search for: booze

I was told that this mailing list might be a good place to get some answers that another one I'm on couldn't answer. I am using Samba to serve a small Christian school in PA, and we went for it mostly because of the cost - how much better than free can you get! I've been very pleased with it, as it's my first server setup. Learned a lot and have gotten a lot of help. However,

I am trying to create an individual secure share in Samba. We have it loaded on a Solaris box and our users access the shares using Windows Explorer. It appears that everything I've read only allows me to create secure shares for all the shares. Is there a way to create individual secure shares? Those can be password protected or not. Thanks Scott Webb Senior Consultant, Booz Allen

...actually not that > familiar with this part of LLDB. I am cc-ing lldb-dev if they have any > thoughts on this. We also have the ability to set breakpoints by > providing just a part of the context (e.g. "breakpoint set -n > foo::bar" even though the full function name is baz::booze::foo::bar), > but this seems to be implemented in some different way. > > I don't think having the ability to short-circuit the demangling would > bring as any speed benefit, at least not without a major refactor, as > we demangle all the names anyway. Even the AST solution will...

I want to use NT4's SRVTOOLS to manage the Samba-PDC,But when i use it ,i mean ,when i add a account for windows,Samba can only receive the username from the tool. The others ,such as logon_path,Fullname and Description cannot be received by samba. Is some thing wrong with samba? what can i do ? I add the information of a user to the LDAP-server by LDIF-file handly .It works fine.And the

On June 22, 2017 at 5:51:39 AM, Pavel Labath (labath at google.com) wrote: I don't have any concrete feedback, but: - +1 for removing the "FastDemagler" - If you already construct an AST as a part of your demangling process, would it be possible to export that AST for external consumption somehow? Right now in lldb we sometimes need to parse the demangled name (to get the

OK, finally I have made cbq run ! now I would like to know if it is posible to limit a range of IP to a speed. something like this : from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.21 limit to 128K I don''t whant to limit each IP to 128K, what I would like to do is limit all 20 IP to have a max of 128K. Is it posible?

I write about R every weekday at the Revolutions blog: http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com and every month I post a summary of articles from the previous month of particular interest to readers of r-help. In case you missed them, here are some articles related to R from the month of October: Sponsorships for local R user groups from Revolution Analytics are now open to applicants worldwide:

Just wanted to drop a note about a new Rails site that we''re testing in the wild, http://www.vegaslists.com. The site allows users to create lists about anything Las Vegas related and then lets other users comment on those lists. It was a project that went from concept to completed in about 2 weeks, working on it after the ''real job'' for fun. It''s very simple

Boy, am I stuck... I'm officially ready to toss Asterisk out the window. I have to admit it isn't necessarily all the fault of Asterisk either. It just seems that every option I turn to suddenly ends in failure. I don't know if it's me that's bitten of more than I can chew with this project, or maybe Asterisk just isn't mature enough yet. Nothing complicated really....

Hi, Just downloaded the latest cvs from zaptel on my sparking new Athlon64 Centos4.2 system, but hitting a stumbling block... (sorry for the long post) #make cc -I. -O4 -g -Wall -DBUILDING_TONEZONE -m64 -DSTANDALONE_ZAPATA -DZAPTEL_CONFIG=\"/etc/zaptel.conf\" -c -o gendigits.o gendigits.c cc -o gendigits gendigits.o -lm ./gendigits cc -I. -O4 -g -Wall -DBUILDING_TONEZONE -m64