Roundtable February 2015

roundtable@muug.ca

12 participants
12 discussions

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]

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 … [View More]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 [View Less]

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Roundtable February 2015