search for: reassuring

Hello, I just wanted to check in on this list and see what folks know about the new severe performance problems with OS X 10.11.5. There's a comment on Reddit claiming that 10.11.5 is requiring SMB signing, but I haven't found documentation on that. I myself saw performance on my 10 GbE go from 800 MB/s on 10.11.4 to 60 MB/s on 10.11.5. My NAS is running Samba 4.3.6 on FreeNAS, which is

Becasue of all the issues with fax over voip, we want to use pstn for our fax machine, but not dedicate a line just to fax. I'm thinking of having asterisk answer the pstn line, check for fax tones, and route appropriately. In zapata ( chan_dahdi ) set faxdetect=incoming then the dial plan would have [incoming-pstn] exten => fax,1,Dial(DAHDI/1) ; the fax machine exten =>

I am writing a package and need to decide whether to use S3 or S4. I have a single class, "multipol"; this needs methods for "[" and "[<-" and I also need a print (or show) method and methods for arithmetic +- */^. In S4, an object of class "multipol" has one slot that holds an array. Objects of class "multipol" require specific arithmetic

...ms, post bug reports > > I did, months ago, the last bug report is still unanswered by the Samba > team and I can still reproducibly crash winbindd (and all depending > services) trivially. Hence, no, it's not "extremely reliable", and "full > support" is not reassuring. Can you give us a bit more information (possibly again, apologies if we missed your message) about your crash? Thanks a LOT! Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet...

Hi, Can anyone reassure that files & folders made available to windows via vfs shadow_copy2 cannot be modified in any way? My NAS backups are stored on an iscsi target formatted with ext4 & I'm concerned that they could be tampered with by a virus such as Cryptolocker. Thanks

Recently upgraded my 3 dc's to samba 4.12.1 as part of the install ran dbcheck --cross-ncs on each dc after make install first dc dbcheck reported 5474 objectssecond dc reported 5476 objects last dc (the one with all the fsmo roles, etc.)? reported 1406 objects! now all of them report 1406 objects. (drs replication obviously) ADUC, DNS, GPO manager all seem to have the requisite data. I

I am cleaning up my 4-STABLE system. After a fresh installworld, I am looking at files that did not get touched by the install. Is it safe to remove all such files? In particular, I am looking at /usr/libexec/lib-elf.so.1, which has the schg flag set. I am afraid to remove this for fear of making my system unbootable. Could somebody please reassure me that it is ok to noschg and remove this old

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 09:21:23AM +0200, Sven Schwedas wrote: > > Depends on your needs. If you don't need samba file/printer sharing > /from/ the member, I'd recommend using SSSD. It's much more stable and > reliable than winbindd. Can't let comments like this pass. sssd does something slightly different than winbindd, so may or may not be what the person needs.

I''m new to Ruby and RoR but excited to learn what I can do with RoR; I have Pickaxe second edition and want to get "Agile Web Development with Rails" but I''m aware that the book was published some while before RoR version 1.0 was released. Has a lot changed since then, and would I therefore be advised to wait for a second edition of AWDwR? Many thanks in advance

Dear community, I've check it while working, but just to reassure myself. Let's say we have 2 models: model1 <- lm(vdep ~ log(v1) + v2 + v3 + I(v4^2) , data = mydata) model2 <- lm(vdep ~ log(v1) + v2 + v3 + v4^2, data = mydata) So in model1 you really square v4; and in model2, v4*^2 *doesn't do anything, does it? Model2 could be rewritten: model2b <- lm(vdep ~

Hi, I''m really struggling getting a controller test to pass while the form that uses the method operates correctly. I would really welcome a second pair of eyes to help me find out what I''m missing. The test def test_set_password @request.session[:user] = users(:admin) put :set_password, :id => users(:one).id, :user => {:password => "newpass",

Haohui Mai <haohui.mai at gmail.com> writes: > I've already filed a bug report but nobody cares :-( > > Is it possible to fix the documentation? Because I think the tutorial > is really important to beginners, which should not be misleading. > >> Thanks, -rdynamic helps! It's a pity that it's not written in the >> tutorial. >> >> Also

On 26 November 2013 18:46, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's where we left off: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-February/059099.html Back then you mentioned a Chromium build, are you still running that routinely with -integrated-as? That would give a reasonable reassurance about general-usage, if not weird features. Cheers. Tim.

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Christian, Mark wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 11:19 -0400, Bernard Fay wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Does a fix has already been made in the CenOS RPM repositories for this >> Samba remote execution code vulnerability, CVE-2017-7494? > yes. samba-3.6.23-43.el6_9.x86_64.rpm And samba-*-4.4.4-14.el7_3.x86_64 -- Paul Heinlein <> heinlein at

I ask because I would like to be reassured about it, because there are so many entries of this type in my logs. The windows workstations are joined to the domain. At users sessions log on, a script mounts the samba share on each windows users sessions. I do not understand why a workstation joined to the domain tries to auth against samba ; because only domain users can auth successfully

I am attempting to estimate a very complex glmmPQL model. I have (apparently) gotten working syntax. But, I don't want to wait a long time only to find I have not made the correct syntax to see the output. So, what I've written is: EXCERPT FROM COMMAND FILE: glmmPQL(plfp ~ -1 + bmrd4 + bmsd4 + wmrd4 + wmsd4 + bfrd4 + bfsd4 + wfrd4 + wfsd4 + y4yrsed + y4age + y4age2,

asterisk-users-request@lists.digium.com is believed to have said: > >and watch linus himself rant about how this is incorrect to do (yet all >the distros do it) :P > Well, this is reassuring for a newbie like me. Even the pros (as anybody building a distro ought to be, and most of the times, really is) can do obvious errors... Aldo

I would like to be able to change between backends but I'm worried that my users will encounter trouble loggin in. So I'm looking for reassurance that my command is ok. My current configuration is: passdb backend = ldapsam:ldap://10.10.10.10 smbpasswd guest I would like to change from ldap to tdbsam. Is this the command to use: # pdbedit -i ldapsam:ldap://10.10.10.10 -e tdbsam I

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Jeff Cohen wrote: > No, there isn't. It was originally published in Microsoft Systems > Journal. There's no license I can find in any of the files that > accompany the article. If publication in MSJ or MSDN doesn't make it > fair game, then I guess I'll have to rewrite it. I suspect that it's not actually a problem: MS *wants* developers to

I think this is really an attempt at user feedback, rather than user discussion. But there's no such thing as a user-feedback mail list. Nevertheless, others may find this pertinent: why doesn't mke2fs handle USB's competently? And if it does, why doesn't it reassure me so? And how can I handle a linux-formatted USB flash drive in the absence of my system giving me any guidance?