search for: retractable

This is off topic and only tangentially related to statistics or R (through "HARK"ing -- Hypothesizing After Results are Known). But given the research interests of many on this list, I thought others would enjoy it. My apologies if I have overstepped (please let me know if so). Also, PLEASE DON'T RESPOND ON THIS LIST (privately is fine). This is just FYI. I don't know whether

Another point of disparity between how I see others write Puppet manifests and the Best Practice that I''ve adopted at my institution is the use of quoting. In Puppet, you can get away with not quoting values or references if there isn''t a special character or a keyword being used (e.g. package { openssh: ...} or User[agirl]). However, even though that is possible, to make

I need some help: I currently have userids setup under the existing false rooted ftp account setups without shells. I would like to convert them to use OpenSSH sftp. Can I give them restricted shells so they can't cd to other user's directories and only allow them to sftp , and how do I accomplish this ?. Also, can I use the "force" option on the authorized_keys2 file

Howdy all: Thanks to Jerry Carter for correcting some of my earlier babbling. And thanks to Stephen Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> and "Sean E. Millichamp" <sean@compu-aid.com> for setting the record straight on PAM support: > I said (without checking first): > > PAM should already be installed on *any* linux distribution (it's > > standard on linux

I did not understand the man pages for sudo and incorrectly interpreted the results. I interpreted the ALL to apply to all commands defined in the sudoers file. Basically, I'm an idiot, but here is the chain I followed, and the correct interpretation. In the man pages on sudo, it says the following: A User_List is made up of one or more usernames, uids (prefixed with

On 23.01.2013 00:45, Eli Bendersky wrote: > I do mean semantic extraction which provides a representation that's > meaningful to a user and hence can be effectively compared in a test. > But really, I gave up arguing on this topic a few messages (and heated > IRC discussions) ago. RFC retracted. I actually hit the same predicament for COFF. The few tests that are there usually use

Dear Mongrel Users, It appears that Francis still isn''t satisfied with my attempts to apologize and he''s now asked me privately to retract my statements. So, just to be sure he finally gets it: I retract my statements that Francis and his friends are "shady" and "desperate for cash". He is in no way a shady guy, having dealt with this situation with the

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an >> unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF >> emission. We currently have several

Hi All, Well, it <http://goo.gl/hzxyw> was too good to be true. Under extreme, extended IO on a 48core node, some part of the the NFS stack collapses and leads to an IO lockup thru NFS. We've replicated it on 48core and 64 core nodes, but don't know yet whether it acts similarly on lower-core-count nodes. Tho I haven't had time to figure out exactly /how/ it collapses, I

Mainline commit d4f7e650e55af6b235871126f747da88600e8040 attempts to delay the dlm_thread from sending the drop ref message if the lockres is being migrated. The problem is that we make the dlm_thread wait for the migration to complete. This causes a deadlock as dlm_thread also participates in the lockres migration process. A better fix for the original oss bugzilla#1012 is in testing.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:01 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue 25-06-19 11:03:53, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:01 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 25-06-19 09:23:17, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an > unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF > emission. We currently have several approaches, neither of which is > great: > > 1. llvm-dwarfdump: the best approach when it works. But

> -----Original Message----- > From: Iassen Hristov [mailto:ih.ng@databrokers.net] Dumb, hacky idea...but just so crazy it might work: Have Asterisk include a read receipt request when sending the voice mail message. Write a script, triggered from a sendmail alias or .forward file, that will parse the incoming receipts and handle the message deletion. Bonus points: When someone listens

Hi all, Is there any command or function to withdraw a command performed already in R? For instance, after drawing a line in existing plot, can I remove the line in the plot? I know I can use a way of overlapping on the former line so that it looks like a removing the line, but I'm wondering there is a command to retract the already performed command. Thanks. YN [[alternative HTML

> From: Douglas Bates [mailto:bates at bates4.stat.wisc.edu] > > "Liaw, Andy" <andy_liaw at merck.com> writes: > > > Sorry. I need to retract my claim. There seems to be a 3G > limit, even > > though the OS could handle nearly 8G. (I can have two > simultaneous R > > processes each using near 3G.) > > > > On another note, on

> From: Douglas Bates [mailto:bates at bates4.stat.wisc.edu] > > "Liaw, Andy" <andy_liaw at merck.com> writes: > > > Sorry. I need to retract my claim. There seems to be a 3G > limit, even > > though the OS could handle nearly 8G. (I can have two > simultaneous R > > processes each using near 3G.) > > > > On another note, on

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:46 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko at kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue 25-06-19 12:52:18, Dan Williams wrote: > [...] > > > Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst > > > > That document has failed to preclude symbol export fights in the past > > and there is a reasonable argument to try not to retract functionality > > that had

On 30/01/15 16:55, Hans-Kristian Bakke wrote: > I still do not follow you. An additional reason for including > administrator in the first place, not including that I actually want > it to work against the linux boxes like every other domain user, was > because winbind returns the exact same mapping when using idmap > backend RID with range 300000-499999 (i.e not rfc2307 attributes)

Hi wxRuby 1.9.7 is now available from rubyforge. This release is mainly to restore one-step gem installation for Windows users, so they can easily benefit from the many enhancements and fixes that were included in 1.9.6. The gem will now install Microsoft''s VC version 8.0 dlls. As usual ''gem install wxruby'' should get you the latest version. For users on Linux and

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:56:21 -0700 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > > Also, I think the following might work well: If we add a special > > kind of register dependency called a 'remembered' register. This is > > not a real dependency meaning that that the instruction does not >