search for: loosli

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I'm trying to compile dovecot-1.2-managesieve from hg repo with Dovecot v1.2 and I found that managesieve uses another "install" target/prefix than I've configured in Dovecot. Is this intentional? Because you must specify the compiled Dovecot sources, is managesieve just "loosly" connected to Dovecot so it

Greetings Everyone, A group in my office is designing/integrating what I would loosly label as an "embedded system". In that, it performs a dedicated task and is not a general purpose workstation or server. It operates in a harsh environment, particularly a questionable power environment and they are extremely concerned about inadvertent shutdown and recovery. They were totally

On Monday 10. September 2007 23:39:50 Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > 2) we need a XML annotation format for audio - in particular for music > - that is more structured than vorbiscomment (and this probably > applies to video, too) There are two possible ways to go regarding the format: 1) Build on XML+RDF and DC[1] with an additional name space for the more media specific elements and

Hi all. I have currently a task to implement a network traffic analyzer. Some years ago I've used NTOP for that purpose, I would also like to test some alternatives. Which alternatives can you recommend and why? Thanks ;) Best regards, Rafa? Radecki.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007, Reid Spencer wrote: > I'm finding the current layout a bit frustrating, not to mention that it > breaks all the documentation. We currently have modules laid out like > this: > llvm/trunk/... > llvm/branches/... > llvm/tags/... > stacker/trunk/... > stacker/branches/... > stacker/tags/... > > and similarly for all the other

What I've gotten out of this discussion so far: 1) we need to introduce a means in which to do captions; this could be done through adding a "caption" element to CMML, or in another time-continuous annotation format; so far I am not sure which would be the better way 2) we need a XML annotation format for audio - in particular for music - that is more structured than vorbiscomment

I am an experienced MS administrator of W2003 servers & Exchange systems. I have 5+ years UNIX mid-level experience but not in centOS. Grounded in SCO UNIX (the real SCO UNIX). We want to use CentOS on a recently grave yarded Dell poweredge 400SC server. This is a P4 3.0 Ghz, w/4GB memory, 2 SATA 250 GB disks. We want to use this server w/CentOS5, to provide file and print resources to 100

All, I'm finding the current layout a bit frustrating, not to mention that it breaks all the documentation. We currently have modules laid out like this: llvm/trunk/... llvm/branches/... llvm/tags/... stacker/trunk/... stacker/branches/... stacker/tags/... and similarly for all the other modules (test-suite, java, poolalloc, etc.). Unfortunately, this "standard"

OK, here it is. Near perfect bandwidth calculation for ADSL users. Patch iproute2 with the HTB stuff and then this: It''s still a hack (as far as I can tell) because we are patching the rates tables, and hence I think it is only loosly coupled with the actual calculation of bytes in each bucket. However, it works very nicely for me! I have only been lightly testing with