Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Sat Jun 02 2012 10:48:45 EDT from dowdle @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Thu May 31 2012 04:37:29 PM EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

Just playing around with it and I guess I don't know what uri syntax it wants.




If you run the GUI it has a dialog box where you can put in the hostname and port.  If you are running it from the command line, it takes a URI like:

spice://hostname?port=xxxx

Let me know if that works for you or not.

-- 
TYL,
--
Scott Dowdle
Belgrade, Montana



[#] Sat Jun 02 2012 22:53:49 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Thanks Scott.  Will give that a shot later in the week.



[#] Mon Jun 04 2012 13:22:06 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

spice://hostname?port=xxxx

...because it was important to throw away two decades of URI syntax convention and avoid spice://hostname:portnum at all costs. ^_^

[#] Mon Jun 04 2012 23:53:46 EDT from maraakate @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

No apt-get for debian :(

[#] Tue Jun 05 2012 08:41:21 EDT from dowdle @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mon Jun 04 2012 01:22:06 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released
spice://hostname?port=xxxx

...because it was important to throw away two decades of URI syntax convention and avoid spice://hostname:portnum at all costs. ^_^

My guess is that it can now or will in the future... accept additional parameters in the form of key=value pairs and they decided to go with one style for all of it rather than one style for the port value and a second style for everything else.  I haven't dug down deep into the protocol but I can imagine that under certain conditions it can take things like monitors=N, resolution=NxN, colordepth=N, etc.

TYL,
--
Scott Dowdle, Belgrade, Montana



[#] Tue Jun 05 2012 08:44:04 EDT from dowdle @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mon Jun 04 2012 11:53:46 PM EDT from maraakate @ Uncensored Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format
No apt-get for debian :(

Maybe they call it something other than youtube-dl.  Did you do a search?  I believe it is a python script so if you can't find it in your package manager, you can manually install it.  Debian is known for having a very deep package repository so I'm surprised to see Fedora have something that Debian doesn't.  I hate to manually install things myself.


TYL,
--
Scott Dowdle - Belgrade, Montana



[#] Wed Jun 06 2012 09:25:05 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

youtube-dl is just a single python script.  You can get it here:

http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/download.html



[#] Wed Jun 06 2012 12:01:35 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(Reincarnating an old thread here)

Wed Aug 31 2011 04:40:05 PM EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

Sounds fishy. I think you may not get a time-consistent snapshot of the guest filesystems that you're backing up unless you perform xfs_freeze (or its equivalent under ext4 4, write_super_{un,}lockfs) in the *guest* 

After nearly a year, I am finding that my methodology of snapshotting the LV's and then rsyncing the snapshots to a backup location is still working flawlessly.  However I still need a better solution for my off site backups.

Where are we now with regard to btrfs?   Is it considered stable enough to run on a production system?

btrfs has the ability to do in-place snapshots.  I'd like to create snapshots and then rsync my application directories to an offsite server, rather than rsync the live data like I do now.



[#] Thu Jun 07 2012 14:33:46 EDT from dowdle @ Uncensored

Subject: Is btrfs ready yet?

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Wed Jun 06 2012 12:01:35 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored
Where are we now with regard to btrfs?   Is it considered stable enough to run on a production system?


I don't have any personal knowledge / experience with it other than having played with it briefly about a year ago.  Here is the best article I have found on the subject if you haven't already read it:

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Btrfs-ready-for-production-in-new-Oracle-Linux-kernel-1471706.html

From that I gather either Oracle's marketing has gotten ahead of its tech or they are happy enough with it to support it.  Perhaps they have added some extra special to their special sauce that is an Oracle-ized RHEL kernel.  SUSE has a track record of adopting a little early.  They did that with Xen... but perhaps others disagree.

In related news, Chris Mason (lead btrfs developer) is leaving Oracle to work for Fusion-IO (https://lwn.net/Articles/500738/)... but he will still be working on btrfs even after the move... and Oracle still plans on moving forward with btrfs in their flavor of Linux.


TYL,
--
Scott Dowdle - Belgrade, Montana



[#] Thu Jun 07 2012 18:33:19 EDT from dowdle @ Uncensored

Subject: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Greetings,

I've seen a few articles today railing against Red Hat for their support of Fedora buying a key from Microsoft / Verisign so that in the future, Fedora will be able to boot on hardware certified for Windows 8 without having to dig into the BIOS and turn off secure boot.

The issue isn't whether or not secure booting is the silver bullet for security issues... of course it isn't.

The issue isn't that the key thingies cost a fortune, they don't.  If I understand correctly, it's about $99 per Fedora release.  That's $198 a year.

The issue is that everyone is pissed because this involves Microsoft... and Red Hat is seen as somehow giving in to Microsoft.  Red Hat isn't giving in to Microsoft any more than they gave in to Akamai Technologies Inc when they bought the SSL certificate for www.redhat.com... or when they gave in to GeoTrust for the SSL cert for the fedoraproject.org website.  In each case case a work around is available but they are just trying to spare users and customers a little bit of hassle.  That's all.

-- 
TYL,
Scott Dowdle - Belgrade, Montana



[#] Thu Jun 07 2012 23:22:30 EDT from maraakate @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just had to save the script in my usr/bin/local and run youtube-dl and it works great. Thanks!

[#] Fri Jun 08 2012 09:32:27 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have to admit that allowing Microsoft to be the gatekeeper for this kind of thing gives me the screaming heebie jeebies. OEM's need to rally around a vendor-neutral consortium of some sort for this kind of thing.

[#] Tue Jun 12 2012 08:02:57 EDT from the_mgt @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I am getting mixed signals, but I heard it is going to VeriSign instead of MS:

And with Flame being around for years now, both of them are as trustworthy as a granddad carrying his credit cards pin along with him in his wallet...



[#] Tue Jun 12 2012 15:48:37 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Forget about trustworthy. Secure UEFI will not stop Windows from continuing to have the security model of a slice of swiss cheese.

This is about avoiding a dystopia where Microsoft decides what boots and what doesn't. Perhaps they are allowing Secure UEFI to be disabled on x86 computers *now* but it's a reasonable assumption that for Windows 9 hardware certification they will prohibit the manufacturer from allowing the user to disable secure boot, just like they do now with Windows 8 certification on ARM machines.

If this is allowed to continue, we are only a few years away from the complete extermination of Linux on consumer grade hardware. Computers will become like mobile phones, where it is a difficult hacking job to run any operating system other than the one that was preinstalled.

I don't know what Verisign's involvement is, but if Secure UEFI is allowed to continue then the OEM's need to be persuaded to trust someone else in addition to Microsoft.
Ideally there needs to be a vendor-neutral organization that tests and certifies boot loaders, and the computers would be configuredc to trust any boot loader signed by *that* organization's key. As it stands now, from what I understand, the OEM's are trusting Microsoft's signing key, so the computers will simply boot anything signed by Microsoft and nothing else. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I think anyone who believes otherwise should be violently molested by Richard Stallman until they change their mind.

[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 02:50:02 EDT from maraakate @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This secure boot shit is pretty scary. I'm still glad I'm mostly using older hardware so I haven't really been keeping up on this kind of shit.

[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 04:04:51 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

remember css? or the ps one? or the wii? or the xbox? or the iphone? or blueray? or in special the PSIII?

as long as they give the hackers the opportunity to play (a way to turn it off, or like redhat sign bootloaders) its going to survive.

When Sony took away the "other OS" - option for the psIII, it was half a year for their protection to be broken.

while the "otheros" option might have been commercialy questionable (people building clusters with cheap hardware intended to be fully paid by purchasing games) it was the only way for them to remain unhacked for 4 years.

I realy think the same accounts for secure boot.



[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 09:07:17 EDT from djukon @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Large corporations will always do everything in their reach to survive and keep growing profit-wise. It is a futile cat and mouse game in the long run when considering the current social-economic paradigm.
Hardware focused open source/free technology projects such as Open Source Ecology (OSE), Research Do-It-Yourself and WikiSpeed are catching on. OSE has four of fifty industry grade machines already completed, available for any settlement to construct from basic tools and materials. The fifty modular machines include tractors, bread ovens and circuit makers. In time, the technology dependency tree will be complete enough to locally produce computational devices. This is when profit-driven corporations will not be able to impose standards.
It starts to become interesting when you apply the free technology movement to the distributed/networked governance movement through the Transition Network, which places settlements as sovereign prosperity regerative enterprises that will require these tools to be as self-reliant as possible.
http://opensourceecology.org http://www.rndiy.org http://www.wikispeed.com http://www.transitionnetwork.org

[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 12:16:12 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't doubt that hackers will find a way around Secure Boot. The reason it's a bit more important this time around is because new Linux users often come into existence when someone wants to try it out for the first time, either on old/spare hardware or in a multiboot configuration. By preventing new users from experimenting, Microsoft can prevent new users from ever becoming experts/hackers.

MICROSOFT IS SLAUGHTERING BABY PENGUINS AND MUST BE STOPPED !!!


[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 15:03:47 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Out of sheer curiousity, what is the official "reason" for Secure Boot? To protect the system from booting a malicious OS? If so, then bart's right on the money. Someone will figure out how to bypass security, or forge a key, and script kiddies everywhere will be infecting hosts like they do now.
Secure Binder

[#] Wed Jun 13 2012 15:05:32 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The "official" reason for Secure Boot is to thwart boot sector viruses. The "actual" reason for Secure Boot is to prevent the installation of non-Microsoft operating systems.

Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last