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. ^_^
Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format
Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially released
Mon Jun 04 2012 01:22:06 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Subject: Re: virt-viewer-0.5.3 for Windows officially releasedspice://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
Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format
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 formatNo 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
Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format
youtube-dl is just a single python script. You can get it here:
http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/download.html
(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.
Wed Jun 06 2012 12:01:35 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ UncensoredWhere 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:
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
Subject: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
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
Subject: Re: How To: Download Kid's Educational Shows from YouTube in a free format
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
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...
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
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.
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
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.
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
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
Subject: Re: My take on the Red Hat / Fedora Secure Boot controversy
MICROSOFT IS SLAUGHTERING BABY PENGUINS AND MUST BE STOPPED !!!
Secure Binder
Don't give permission to any application programs to write the boot sector!
I know. I know. This is MS Windows we're talking about, here. In Linux, you can only write the boot sector if you have root privileges, and it's assumed that if you've got root privileges, you know what you're doing.
It's really about DRM. They want to have a boot chain where every link in the chain is digitally signed... never mind, I think, that on a PC that doesn't really gain you foolproof security because decryption is, I think, still happening in software... doesn't matter because the pinheads at the RIAA/MPAA/NSA demand it.
Of course PC's will still keep the option of booting with disabled Trusted Boot. It's just that eventually your BluRay player will refuse to run unless Trusted Boot is turned on.
Oh, I've got a line-of-code or two contributed to the kernel, and the day that Trusted Boot becomes no-longer-optional is the day that I sue Red Hat to prevent them from distributing my code...