search for: unprovable

On 06/12/2015 12:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sat, June 13, 2015 1:22 pm, jd1008 wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2015 12:18 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:05:16PM -0600, jd1008 wrote: >>>> Mark, please be aware that noscript has also a whitelist >>>> that is not viewable by the user. >>>> The whitelist tab does NOT

Seems that blastwave is all about pkgutil now. Are there any plans to support this? Best, Adam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

...and would visit new websites. It would list some >> n javascripts blocked out of m scripts. >> Clicking on 'options' tab on bottom, I would not see the >> 'allowed' scripts listed. > > So, you're scaring people away from a privacy-enhancing tool with > unprovable claims of a hidden whitelist? Which I can't find in the > javascript source of the XPI? Also, based on your conversations with > someone who worked at a company that hasn't existed since 2009? > > I get it, you've got some concerns about the security of the web > model....

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 28, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess, looking back at Nick's comment: > > "The atom model is a good fit for the llvm compiler model for all > architectures. There is a one-to-one mapping between llvm::GlobalObject > (e.g.

...e visible > whitelist, and would visit new websites. It would list some > n javascripts blocked out of m scripts. > Clicking on 'options' tab on bottom, I would not see the > 'allowed' scripts listed. So, you're scaring people away from a privacy-enhancing tool with unprovable claims of a hidden whitelist? Which I can't find in the javascript source of the XPI? Also, based on your conversations with someone who worked at a company that hasn't existed since 2009? I get it, you've got some concerns about the security of the web model. But adjust your tin fo...

Hi everyone, I got a basic puppetmaster setup, which works well for Linux. I''ve setup a basic function: define remotefile($owner = root, $group = root, $mode, $source, $backup = false, $recurse = false) { file { $name: mode => $mode, owner => $owner, group => $group, backup => $backup,

Hi all, I''m looking into a way to centrally manage installed packages on a fairly fine-grained level. We prefer not to blindly install every new update, but when a mechanism in which we can "approve" of a certain version or not. At first I was thinking about something external to puppet, but then I remembered that it''s possible in puppet to tell which version needs to

...riage, then I could spend more time documenting the areas that the triagers are running across, which would itself help the community a lot. As it is, I''m not quite keeping back the flood of tickets. -- If a `religion'' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com

On May 28, 2015, at 5:42 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess, looking back at Nick's comment: > > "The atom model is a good fit for the llvm compiler model for all architectures. There is a one-to-one mapping between llvm::GlobalObject (e.g. function or global variable) and lld:DefinedAtom." > > it seems that the primary issue on the

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Rui > > I agree separating the components out in to libraries only makes sense > when there is a clear reason to do so. However, just this year there was a > very involved discussion about what it means to be a library. > Specifically, I don't think your current

Hey Timo, Just curious if you ever thought about supporting other than just OpenSSL? PolarSSL looks really interesting, has no major dependencies and is very lightweight compared to OpenSSL, GNUTLS or others... https://polarssl.org/ I guess it could be a lot of work, or not, anyway, I'm just curious... -- Best regards, */Charles/*

I thought I''d put this out there for anyone to save anyone who''s running 0.22.4 on AMD64 hosts a whole world of hurt. Basically, the libshadow-ruby1.8 package that Puppet (as of 0.22.4) relies on is broken for AMD64 in both Debian (Sarge+) and Ubuntu (all releases). The problem is basically just some non-portable code. I''ve reported the bug into Debian with a patch, so

Hi. I''d like to use exception handling in my custom facts. For example, in plain Ruby: begin buildno = '''' bcrelease = open("/etc/BCrelease") while (line = bcrelease.gets) line = line.chomp buildno = $1 if line =~ /^Build:\s+(\d+)/ end bcrelease.close print "#{buildno}\n" rescue print "No

I want to make it clear that I didn't (at least intend to) compromise flexibility or beauty of design with short-term performance gain. I was trying to do simple things in a simple way for both humans and computers, and I believe I did that fairly well. I'd even argue that the new design is cleaner and more expressive than before, because the "atom" model is in some part too

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:29 PM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > On May 29, 2015, at 10:08 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Large part of the difficulties in development of the current LLD comes > from over-generalizataion to share code between pretty much different file > formats. > > ISTM the problem that's been described

> On Dec 16, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com <mailto:peter_cooper at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi Rui > > I agree separating the components out in to libraries only makes sense when there is a clear reason to do so. However, just this year there was a very

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > I want to make it clear that I didn't (at least intend to) compromise > flexibility or beauty of design with short-term performance gain. I was > trying to do simple things in a simple way for both humans and computers, > and I believe I did that fairly well. I'd even argue that the new design

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> I want to make it clear that I didn't (at least intend to) compromise >> flexibility or beauty of design with short-term performance gain. I was >> trying to do simple things in a simple way

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> I want to make it clear that I didn't (at least intend to) compromise >>> flexibility

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> On Dec 16, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote: >>