February 2015 - Roundtable

IBM "clicky" keyboards
by Adam Thompson 13 Oct '16

13 Oct '16

Enough people have wondered/asked/complained to me about this that I'm posting this now as a public service. IBM Model "M" keyboards are still available, *NEW*, today. They are expensive, but they are the original design that you can use as a melee weapon. The catch is that they don't say "IBM" or even "Lexmark" on them. They are available for purchase from the manufacturer, Unicomp, who can be found online at http://www.pckeyboard.com/. You can also find some vintage NIB units from time to time at http://www.clickykeyboards.com/. There are also a number of other manufacturers now making similar, but not quite as good, keyboards. - CVT Inc., the maker of the Avant Stellar (I own two of them), which is the direct descendant of the Northgate Omnikey, seems to have restructured and no trace of their keyboard manufacturing operation can be found online. However, Northgate keyboards are still available new-in-box from (this is a horrible site, beware) http://www.northgate-keyboard-repair.com/. - The Happy Hacking keyboard (now owned by Fujitsu, apparently) is equally comforting to some people despite having a totally different feel. They, and many others, can be had from http://www.elitekeyboards.com/ - Das Keyboard - Anything using Cherry MX Green, Blue, or White keyswitches. The "green" switches apparently are the closest anyone's come yet to emulating the IBM/Lexmark/Unicomp switches... and they can be had in MUCH cheaper keyboards, like the Rosewill RK-9000 (http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201040 and http://techreport.com/review/23405/rosewill-rk-9000-series-mechanical-ke yboards-reviewed). - And there are an increasing number (yes, again, after the big die-off ca. 2009) of speciality manufacturers of "ergonomic" keyboards that are making clicky keyswitches available as an option. One of the better ones is a tiny shop in Ontario, but I can't find the name right now. References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicomp http://deskthority.net/wiki/Cherry_MX -Adam Thompson athompso(a)athompso.net

7 12

SpamAssassin false positives on DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q?
by Gilbert E. Detillieux 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

I mentioned this problem at the last round-table session, but didn't get a solution, so I thought I'd post it here, just in case anyone has any suggestions to offer. I'm still seeing a whole bunch of false positives in SpamAssassin, since an update was installed in mid-September on a CentOS 5.7 system, for a rule called DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q, which is only supposed to be triggered when the "Date:" header has a date that is 4 days to 4 month ahead of the date in the "Received" header that has the _smallest_ difference in date. Here are the headers from the latest e-mail I've received with this false-positive. (I've stripped out irrelevant headers, for the sake of clarity and simplicity.) From topfivestories(a)messagent.itworldcanada.com Mon Nov 14 07:50:13 2011 Received: from mail.messagent.itworldcanada.com (mail.messagent.itworldcanada.com [207.112.10.80]) by palladium.cs.umanitoba.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id pAEDoAxV028594 for <gedetil(a)cs.umanitoba.ca>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:50:12 -0600 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:50:13 -0500 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q, HTML_MESSAGE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on palladium.cs.umanitoba.ca Note that I'm calling spamd via the spamass-milter on a system running sendmail. Note also, that in the above example, the only "Received" header was the one generated by my own server. (I've had other false positives, however, with multiple "Received" headers, all of which were within seconds of the time in the "Date" header.) Any ideas? -- Gilbert E. Detillieux E-mail: <gedetil(a)muug.mb.ca> Manitoba UNIX User Group Web: http://www.muug.mb.ca/ PO Box 130 St-Boniface Phone: (204)474-8161 Winnipeg MB CANADA R2H 3B4 Fax: (204)474-7609

6 11

big scanner
by Trevor Cordes 27 May '15

27 May '15

Does anyone have big (like tabloid or bigger) scanner they want to sell? Even an ancient SCSI or parallel one might be ok. I just want *big*. Do they even make scanners bigger than legal or tabloid?

4 6

Funny comment
by Trevor Cordes 09 Mar '15

09 Mar '15

I had to confirm what $x=!!$y meant in perl. Remarkably, typing !! or "!!" or \!\! into google gives you nothing. Had to use English. Got this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2168406/what-does-double-exclamation-poi… The +42 answer is quite good. Exec summary: !! is good for cleaning vars into 1 (true) or '' (false), which is important to keep warnings from complaining about undef vars. Anyhow, read the comments in the +42 answer. Hehehe. Let the flamewars begin!

4 3

threaded CP exists
by Grigory Shamov 23 Feb '15

23 Feb '15

Hi All, There exist a threaded and (even MPI-parallel) 'cp' for large/parallel filesystems. http://people.nas.nasa.gov/~kolano/projects/mutil.html It is a bit of pain to build as it patches a particular version of GNU coreutils. -- Grigory Shamov Westgrid/ComputeCanada Site Lead University of Manitoba E2-588 EITC Building, (204) 474-9625

2 2

Some servers needing homes.
by Sean Cody 22 Feb '15

22 Feb '15

Complex Games wanted to forward along some 1U servers that need homes. The Dual-Cores for $125, the Quad Cores for $150. Xeon 5160: http://ark.intel.com/products/27219/Intel-Xeon-Processor-5160-4M-Cache-3_00… Xeon X5355: http://ark.intel.com/products/28035/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5355-8M-Cache-2_6… Both types of systems can do virtualization well with both KVM/Xen and vmware. The SAS drives should be replaceable with SATA drives (vanilla 3.5") should that be a concern as the controller supports both. If you know folks needing an extra bit of horsepower at a VERY decent price (or wish to make a counter offer), you can contact Noah at Complex Games (surprisingly noah at complex games dot calm). Tag Model CPU Clock Speed(GHz) Cores RAM(GB) HDD1(GB) HDD2(GB) Other Inf PE-1950- 01 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon 5160 3 2 4 146 146 SAS Drives, Dual Core 02 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon 5160 3 2 4 146 146 SAS Drives, Dual Core 03 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon 5160 3 2 4 146 146 SAS Drives, Dual Core 04 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon 5160 3 2 4 146 146 SAS Drives, Dual Core 05 Dell PowerEdge 1950 146 146 SAS Drives, NO CPU, NO RAM, NO RAID Controller 06 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 07 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 08 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 09 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 10 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 11 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 12 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 13 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 14 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 8 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core 15 Dell PowerEdge 1950 Intel Xeon X5355 2.66 4 4 146 146 SAS Drives, Quad Core -- Sean

1 0

USB flash memory stick wipeout
by Hartmut W Sager 21 Feb '15

21 Feb '15

Hello all, I have had a wipout of 3 Kingston DataTraveller 16 GB and one Duracell 32 GB USB flash memory sticks. Not only is the data lost, they can't even be reformatted! (The data loss is no calamity - it was a duplicate backup.) The one misbehaviour I had thoughtlessly done: For about 9 months long, these sticks were stored in an above-counter kitchen cabinet, on the bottom level, and that cabinet has an under-the-cabinet 24-inch fluorescent fixture (tube and ballast) for illuminating the countertop. I switched it on and off a few times a day. The USB sticks were stored about 8 inches / 20 cm away from one end of the fluorescent fixture, i.e., not quite directly above the fixture (otherwise the separation would only have been 1 inch / 2.5 cm). So, does anyone know whether USB flash memory sticks (and presumably flash memory camera cards too) are particularly sensitive to electro-magnetic or other disturbances? And what about smartphones? My smartphone was in a similar position for about 6 months, but is still working perfectly. (It's not there anymore!) Hartmut W Sager - Tel +1-204-339-8331, +1-204-515-1701

2 2

Lenovo battery recall
by Trevor Cordes 19 Feb '15

19 Feb '15

This is from last year, but some may have not seen it yet. It means a brand new free battery if you are affected: http://support.lenovo.com/us/en/documents/hf004122 Executive summary: units shipped approx Oct 2010 and Apr 2011 incl: ThinkPad T410, T420, T510, W510, X100E, X120E, X200, X201, X201s Series Edge 11, Edge 13, and Edge 14 Series Must match battery serial #'s against the web site.

1 0

SMS w les
by Dan Keizer 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi there -- at the last meeting, a small discussion was had on SMS options, specifically with les. Has anyone found any API information for this yet? Thanks. Dan.

4 4

Trying to open port 36141:TCP for PCI Compliance test
by Tyhr Trubiak 12 Feb '15

12 Feb '15

I'm trying to have a site host on Red Hat 6.3 PCI compliant through myControlScan. The only failure I have is that port 36141:TCP is being blocked somehow/somewhere, and I do not know where or how to find out. It is blocked from other servers on the network as well as itself. # nc -zv 127.0.0.1 36141 nc: connect to 127.0.0.1 port 36141 (tcp) failed: Connection refused (same result when using nc -zv localhost 36141 as well as the website ip address) 36141:TCP should be open according to iptables. (iptable list shown below) # netstat -lnp | grep 36141 (shows nothing) traceroute gets to myControlScan (207.198.99.3) via default settings, port 80, port 80 TCP, and port 36141, BUT not 36141:TCP. Confused. # traceroute -p 36141 -P TCP 207.198.99.3 traceroute to 207.198.99.3 (207.198.99.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 * * * 2 *^C # traceroute -p 36141 207.198.99.3 traceroute to 207.198.99.3 (207.198.99.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 67.22.106.161 (67.22.106.161) 0.679 ms 0.734 ms 0.873 ms 2 66.11.145.82 (66.11.145.82) 1.965 ms 1.963 ms 1.936 ms 3 ae1-200.tor10.ip4.gtt.net (77.67.79.185) 1.890 ms 1.867 ms 1.839 ms 4 xe-7-0-1.dal33.ip4.gtt.net (89.149.180.246) 51.948 ms 51.940 ms 51.916 ms 5 peer1-gw.ip4.gtt.net (77.67.71.30) 38.730 ms 38.730 ms 38.701 ms iptable list below: ----------------- # iptables -nL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:36141 DROP tcp -- 195.190.13.0/24 0.0.0.0/0 tcp DROP tcp -- 91.217.10.0/23 0.0.0.0/0 tcp DROP tcp -- 91.207.8.0/23 0.0.0.0/0 tcp DROP tcp -- 91.207.4.0/22 0.0.0.0/0 tcp DROP tcp -- 91.207.7.21 0.0.0.0/0 tcp ACCEPT all -- 172.16.100.1 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 172.16.101.102 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all -- 172.22.25.53 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT tcp -- 127.0.0.1 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 10.200.139.34 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 10.200.139.35 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 172.16.1.164 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 REJECT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 reject-with icmp-port-unreachable Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:36141 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:36141 ACCEPT tcp -- 127.0.0.1 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 10.200.139.34 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 10.200.139.35 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 ACCEPT tcp -- 172.16.1.164 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 DROP tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:111 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any thoughts or ideas? Thanks, Tyhr

2 1