similar to: How to force XP to use an unqualified username?

Hello All, AIX 4.3.3 / Samba 2.0.6 Have had no problems in months accessing shares / using SAMBA. This morning users called to say that they cannot connect. Stopped and restarted the NMBD and SMBD services. smbstatus shows no issues. Log files show users attempting to connect but no errors as to why they get the message "\\<server_name> is not accessible The session was

Hi, I'm having problems with Samba printing. Setup is:- Samba 2.2.8a Debian Woody LPRng printing HP Laserjet 4 plus printer Windows NT 4 clients Printing is set up using a print$ share and spoolss, with the driver on the server. All users connected to this printer have their machines set to UK regional settings, and the document defaults and printer properties in the printer driver setup

I remember a while back seeing someone mention a device that would integrate an apple with a pcnetwork. basically it was a small box that had a samba server built in. you would connect your mac to it with the other side connecting to the hub of a pcnetwork. It would intern allow Apple shares to be viewed in network neighborhood, and macs to mount pc shares./ does this ring a bell with anyone.

Hi, I'm attempting to migrate an NT4 domain to Samba3, and getting quite frustrated with stuff that seems not to work as advertised. I'd appreciate any help. I've set up an OpenLDAP server, and Samba 3, configured it as a BDC, and tried running "net rpc vampire". This all works, and Samba does the appropriate stuff to try and populate the LDAP database. The scripts I've

I've also posted this message to the lprng list, but as I'm currently not sure where the problem lies, I'm posting it here too in the hope that someone has a clue..... I have recently installed a printer accounting system on my systems, and changed the print model for some of my users. In most cases, this has been fine, but users who are using HP Laserjet 4 printers are experiencing

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745 Summary: Matching @cert-authority entries when using unqualified hostnames Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ssh AssignedTo:

Per doc/pxelinux.txt, the special PXELINUX filename specification of "IP address::filename" allows "IP address" to be a DNS recognizable name. If it contains no dots, the domain name (DHCP option 15) is supposed to be appended to qualify the name. Testing PXELINUX 3.86, this behavior does occur as I can see the DNS request having the specified domain name appended properly.

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:32, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > Per doc/pxelinux.txt, the special PXELINUX filename specification of > "IP address::filename" allows "IP address" to be a DNS recognizable > name. ?If it contains no dots, the domain name (DHCP option 15) is > supposed to be appended to qualify the name. > > Testing PXELINUX 3.86,

Hi, I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures where the w/l variant is unavailable? LLVM must support those architectures, no? Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts > instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see > arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, > while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures > where

Jim Grosbach wrote: > Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it > isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I additionally say that linux.git uses them? I wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386.

On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it >> isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. > > That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I > additionally say that linux.git uses them? > Is the

On Jul 10, 2013, at 17:44, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > The length specifier is, as I understand it, required when the instruction references memory but is optional (and inferred from the registers) for the register variants. > > The best reference I know of for the AT&T syntax is: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/817-5477/817-5477.pdf I'm not sure

Jim Grosbach wrote: > That does raise a clarifying question here. Is the code you’re interested in > using Intel or AT&T syntax? > > Also note that the question isn’t whether we should support the btr/bts > instructions. We absolutely must (and do). The question is whether we are > properly handling the un-suffixed mnemonic form of the assembly syntax. > > Perhaps you

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:54:21AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: > > No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been > > previously noted. > > I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely wrong" > or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined. If you have > some _reason_ not to do

On Jul 17, 2013 7:41 AM, "Joerg Sonnenberger" <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:54:21AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > > Jim Grosbach wrote: > > > No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been > > > previously noted. > > > > I don't give a shit about whether you think it is

Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. -Jim On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since

On Wednesday 10 July 2013 22:18:23 Jevin Sweval wrote: > http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lxr/http/source/linux/arch/x86/include/ > asm/bitops.h#L68 > > Here is one example that I found. Are the inline assembly arguments > ambiguous in size? It would help us for sure to build the kernel and others. -- JS

Stephen Checkoway wrote: > [...] Thanks for the absolutely splendid analysis! > For the memory, immediate form without the suffix, it seems like the options are > 1. If the immediate value is in [0,15], use btsl/btrl since it saves a byte, otherwise error; > 2. Follow both gas's behavior and the Solaris assembler manual Jim Grosbach linked to which stated that unsuffixed

Jim Grosbach wrote: > No. The above rule is absolutely the wrong thing to do, as has been > previously noted. I don't give a shit about whether you think it is "absolutely wrong" or not; I did what hpa and the Intel manual outlined. If you have some _reason_ not to do that, bring it up. I reported four bugs a few days ago, and the community has shown ZERO (if not NEGATIVE)