search for: screwball

On Thu, April 9, 2015 13:12, zep wrote: > frankly, this blows my mind. not long ago there was a huge kerfuffle > over the change to only allow (as someone defined it 'secure') certain > passwords, requiring numbers, special characters, some minimum length > and that -had to be done- because people didn't use proper passwords > and couldn't be trusted to just use

Been trying to figure out what in the screwball world is going on with this. Tried to install libqt4 and keep getting more dependencies and more dependencies on top of that. Just trying to install KepassX for i386 CentOS 5 Any help? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pi...

...easons for change usually come down to the aesthetic > values of a small group of developers, or often a single individual, > with the power to impose their vision on the rest of humanity. And > the desire to do so. I cannot imagine why. . . Seems RH, intoxicated by Fedora's wildest screwballs, has started to loose its purpose and its sense of direction. The constant problems with C7 updates is a nightmare for some dedicated Centos fans. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.

An acquaintance is considering videocasting speakers at a conference and using a Twitter product called Periscope. I'd like to recommend an open source solution. While I've never offered videos over the web, I have made audios available, and all it entailed was placing the file on the website and putting its url on a visible webpage. I wouldn't think any more than that is

We have updated our long-standing Samba install on a Solaris 8 box to 3.0.24 and are interested in making use of the Windows ACL mapping capabilities to help take over a Windows share. However, there is a snag - the pre-existing box has usernames that differ from people's Windows logins, i.e. their Unix login is freddy, and their Windows login is fred_smith. I have our AD domain membership

Dear Reid and Chris, I thought I should send this to the list in case anyone else is struggling to interpret bytecode files with the new docs. (1) First a bug I already mentioned to Reid. Unlike the other new module headers module 0x01 still uses the old 32-bit and 32-bit format instead of the new 5-bit and 27-bit format. Thus the first module in the file will be 0x00000001 followed by

...> > instruction list -- unknown > > function symbol table does not > >Hrm. This is not good. I'm going to revisit the whole need for alignment >in bytecode files. I need to check with Chris about why this is >necessary in the first place. There's definitely something screwball >here and it might take a code change (yet another bytecode format change >in 1.4) to fix it. > >I'll provide more feedback on this point later. > > > > > (3) In Reid's documentation, his "opcode" link is bad. His doc does > > not yet contain...