KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

3239 discussions

Databases on removable drives
by Jonathan Hutchins 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

Guys, There is a reason. It's not some sort of strange conspiracy or security back door. They keep the data on removable drives so that the drives can be locked in a safe when they're not in use, and they are supposed to lock said drives in said safe any time they are not actually using the data. It's that simple. Yeah, there are flaws in the plan, but that's the reason for it.

4 6

Nerd Handbook
by Kyle Sexton 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

Thought this was pretty funny and I hadn't seen it before: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2007/11/11/the_nerd_handbook.html -- Kyle Sexton

1 0

Thank yous
by Kelly McLaughlin 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

Hey Guys, Thanks for the responses on my problem. We have had some other issues which have taken the bulk of my attention and I have not even had a chance to experiment with your suggestions. I will keep you updated. Noticed nobody had mentioned it but Monty, Jim, and Leo made a good showing at ITEC. They would have done a far better job than the guy that headed up the open source discussion. Later, Kelly McLaughlin Tech Support Mokan Dial Inc. Louisburg, Ks. 913-837-2219 Ext. 16

1 0

Would Lin?ux have been affected by such virus preloads
by Oren Beck 16 Nov '07

16 Nov '07

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/11/11/2003387202

9 10

Source Code of MULTICS OS released
by Julie 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=1555&tag=nl.e019 Enjoy! Julie @};- --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage.

1 0

Re: New Meeting Location?
by Christopher A. Bier 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Now I actually have next Tuesday off, and am wondering if there is going > to be a meeting since it is Thanksgiving week? The meeting is still on. It's, usually, only canceled if the Library is closed. > I still wonder what the fuss is about changing the meeting? For those of > us south, it seems where it is would be fine, are they kicking us out? They aren't kicking us out. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHPLeME5xXU3JS1mQRAlRgAJ9I+pxmO0Xw4MuVbH+XbwEFIzh6zwCdHOjL rY/Os1Aqiu+j1Y7s7eIVIqA= =X/JP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RFC: Meeting times and places.
by Oren Beck 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Let us try a new approach. With no drama or flaming needed either. Approach this as a TECH RFC. What shall be the place or places,Time or times for meetings of KCLUG? Comments may and should be concise on the points of location,date,time. Qualifiers may warrant a different RFC to establish terms for LUG meetings in general if not extant.

1 0

Re-examine what WAS intended Vs has become RE:GPL, Free, Open as CONCEPTS. RFC?
by Oren Beck 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Ok folks-it's been rather amusing to see Truth's Decay curve at work. Akin to a Star Trek plot where the "words' were Elided and rote parroted absent a true perception of their INTENT! There was a night to paraphrase details - where someone was getting deeper into a hole arguing with Mr Combs about Ethereal. IIRC what it could and could not do. The summary of what I only saw/heard a fraction of was that a guest at our "Breakfast" was proclaiming himself- and -not- Mr Combs - as the area's top Ethereal expert... now a glance at - http://www.wireshark.org/about.html Sort of sets the stage for what I do next. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Is the De Minimus obligation we should insert in public discourse RE: GPL issues. Some may not know of it. Others would profit from READING it. Before flames ensue -let's all review the concepts that begat this. There was a flap over "Standards Groups" It polarized the affected alignments. WE began comment. Sadly we ourselves began to become THEM. We forgot to refer to sources! And even my well intentioned attempt seems pre-doomed for reasons best seen in hindsight.. I tried to express that the "Standards Group" was an assault upon the literal spirit of consensus. Seems I failed. Maybe we need to revisit the RFC model?

1 0

What is involved in an "Open Standard" truly being so?
by Oren Beck 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Open Standard. 2 words that are being abused or distorted.. Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term. Open means what it says and says what it means. As should Standard. So any tangible work or expressible code should either pass or fail examination for those terms BOTH applying. Either a Standard is Open and meets every criteria for that term applying or it is misused. Either something is in compliance with a Standard that passes the first test for being Open or it is neither. Thus a majority of what we have been misled are Open Standards are not. Oren Beck "Profiting from any part of restricting access to the totality of what defines a standard should be ethically suspect. See the intents of GPL for good reasons to adopt such an ethics position."

5 7

Forced routing
by Kelly McLaughlin 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Greetings all, ( Hi Monty and Jim ) I need to specify communication from a multicast IP to communicate on a specific Network Card. My routing table appears as follows: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt I Face 216.198.99.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 eth1 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 216.198.99.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 I have 2 network cards. One with the adress of 216.198.99.247 and a second NIC with an adress of 10.0.0.2. The NIC with the 10. address is what I want to use for a failover communication with a second server. The failover communication software uses a multicast address of 229.255.0.1. The default gateway is attached to the 216. network. And ping tests result in the following: Pinging from 10. NIC I can only receive replies from the other 10. address. From the 216. NIC I receive replies from everything but I cannot establish the failover on this NIC. What I want to do is tell my computer ( Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.3 ) to force communication from 229.255.0.1 across the 10.0.0.2 network card. If I can accomplish this I believe my failover will work. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. Note: I am not a Linux professional so please be very clear about suggestions. Thanks Again, Kelly McLaughlin Tech Support Mokan Dial Inc. Louisburg, Ks. 913-837-2219 Ext. 16

4 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG