search for: cking

I vote for spec''ing. Anybody else?

I am TRYING to use the most recent release of wine. Am I correct to assume that there is no longer a .wine/config file? Am I also correct to assume that all documentation still refers to the .wine/config file, and gives NO F*CKING help about how to use the new system? If these two assumptions are correct, it seems to be a real stupid way to do things. How is a new user EVER supposed to get this SH*T figured out?? I was trying to take care of the problem where my terminal spews crap like: 13369376): stub...

...was done without the ISDN card present. After disabling kudzu and haldaemon I inserted the card. Stil that *(&$^&%$(&$^!!!!!! kudzu shit modified my config and is loading hisax, crc_ccit and isn modules. Even worse, they do not appear in /etc/modprobe.conf which means that that f*cking kudzu added the modules to initrd. I have googled for hours and browsed through all the redhat docs but I cannot find how to remove these modules. All the docs mention is to 'simply comment them out from modprobe.conf' well, they aren't there. Does anybody know how I can remove thes...

...or can even be etched in silicon, like e.g. on an IC created by Siemens: >>>>> >>>>> http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/bunny.html >>>> Cisco too, besides weird Star Wars ROM messages, you have stuff like the >>>> "BFR" (Big F*cking Router, after Big F*cking Gun in Doom) screened on the PCB: >>>> >>>> https://www.kumari.net/gallery/index.php/Technology/Networking/BFR_2_001 >>>> https://www.kumari.net/gallery/index.php/Technology/Networking/BFR_2 >>>> >>>> I have no id...

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:36:58PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:25:11AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > For several reasons, it would be beneficial to kill off ACCESS_ONCE() > > tree-wide, in favour of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). These work with aggregate types, > > more obviously document their intended behaviour, and are necessary for tools > >

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:36:58PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:25:11AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > For several reasons, it would be beneficial to kill off ACCESS_ONCE() > > tree-wide, in favour of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). These work with aggregate types, > > more obviously document their intended behaviour, and are necessary for tools > >

To wit: OpenSSL Security Advisory [9 Jul 2015] ======================================= Alternative chains certificate forgery (CVE-2015-1793) ====================================================== Severity: High During certificate verification, OpenSSL (starting from version 1.0.1n and 1.0.2b) will attempt to find an alternative certificate chain if the first attempt to build such a chain

two problems, pls help...I''m under big pressure at work to fix this! I''m having trouble getting scgi and lighttpd running on windows - here''s what I did: On Win XP, I installed ruby, rubygems, and setup my rails app. All works fine with webrick. I then did: gem install cmdparse and gem install highline (as required for the scgi_rails gem according to

Hello, I'd like to switch off this silly "Nakatomi Socrates" message which reminds me on Linux and their childish naming schemes. It is only cosmetics, but it bothers me whenever I switch on the laptop. I guess there is a switch already prsent to have in the bootloader config? Thanks, oh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

...cases. I'm not sure if > there's a reason we avoided doing that so far; perhaps Christian has a > some idea. My first version had this warning, but it was removed later on as requested by Linus http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02670.html ---snip--- Get rid of the f*cking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends. They are about - wait for it - "reading a value once". Note how it doesn't say ANYTHING about "atomic" or anything like that. It's about reading *ONCE*. ---snip---

...ve what's coming to you. And they just force some "copy to stable storage" when it isn't (ie a "memcpy()" is not necessarily a single access and might be done as multiple overlapping reads, but the end result is stable). So trying to make anything else out of them is f*cking stupid. READ_ONCE() and friends do the right thing. Trying to limit them is *wrong*, because the restrictions would simply make them less useful. And trying to make up something new is pointless and stupid. So leave this code alone. Don't add some stupid "SINGLE_LOAD()" crap. That...

Currently the work around seems to be to add i8042.noaux to the kernel command line. If someone wants to investigate, please do so. As secondary problem I think it would be wise to put a big f*cking warning that Xen + Linux + GCC 4.2+ is one big problem. Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Hello, There are news with the latest Wine Release Candidate. Now, Wine can to connect at Ubisoft's server but can't to get a file... Look here : http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=28828. One day, we shall manage to play correctly at games with this f*cking DRM... i hope.

...any version of the OpenSSL package as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, 6 and 7, JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6, and JBoss Enterprise Web Server 1 and 2 because they did not include support for alternative certificate chains. -- Lobster SCM GmbH, Hindenburgstra?e 15, D-82343 P?cking HRB 178831, Amtsgericht M?nchen Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Dr. Martin Fischer, Rolf Henrich

...en the fortran libraries. Viewing the script file ./configure it was quite difficult to do any changes. Could you make any suggestions about this problem? Thank you very much for your time Dr. Stelios Zimeras Below I give you the results from the ./configure running (all the others are yes) checking whether gcc needs -traditional... no checking for g77... no checking for sin in -lmoto... no chechecking for main in -lhdf5... no cking for main in -lncurses... no checking for main in -ldxml... no checking for main in -lblas_risc... no checking for rl_callback_read_char in -lreadline... no checkin...

Dear Sirs, I try to compile the R ver 65.1 in my UNIX machine, but I have some difficulties. In particular running the ./configure I have the following results (I give only the no, all the others are yes) checking whether gcc needs -traditional... no checking for g77... no checking for sin in -lmoto... no chechecking for main in -lhdf5... no cking for main in -lncurses... no checking for main in -ldxml... no checking for main in -lblas_risc... no checking for rl_callback_read_char in -lreadline... no checkin...

Dear list, I'm looking for an inverse function of melt(which is in package reshape).Namely, I had a data frame like this (Table1) YEAR VAR1 VAR2 VAR3 1995 7 3 45 1996 5 6 32 1997 6 10 15 I transformed my data by using the melt function and my data was reshaped in the following format: (Table2) YEAR variable

...a reason we avoided doing that so far; perhaps Christian has a > > some idea. > > My first version had this warning, but it was removed later on as requested > by Linus > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02670.html > ---snip--- > > Get rid of the f*cking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends. > > They are about - wait for it - "reading a value once". > > Note how it doesn't say ANYTHING about "atomic" or anything like that. > It's about reading *ONCE*. > > ---snip--- I see. That's unfort...

...a reason we avoided doing that so far; perhaps Christian has a > > some idea. > > My first version had this warning, but it was removed later on as requested > by Linus > > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02670.html > ---snip--- > > Get rid of the f*cking size checks etc on READ_ONCE() and friends. > > They are about - wait for it - "reading a value once". > > Note how it doesn't say ANYTHING about "atomic" or anything like that. > It's about reading *ONCE*. > > ---snip--- I see. That's unfort...

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > > This is distinct from: That may be distinct, but: > struct foo *x = READ_ONCE(*ptr); > smp_read_barrier_depends(); > x->bar = 5; This case is complete BS. Stop perpetuating it. I already removed a number of bogus cases of it, and I removed the incorrect