explains it better. One bit I forgot to add,
was something jdow asked, 'what happens if someone e-mails
kirash4@gmaildirectly'
GMail forwards it back to my @pcraft domain. And that too will have
not Xforwarded to both kira...@gmail.com and ash...@pcraft.com
> and not xforwarded to both kira...@gmail.com and ash...@pcigrafx.com
> and not from kira...@gmail.com
> and not toashley@papillon.pcraft.__com
> forward to kira...@gmail.com
>
> What you
ne. That allows the rules to keep
> on processing.
>
> I imagine you also want the second rule to continue processing as well.
>
> Something akin to
> :0
> * !^X-Forwarded-For: kira...@gmail.com ash...@pcraft.com
>
> * !^X-Forwarded-For: kira...@gmail.com ash...@pcigrafx.com
g in thinking that when it comes back and passes the
first rule, it will also run through the second rule. Is this a case where
I need to write things wrapped in a nest? Sort of like an IF .. THEN ..
ELSE?
A
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:50 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2013/01/23 15:28, Ashley M. Kirch
to the
salesdept email address. So somewhere it's failing. And it doesn't matter
which domain I use, it only seems to run the first part of the recipe.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
> Ok, well those recipes are working and logging to /var/log/procmai
Ok, well those recipes are working and logging to /var/log/procmail.
I don't understand why this one, which is a lot shorter and simpler, won't
log. Nor will it work properly.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:45:52 -0700, Ashle
GFILE line:
LOGABSTRACT=off
And neither of them have an explicit 'VERBOSE=yes' (or 'on') line.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ashley M. Kirchner said:
> > It works if I use ${HOME} instead of ${HOMEDIR}.
> >
> > It
arded-For: kira...@gmail.com ash...@pcraft.com
! salesd...@pcraft.com
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:32:29 -0700, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
>
> > Ok, adding those two lines does nothing. I have:
> >
> > LOGFILE=/var/l
Ok, adding those two lines does nothing. I have:
LOGFILE=/var/log/procmail
VERBOSE=on (also tried 'yes')
This is at the top of the recipe. I'm getting nothing in that log file.
It exists, and it's writable.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
>
Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:12:32 -0700, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
>
> > :0
> > * !^X-Forwarded-For: kira...@gmail.com ash...@pcraft.com
> > * !^X-Forwarded-For: kira...@gmail.com ash...@pcigrafx.com
> > * !^From.*kira...@gmail.com
> > * !^To.
Hey folks,
Seems the procmail list has fallen off of the face of the planet ... at
least, the address given on the procmail.org website doesn't seem to work
anymore.
So perhaps someone here might be able to help. I'm trying to figure out
why a recipe isn't working (when it used to in the past.)
On 04/29/2012 08:17 AM, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Anyone here seen these before? It seems some e-mails are getting through
and
others aren't, and those that don't produce this error:
- Transcript of session follows -
550 5.1.2... Host unknown (Name server:
alt4.
Anyone here seen these before? It seems some e-mails are getting
through and others aren't, and those that don't produce this error:
- Transcript of session follows -
550 5.1.2... Host unknown (Name server:
alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.: host not found)
--
users mailing li
> -Original Message-
> From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-
> boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of JB
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:43 PM
> To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: [Fedora] Re: FC14 Installation Hangs
>
> Do not worry, be happy.
mes. The machine can now claim to have my DNA on it.
Tomorrow is another day, and possibly another battle. Hopefully
one with a much better outcome.
Ashley
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
On 1/25/2011 5:41 AM, JB wrote:
> Check the board's BIOS date.
> In Bugzilla 665109 they claim that this board can have old or incomplete BIOS.
> Does it seem to be outdated ? Is there any update on manufacturer's or
> reseller's web site ?
>
> I would look at the BIOS settings too (sometimes their
On 1/24/2011 4:33 PM, JB wrote:
> Read Lamar Owen's post.
> You may search Google and Bugzilla for problems related to your Broadcom
> CNB20LE board.
>
> There is a chance that Alan drops by and he is expert on hard disks.
>
> Tomorrow will try some more.
>
> JB
Yep, I'm going to try and boot
On 1/24/2011 4:04 PM, JB wrote:
> Try:
> keep only -> ignore_loglevel enforcing=0 initcall_debug
>
> Keep these runs separate.
>
> 1st run:
> add -> pci=use_crs
>
> 2nd run (remove 1st run added parameters):
> add -> noapic nolapic nolapic_timer
>
> 3rd run (remove 2nd run added parameters):
> n
On 1/24/2011 2:32 PM, JB wrote:
> Let's take a shot at hard disk problems:
> keep only -> ignore_loglevel enforcing=0 initcall_debug
>
> Keep these 2 runs separately.
>
> 1st run:
> add -> pci=nomsi pci=nommconf pci=nocrs
>
> 2nd run (remove 1st run added parameters):
> rdblacklist=ahci
>
> JB
On 1/24/2011 2:06 PM, JB wrote:
> I am looking at kernel parameters and Fedora kernel problems - there is so
> much of it that could go wrong that the head is spinning.
>
> Let's hope that Alan finds time to come back to the thread - he is the real
> expert here.
>
> I will continue looking into it
On 1/24/2011 1:43 PM, JB wrote:
> I am looking at that dmesg posted by you - CentOS had some errors too.
> We have to reset the kernel line and run it again with max verbose debugging.
>
> Please reset kernel parameters to only the ones needed for debugging (and keep
> them always), remove anything
On 1/24/2011 12:14 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> Install with basic video? Or what ever the correct verbage is.
Tried that already. Also tried running in text mode, vnc mode,
nothing. It doesn't even get there, it dies way before that.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
On 1/22/2011 2:53 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ok try this
> Remove the 'quiet' add
>
> irqpoll initcall_debug
>
> The first one tries to catch and deal with hangs due to IRQ routing bugs
> in the BIOS etc, the second will print a trace of each function called
> during initialisation. It's not exciting to
>
> Ok try this
>
> Remove the 'quiet' add
>
> irqpoll initcall_debug
>
> The first one tries to catch and deal with hangs due to IRQ routing bugs
in the
> BIOS etc, the second will print a trace of each function called during
> initialisation. It's not exciting to most people but as part of a
On 1/22/2011 12:38 PM, Rick Sewill wrote:
> I looked at URL, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelCommonProblems,
> for hints. It has a suggestion, under "Crashes/Hangs",
> "# initcall_debug will allow to see the last thing the kernel tried to
> initialise before it hung."
> I have the impression,
On 1/22/2011 1:03 PM, JB wrote:
> I do not see any audio (sound) device controller in your lspci ...
> Is that possible ?
That would be correct, it's a server board, it has no onboard audio.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
htt
On 1/22/2011 12:35 PM, JB wrote:
> Ashley M. Kirchner pcraft.com> writes:
>
> there is something perhaps with your two Ethernet setups (you have 2 NIC
> controllers shown in lspci).
>
> always keep --> ignore_loglevel enforcing=0
> add -->ether=0,0,eth1
&g
On 1/22/2011 12:03 PM, JB wrote:
> Kernel command line:
> always keep --> ignore_loglevel
> add --> enforcing=0
The only major difference this time is that it's also detecting the
additional drives that are on the add-on card. Previously it wasn't,
but now I can see them after it says '
On 1/22/2011 11:31 AM, JB wrote:
> Remove "quiet" and
> add "ignore_loglevel"
> (without "" characters) to the boot options to see where it hangs.
There was no 'quiet' option on the boot line to begin with.
After the 'waiting for hardware to initialize...' line, there are
several lines
On 1/22/2011 11:11 AM, JB wrote:
> I have to guess somewhat, which is a polite way to admit ...
> Pass these on kernel line:
> xdriver=vesa nomodeset agp=off
>
> JB
No dice. Same spot.
At this point I may just have to continue running CentOS, it's not
like it's the end of the world an
Below
are the output of dmesg and lspci as JB previously requested.
Original Message
Subject:Re: [Fedora] Re: FC14 Installation Hangs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:40:08 -0700
From: Ashley M. Kirchner
Reply-To: Community support for Fedora users
To: Commun
On 1/21/2011 1:22 PM, JB wrote:
> Just install CentOS (as if you were installing F14 - layout mainly),
> select
> desktop set (X, GNOME), nothing more. It will take 15 min or so.
> Then pass to the list the following displays:
> $ dmesg
> $ lspci
>
> JB
That I can do. In the interest of not
Type in 'waiting for hardware to initialize' into Google and you
get a lovely list of some 452,000 results. I'm one of those. I admit,
this is an older hardware (think 5-8 years) however at the same time, it
was running RH7.3 this whole time with no problems, and I'm able to put
a Windo
So this would be my guess:
The first time you invoked userdel, it removed the user from the system
(/etc/passwd, /etc/group, and /etc/shadow) but didnt delete the home folder
because according to lastlog the user was still logged in. When you invoked
it a second time, it failed because the us
Also take a look at star
(much the same as tar, but improved)
I have been using star with good results.
A limitation I found with tar was long filenames, with multiple tapes.
Was not supposed to be a limitation, but crashed every time.
Best Regards
ashley
--
users mailing list
users
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Check out these two projects:
>
> GFS: http://www.redhat.com/gfs/
> LDAP: http://directory.fedoraproject.org/
>
> Both are available in Fedora.
>
Thanks. I saw the LDAP project before I sent my e-mail out. I'm
still looking at it to see if it's what I need, or
We're going to split out main server up into 3, possibly more with
backup redundancy. The basic setup will be 1 server (USER) holding
everyone's physical account, 1 server (MAIL) which holds everyone's mail
spool (INBOXES only), and 1 server (WEB) that will hold everyone's web
space. A u
fo will change. If it.
--
W | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature.
+----
Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:ash...@pcraft.com> . 303.442.6410 x130
IT Director / SysAdmin / Websmith . 800.
Rick Stevens wrote:
>> While 'cat'ing /proc/cpuinfo I see this (other information removed):
>>
>> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
>> cpu family : 15
>> model : 4
>> model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.40GHz
>> stepping
So why's procinfo incorrect?
--
W | It's not a bug - it's an undocumented feature.
+--------
Ashley M. Kirchner <mailto:ash...@pcraft.com> . 303.442.6410 x130
IT Director / SysAdmin / Websmith .
So I never paid attention to this since I always assumed the system
will do The Right Thing (TM), however while going through servers today,
I came across this discrepancy and was hoping someone here could help me
figure out what's going on.
While 'cat'ing /proc/cpuinfo I see this (oth
44 matches
Mail list logo
