search for: horrifi

Hi all, We have a linux data server here, which used to be a workgroup member. Everything was fine then. Now we hav a new sbs server here, so the data server had to be made into a domain member. To do that i followed this manual. The thing is now, that the samba shares on the data server are slow as h**l What can be the problem ? Any ideas are welcome.... ! Code: [global]

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=991 Bug ID: 991 Summary: Exactly after 24h of uptime system hungs Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: sparc64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P5 Component: ip_tables (kernel)

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 12:36 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36:55 +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >> > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it >> > > has been. Have

Guys currently I am horrified by the ease at which I can find bugs in the pending paravirtualization patches. I have barely even looked at arch/i386 in the -mm tree and it feels like I am tripping over significant bugs left and right. Because no one has heeded my advice and put in a proper platform layer on arch/i386 and we...

Guys currently I am horrified by the ease at which I can find bugs in the pending paravirtualization patches. I have barely even looked at arch/i386 in the -mm tree and it feels like I am tripping over significant bugs left and right. Because no one has heeded my advice and put in a proper platform layer on arch/i386 and we...

...ery well on Debian Wheezy for a number of years. Up until last week I was running 3.6.25, which (as always until now) I compiled myself. Because of the large number of changes in the recent security patches, I opted to try the Debian 'samba' and 'winbind' packages. I was a little horrified to find that Debian is still using 3.6.6 but that's mainly why I opted to compile Samba myself in the first place. Unfortunately the Debian supplied winbindd exits almost immediately after starting. The other daemons start and run without problem, and are serving files as I write. The Debi...

On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Charles Davis wrote: > Hi, > > I intend to participate in Google's Summer of Code this year, so I'd > like to bounce another idea around to see what you guys think. (I posted > a similar message to cfe-dev just now.) Be warned: this will shock you. > It may even horrify you. > > 1. Implement a 16-bit x86 backend. (*Chris recoils in

Oi. So. Now we have a version of windows that actually has legit uses for wine. Windows 7 can't run horrifyingly outdated 16bit programs(Such as Exile Escape from the Pit) period. Atleast so Ive herd--and tried and seen to seem to be true. Not to mention a multitude of programs that SHOULD run--but just dont like it(Worms Armageddon, for one... though dunno if it works on wine) Also.

Does anyone have a roadmap for MCJIT with what I think people are calling lazy compilation. Is this even on the cards? I spent the last few hours moving my project (extempore.moso.com.au) over to MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *dro...

while finishing some work on the HAL integration (I'm now mapping DBus method with NUT commands, to allow at least the final UPS poweroff), I was horrified to realize (and so late) the changes in usbhid-ups->upsdrv_shutdown(). We've lost a lot there, but making a generic code, instead of keeping the subdrivers delegation. For example, the shutdown.return command (which is or should be the standard UPS poweroff method) has to set both delay....

I'm not thinking of complicated cases. This happened to me in a function that returns 10 minute slots slot <- function (seconds) { return (seconds %/% 600) * 600 } Obviously I found the issue while debugging and corrected my code with surrounding parenthesis, but I was surprised that the R parser did not catch this syntactic error. This is especially poignant when we have to

Hi, I intend to participate in Google's Summer of Code this year, so I'd like to bounce another idea around to see what you guys think. (I posted a similar message to cfe-dev just now.) Be warned: this will shock you. It may even horrify you. 1. Implement a 16-bit x86 backend. (*Chris recoils in horror*) Yeah, I know 16-bit x86 is dead, but I find it interesting for historical purposes

Dear r-developers- After many years of using and coding in R and other languages, I came across something that I think should be flagged by the parser: bug <- function (x) { return (x + 1) * 1000 } > bug(1) [1] 2 The return() call is not like any other function call that returns a value to the point where it was called from. I think this should straightforwardly be handled in the

...d Lazy Compilation Does anyone have a roadmap for MCJIT with what I think people are calling lazy compilation. Is this even on the cards? I spent the last few hours moving my project (extempore.moso.com.au<http://extempore.moso.com.au>) over to MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to discover no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function level. This is absolutely mandatory for my project. I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a couple of years and was under the misapprehension that MCJIT was attempting to be a *dro...

...stored procs. Seriously, I have nightmares about this database as well. But, I''ve been slogging away at it, and created a web app that''s impressed the bosses, and the vendor for that matter. But I also have nightmares about the fact that I don''t have a test suite. This horrifies me. What I''d like to do is test against the dev db, since if it gets horribly b0rked, I can restore from the previous night''s ComVault backup. I saw the suggestion to edit the rake task in the old rspec_on_rails plugin so that spec_prereq = :noop I was curious if there was a...

I probably didn't follow the discussion of allowing "=" as an assignment operator closely enough, but I was a little bit horrified to discover today (using 1.6.0; I haven't upgraded to 1.6.1 yet) that x <- runif(20) y <- 1:20 y[x=min(x)] gives numeric(0) (because min(x) is non-integer). x <- sample(1:20,20,TRUE) y[x=min(x)] is even worse -- it gives the "wrong" answer. I know exactly what's go...

FWIW, 'R CMD check --as-cran' in R-devel checks for "bogus return" statements but I think that's only for the case when one forgets the parentheses, e.g. 'return' instead of 'return()'. I don't think it catches this case but I'm also not sure. Though, I can imagine it might be possible to enhance the current check to include also this case. It could

...recordings. R128 is even slightly worse in this respect, being more than 6dB (nominally 9dB, but possibly closer to 6dB in practice) quieter than replaygain. What that means is around 8 of the 16 bits in a typical music recording are unused, and I suspect most people would (rightly or wrongly) be horrified if you told them all their music was suddenly 8 bits. Turning up the volume cannot correct for that, although applying a preamp gain could. Music players that have adopted R128 or are planning it have often adjusted it by several dB to avoid the "too quiet" issue. With no standard in...

I don't see how anything operating on the "result" of a return() call could be legal. The special semantics of the return() call is that it does **not** return control to the place it was called from, but rather to the location where its surrounding function(){} was called from. Mateo. -- Mateo Obreg?n. On Friday, 20 November 2020 22:52:58 GMT Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On

...CJIT with what I think people are **** > > calling lazy compilation.**** > > ** ** > > Is this even on the cards?**** > > ** ** > > I spent the last few hours moving my project (extempore.moso.com.au) **** > > over to MCJIT (particularly for ARM), and am a little horrified to > discover **** > > no ability to compile, and just as importantly to recompile, at a function > level. **** > > This is absolutely mandatory for my project. **** > > ** ** > > I have been looking enviously at MCJIT's ARM+DWARF support for a **** > > c...