Search
483 results for “zirias”
-
@josephholsten @jhx Well, I'm certainly not a fan of this "do everything in the browser" movement, quite to the contrary, instead of making things really simpler, it adds tons of complexity. But on the other hand, you can't do anything about it, given more and more public and "enterprise" networks are configured to ONLY allow http/https outbound 😞
I want to be able to access my systems from anywhere, and I've been running #shellinabox for years, which is nice and simple and most of the time, a terminal is all you need. Still #guacamole can offer a nice addition also allowing graphical remote logins. Regarding security, anything "remote desktop" has inherent complexity and especially Microsoft had a history of vulns, so it really makes sense to have some authenticating gateway in between for access from the internet 😉
-
I'm getting old I guess? 🙄
Moved some #FreeBSD #VNET #jail to a different network segment today by
- changing DNS entries
- changing the statically assigned address in its /etc/rc.conf
- moving the "host end" of the epair interface to a different bridge
- changing necessary firewall rules... and then was puzzled for almost an hour I couldn't even get it to #ping any more, looking for the issue in the firewall rules, to no avail ...
Turns out you indeed have to change the default gateway as well 🙈
-
@david_chisnall @hl @TomAoki @peteorrall @xdydx As for #SMBv2 and newer support in #FreeBSD base (which is, just to clarify for any reader, completely independent from #Samba) -- I'd be quite happy about it, it certainly gives flexibility when you can just mount some share from some windows machine "ad hoc".
I'm not desperately waiting for it though ... My "fileserver" is a FreeBSD jail and serves both NFS and SMB anyways. I recently upgraded to kerberized NFSv4, just to be sure. Although my network is *supposed* to be strictly private (and, of course, secured), you never know 😉
What I meant above being a bit surprised this topic surfaces in an "enterprise" working group: for a large scale enterprise network, I'd assume it wouldn't be a "big thing" to provide NFS as well when you need it...
-
@hl @TomAoki @peteorrall @xdydx You can run #samba perfectly fine on #FreeBSD, I have one instance running here as an "Active Directory" domain controller, one as an #SMB fileserver, and quite a few for the client parts of a domain member (with its #winbind).
What you can't do in a "good" way is mounting SMB shares on FreeBSD. The SMB client in base is horribly outdated (really really never use #SMBv1 these days!), and outside base, only stuff on top of #fuse is possible.
-
@hl @TomAoki @peteorrall @xdydx You can run #samba perfectly fine on #FreeBSD, I have one instance running here as an "Active Directory" domain controller, one as an #SMB fileserver, and quite a few for the client parts of a domain member (with its #winbind).
What you can't do in a "good" way is mounting SMB shares on FreeBSD. The SMB client in base is horribly outdated (really really never use #SMBv1 these days!), and outside base, only stuff on top of #fuse is possible.
-
@hl @TomAoki @peteorrall @xdydx You can run #samba perfectly fine on #FreeBSD, I have one instance running here as an "Active Directory" domain controller, one as an #SMB fileserver, and quite a few for the client parts of a domain member (with its #winbind).
What you can't do in a "good" way is mounting SMB shares on FreeBSD. The SMB client in base is horribly outdated (really really never use #SMBv1 these days!), and outside base, only stuff on top of #fuse is possible.
-
@hl @TomAoki @peteorrall @xdydx You can run #samba perfectly fine on #FreeBSD, I have one instance running here as an "Active Directory" domain controller, one as an #SMB fileserver, and quite a few for the client parts of a domain member (with its #winbind).
What you can't do in a "good" way is mounting SMB shares on FreeBSD. The SMB client in base is horribly outdated (really really never use #SMBv1 these days!), and outside base, only stuff on top of #fuse is possible.
-
@hl @TomAoki @[email protected] @xdydx You can run #samba perfectly fine on #FreeBSD, I have one instance running here as an "Active Directory" domain controller, one as an #SMB fileserver, and quite a few for the client parts of a domain member (with its #winbind).
What you can't do in a "good" way is mounting SMB shares on FreeBSD. The SMB client in base is horribly outdated (really really never use #SMBv1 these days!), and outside base, only stuff on top of #fuse is possible.
-
@TomAoki @peteorrall @hl @xdydx I'm surprised ... I didn't expect this to come up in the "enterprise" realm, "just" using kerberized #NFSv4 instead should be pretty fine there and it's probably more the #soho environment that will profit most from some up-to-date #smb client in #FreeBSD 😎 ... but would certainly be very nice to get that!
Also interesting they finally want to move to #MIT #krb5 in base. I'll probably continue to build it from ports, so I can use #LibreSSL instead of #OpenSSL, but still nice, as I found you're e.g. forced to use base #kerberos with the NFS client.
-
@hl @xdydx #FreeBSD has only support for SMBv1, which you should absolutely avoid for security reasons, although you can probably configure #samba to still allow it ... but ... don't. Nowadays I'd prefer to say FreeBSD does not support mounting SMB shares.
There are some ports available implementing "modern" SMB (v2/v3) on top of #fuse, which might be an option, but in my experience, they're not perfectly reliable and performance isn't the greatest either.
If ever possible, work on the server side and see whether you can share via #NFS instead. Either #NFSv3 (which is only "secure" as long as your network is perfectly secure and you control all participating machines, but at least it doesn't pretend to do anything else), or #NFSv4 with #kerberos security.
-
Just did a quick feasibility test connecting to a remote desktop from a browser running in the network of my employer ... working perfectly fine with my old DSL-50 connection 🥳
I think #firewalls these days are a bit silly, whatever they don't allow must be forced to work via #http (or better #https) instead 😂 -- and #guacamole is really a nice solution to do this for remote desktops. But as it's acting as a #gateway also handling #authentication, I finally feel comfortable making a connection with #xrdp accessible, which still doesn't support #NLA. When you see the "login screen" in guacamole, you are already authenticated ... so this feature lack is downgraded from a severe security concern to a mild annoyance (having to type your password again).
-
@dervishe Of course there's still no #FreeBSD version of that closed-source #widevine stuff, so it still pulls in some #Linux libs and stuff (from ports/packages) and you need to enable Linux compatibility ... but at least, these ports now allow to run *only* widevine in Linux-compat, so you don't need some full-blown #Ubuntu (or whatever) userland with some full-blown Linux browser any more.
-
@lattera @drscriptt Now here's some document in the hope it might help someone 😎
https://sekrit.de/webdocs/freebsd/nfs-jail-kerberos-samba.html
#FreeBSD #NFS #NFSv4 #jail #kerberos #kerberized #Samba #ActiveDirectory
-
@dani Haha 😎
I'm running a (heavily configured) #fvwm3 here. This screenshot was just for demonstration that #dos2ansi and #showansi don't depend on any configuration, so this was a completely unconfigured X session in #Xephyr, which by default runs #twm.
You can even see the test mode in #xterm can only use 8 colors (because this is what the default xterm #terminfo entry announces), still the #xterm windows launched by #showansi have full color support, they explicitly set the terminal name to "xterm-256colors".
-
@dani Haha 😎
I'm running a (heavily configured) #fvwm3 here. This screenshot was just for demonstration that #dos2ansi and #showansi don't depend on any configuration, so this was a completely unconfigured X session in #Xephyr, which by default runs #twm.
You can even see the test mode in #xterm can only use 8 colors (because this is what the default xterm #terminfo entry announces), still the #xterm windows launched by #showansi have full color support, they explicitly set the terminal name to "xterm-256colors".
-
@dani Haha 😎
I'm running a (heavily configured) #fvwm3 here. This screenshot was just for demonstration that #dos2ansi and #showansi don't depend on any configuration, so this was a completely unconfigured X session in #Xephyr, which by default runs #twm.
You can even see the test mode in #xterm can only use 8 colors (because this is what the default xterm #terminfo entry announces), still the #xterm windows launched by #showansi have full color support, they explicitly set the terminal name to "xterm-256colors".
-
@dani Haha 😎
I'm running a (heavily configured) #fvwm3 here. This screenshot was just for demonstration that #dos2ansi and #showansi don't depend on any configuration, so this was a completely unconfigured X session in #Xephyr, which by default runs #twm.
You can even see the test mode in #xterm can only use 8 colors (because this is what the default xterm #terminfo entry announces), still the #xterm windows launched by #showansi have full color support, they explicitly set the terminal name to "xterm-256colors".
-
@dani Haha 😎
I'm running a (heavily configured) #fvwm3 here. This screenshot was just for demonstration that #dos2ansi and #showansi don't depend on any configuration, so this was a completely unconfigured X session in #Xephyr, which by default runs #twm.
You can even see the test mode in #xterm can only use 8 colors (because this is what the default xterm #terminfo entry announces), still the #xterm windows launched by #showansi have full color support, they explicitly set the terminal name to "xterm-256colors".
-
Not having added anything to #dos2ansi for a while now, I'd say v2.0 is the "final" version for now. I initially wanted that for v1.0, and it's amazing how many weird files, edge cases, and also ideas for improvements you can discover for something that "simple" 🙈
I have ideas for future development, like provide the core functionalities as a shared library, like add some config file for dos2ansi itself as well (instead of just for #showansi), maybe even more ... but all of that can wait, it's IMHO "complete" as it is.
A #Debian package is attached to the release on github, and a #FreeBSD port is added ... anyone wants to help make it available in more repositories? 😎 Would be most helpful if the fonts it uses by default are packaged as well and can be set as dependencies ...
https://repology.org/project/dos2ansi/versions -
Not having added anything to #dos2ansi for a while now, I'd say v2.0 is the "final" version for now. I initially wanted that for v1.0, and it's amazing how many weird files, edge cases, and also ideas for improvements you can discover for something that "simple" 🙈
I have ideas for future development, like provide the core functionalities as a shared library, like add some config file for dos2ansi itself as well (instead of just for #showansi), maybe even more ... but all of that can wait, it's IMHO "complete" as it is.
A #Debian package is attached to the release on github, and a #FreeBSD port is added ... anyone wants to help make it available in more repositories? 😎 Would be most helpful if the fonts it uses by default are packaged as well and can be set as dependencies ...
https://repology.org/project/dos2ansi/versions -
Not having added anything to #dos2ansi for a while now, I'd say v2.0 is the "final" version for now. I initially wanted that for v1.0, and it's amazing how many weird files, edge cases, and also ideas for improvements you can discover for something that "simple" 🙈
I have ideas for future development, like provide the core functionalities as a shared library, like add some config file for dos2ansi itself as well (instead of just for #showansi), maybe even more ... but all of that can wait, it's IMHO "complete" as it is.
A #Debian package is attached to the release on github, and a #FreeBSD port is added ... anyone wants to help make it available in more repositories? 😎 Would be most helpful if the fonts it uses by default are packaged as well and can be set as dependencies ...
https://repology.org/project/dos2ansi/versions -
Not having added anything to #dos2ansi for a while now, I'd say v2.0 is the "final" version for now. I initially wanted that for v1.0, and it's amazing how many weird files, edge cases, and also ideas for improvements you can discover for something that "simple" 🙈
I have ideas for future development, like provide the core functionalities as a shared library, like add some config file for dos2ansi itself as well (instead of just for #showansi), maybe even more ... but all of that can wait, it's IMHO "complete" as it is.
A #Debian package is attached to the release on github, and a #FreeBSD port is added ... anyone wants to help make it available in more repositories? 😎 Would be most helpful if the fonts it uses by default are packaged as well and can be set as dependencies ...
https://repology.org/project/dos2ansi/versions -
Not having added anything to #dos2ansi for a while now, I'd say v2.0 is the "final" version for now. I initially wanted that for v1.0, and it's amazing how many weird files, edge cases, and also ideas for improvements you can discover for something that "simple" 🙈
I have ideas for future development, like provide the core functionalities as a shared library, like add some config file for dos2ansi itself as well (instead of just for #showansi), maybe even more ... but all of that can wait, it's IMHO "complete" as it is.
A #Debian package is attached to the release on github, and a #FreeBSD port is added ... anyone wants to help make it available in more repositories? 😎 Would be most helpful if the fonts it uses by default are packaged as well and can be set as dependencies ...
https://repology.org/project/dos2ansi/versions -
#gmake (#GNU) or #bmake (#BSD, or other pmake descendant)?
Well, both excel and both suck, just in different areas. 🙈
When I started to build my own #make framework for my own projects, I opted for #gmake, just because it's more widespread and easy to get/install on most platforms.
gmake is strong with functions (even user-defined ones) and together with $(eval ...) can do some impressive meta-programming, even generating its own rules at runtime, although the code will be a bit hard to follow. One of its weaknesses that bother me most is, it doesn't know anything about numbers 😶 A simple thing like "is a greater than b" is close to impossible to answer without calling out to the shell ...
bmake seems quite compact and simple, typical BSD style, still with some strong features, e.g. very flexible variable expansions. It can do loops in a simple straight-forward way. bmake code tends to be more readable for more complex stuff, but also often a lot more verbose.
-
#gmake (#GNU) or #bmake (#BSD, or other pmake descendant)?
Well, both excel and both suck, just in different areas. 🙈
When I started to build my own #make framework for my own projects, I opted for #gmake, just because it's more widespread and easy to get/install on most platforms.
gmake is strong with functions (even user-defined ones) and together with $(eval ...) can do some impressive meta-programming, even generating its own rules at runtime, although the code will be a bit hard to follow. One of its weaknesses that bother me most is, it doesn't know anything about numbers 😶 A simple thing like "is a greater than b" is close to impossible to answer without calling out to the shell ...
bmake seems quite compact and simple, typical BSD style, still with some strong features, e.g. very flexible variable expansions. It can do loops in a simple straight-forward way. bmake code tends to be more readable for more complex stuff, but also often a lot more verbose.
-
#gmake (#GNU) or #bmake (#BSD, or other pmake descendant)?
Well, both excel and both suck, just in different areas. 🙈
When I started to build my own #make framework for my own projects, I opted for #gmake, just because it's more widespread and easy to get/install on most platforms.
gmake is strong with functions (even user-defined ones) and together with $(eval ...) can do some impressive meta-programming, even generating its own rules at runtime, although the code will be a bit hard to follow. One of its weaknesses that bother me most is, it doesn't know anything about numbers 😶 A simple thing like "is a greater than b" is close to impossible to answer without calling out to the shell ...
bmake seems quite compact and simple, typical BSD style, still with some strong features, e.g. very flexible variable expansions. It can do loops in a simple straight-forward way. bmake code tends to be more readable for more complex stuff, but also often a lot more verbose.
-
#gmake (#GNU) or #bmake (#BSD, or other pmake descendant)?
Well, both excel and both suck, just in different areas. 🙈
When I started to build my own #make framework for my own projects, I opted for #gmake, just because it's more widespread and easy to get/install on most platforms.
gmake is strong with functions (even user-defined ones) and together with $(eval ...) can do some impressive meta-programming, even generating its own rules at runtime, although the code will be a bit hard to follow. One of its weaknesses that bother me most is, it doesn't know anything about numbers 😶 A simple thing like "is a greater than b" is close to impossible to answer without calling out to the shell ...
bmake seems quite compact and simple, typical BSD style, still with some strong features, e.g. very flexible variable expansions. It can do loops in a simple straight-forward way. bmake code tends to be more readable for more complex stuff, but also often a lot more verbose.
-
#gmake (#GNU) or #bmake (#BSD, or other pmake descendant)?
Well, both excel and both suck, just in different areas. 🙈
When I started to build my own #make framework for my own projects, I opted for #gmake, just because it's more widespread and easy to get/install on most platforms.
gmake is strong with functions (even user-defined ones) and together with $(eval ...) can do some impressive meta-programming, even generating its own rules at runtime, although the code will be a bit hard to follow. One of its weaknesses that bother me most is, it doesn't know anything about numbers 😶 A simple thing like "is a greater than b" is close to impossible to answer without calling out to the shell ...
bmake seems quite compact and simple, typical BSD style, still with some strong features, e.g. very flexible variable expansions. It can do loops in a simple straight-forward way. bmake code tends to be more readable for more complex stuff, but also often a lot more verbose.
-
@stefano BTW, this seems to come with a certain mindset even among users and admins. It starts with complaints that #FreeBSD's rc can't automatically respawn crashed services, as if this was a totally normal and safe thing to do ...
#softwarecrisis reloaded ...