search for: cognisance

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:43 AM, G Galitz <geoff at galitz.org> wrote: >> We have another leap second coming. Have past bugs with Centos and leap >> seconds (specifically high CPU spikes) been resolved? Should we be worried? > > Apparently Red Hat is well aware of the upcoming leap second:

On 01/16/2015 07:05 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:43 AM, G Galitz <geoff at galitz.org> wrote: >>> We have another leap second coming. Have past bugs with Centos and leap >>> seconds (specifically high CPU spikes) been resolved? Should we be worried? >>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Rob Kampen <rkampen at reaching-clients.com> wrote: > > Fascinating - describes what's happening but no mention of how we can rest > assured that all will be well.... > As I ponder it, I recognise that most of our systems are constantly > calculating date/time values based upon the epoch - the number of seconds > since a particular

TCP timestamps on some (but not all?) of our CentOs hosts are being reported as a vulnerability by OSSIM. I have looked into the matter briefly and cannot say that I consider this a serious security issue. The vulnerability seems limited to determining the uptime of the target host. The question therefore arises as to whether or not there is any way to reset the tcp timestamp present value to

Hello, I fear its a stupid question,..but here it is: If I do this simple calculation with the R console, I surprisingly do not get a zero. Why? -1.1-0.1+1.2 [1] -2.220446e-16 greetings, Ole -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/1-1-0-1-1-2-is-NOT-null-Why-tp4636053.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. [[alternative HTML version

On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote: > On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> > wrote: >> On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: >>> >>> Enterprise to me implies large business >> >> Enterprise literally means 'undertaking?. > > Danger: We?re starting to get into dictionary flame

On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: > On 1/9/2015 2:32 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> Enterprise, in the RHEL context, suggests stability or have I >> misunderstood the USA definition of "Enterprise" ? > > > Enterprise to me implies large business Enterprise literally means 'undertaking'. It has been used euphemistically since the later

I am a newcomer to CentOS and I appreciate the discussion. It would seem to me - and I am sure I am not the first one to state the obvious - Fedora is primarily a desktop OS while CentOS is primarily a server OS. The user needs are very different, the features needed are very, very different, hence many of the current features, or future features, should remain in one or the other and not cross

On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:15 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:47, Warren Young wrote: >> On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:42 PM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, January 9, 2015 17:36, John R Pierce wrote: >>>> >>>> Enterprise to me implies large business >>>

More Scholarships are posted at http://cambodiajobs.blogspot.com ** *National University of Ireland* *Institute of Microelectronics and Wireless Systems* - Masters/PhD Scholarship in Software Defined Radio Systems - Masters/PhD studentship in the area of Spectrum Sensing for Cognitive Radio - Masters/PhD studentship in the area of Spectrum Sensing for Cognitive Radio and -