search for: coporation

Using CentOS 5 - installed ipw2200 firmware and tried to set up new eth1 wifi device, but adapter Intel Coporation PRO/Wireless 2200BG doesn't show up in list of adapters when I try add New Device (ipw2200 does show up on hardware tab as ipw2200 eth1 ethernet configured). I've noticed that when I run system-config-network on command line, these errors show up: (system-config-network:3160): libglade-WAR...

...00-firmware-3.0-3.nodist.rf from RPMForge using yum OK. I've loaded the ipw modules with /sbin/modprobe ipw2200 and then /sbin/lsmod | grep ipw which gives: ipw2200 136873 0 ieee80211 33417 1 ipw2200 However, when I run system-config-network I don't see Intel Coporation PRO/Wireless 2200BG (eth1) in the list of adapters. Also, when I type the following command # dmesg | grep ipw I get this message: ipw2200: Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 2200/2915 Network Driver, 1.2.0kmprq ipw2200: Copyright(c) 2003-2006 Intel Corporation usbcore: registered new driver ipwtty drivers/usb/...

We are setting up a new server (prefer centos4 vs 5) what should we do for a coporate vpn back to the US? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Sr. Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100 - - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333

It appears there is still misunderstanding about my situation/setup. Sorry, I know this is strange. I have an LDAP server for my Linux infrastructure that is totally seperate from the corporate AD Windows domain. At one point my LDAP did have the samba schema installed with my its own SID's and smbpasswd's in it. My web app for users to change their Linux password would on the backend

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:25:55 -0500 (EST) Paul Raines <raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > > It appears there is still misunderstanding about my situation/setup. > Sorry, I know this is strange. > > I have an LDAP server for my Linux infrastructure that is totally > seperate from the corporate AD Windows domain. At one point my LDAP > did have the samba schema

Hello, We are trying to verify the status of the SMACK api which bundles Speex into its binary download archive (version 3.4.1). Unfortunately, the Speex.jar does not contain any version information which makes it very difficult to determine which version of the source code to check for acceptance with our coporate policies. If you could please let me know how to determine the version for the

Olivier, I think you are getting confused. Call me on 212-203-4357 and I'll answer your questions but basically I think you are doing this the wrong way. Regards, Dean Collins Cognation Pty Ltd dean at cognation.net <mailto:dean at cognation.net> +1-212-203-4357 Ph +61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial). ________________________________ From: asterisk-users-bounces at

I think that is fair to say about my old accounts where names and IDs do not match. But the crazy thing is it is those accounts which work fine and it is the new accounts where I did make the names and IDs match where things do not work! I am still confused about the supplemental groups thing. Are you saying Samba will not support a mode where 'security = ads' for authentication against

At 16:30 6/9/2001 -0600, you wrote: >broadcasting online. Nor are they subject to the compulsory license. Right.. it would be nice to see online broadcasters treated the same way. >There's still a possibility that the DMCA will be dismantled before the >arbitration is even finished. You shouldn't have to pay the RIAA >anyway, and the fact that they are even involved is

> performances. That's ~125,000 performances a year, which equates to about > $180,000. > > Significantly higher than the Frauhofer license, unless you generate > $9Mil/yr or more in revenue from your stream. The rates are in arbitration, and I doubt they will come out anywhere near that amount. It just isn't feasible, even for large companies. Reember, tradidional

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 4:57am, Rowland Penny wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:46:51 -0500 (EST) > Paul Raines via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> TLDR: after upgrading our CentOS 7.5 servers using Samba 4.7.x with >> security = ads and no winbind to CentOS 7.6 with Samba 4.8.x with >> security = ads + winbind all users accounts created in the last few

> >So uh, you think it's worth more for mp3, than the actual music > >involved? > > > >Come on. > > Hmm.. so what you're saying is that for under $2K I can get an unlimited > distribution license from the recording industry? To burn, distribute, > sell and market as much of their material as I like? Wow. Sign me up. Streaming music is $250