being much easier than using OpenCA or CA.{pl,sh} _once_ you have made your/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf file with reasonable values for your CA, and probably installed the infrastructure (i.e. CA key/cert etc).
I have built a CA structure consisting of a Root CA, two subsidiary CA certs (signing the server certificates or the client certificates) and many individual (server or client) certificates using this simple structure and found it working ok.
I even have a shared "index" and "serial" database file for the three CAs, and they share a single CRL (signed by the Root CA) as well.
If I could be given a clue how to push this through the lameness filter, I would help you out posting the directory structure I use and the configuration file.
Any document which I wrote is copyrighted, and Licenses are not Laws, which are open (even more than, e.g. RFCs). I can forbid publishing and distributing my license except verbatim and bundled with the software, for example.
Actually, you can't fork off the GPL/LGPL because recently the FSF has made clear that they own copyright on them and only wish verbatim copies. However with written OK it is allowed.
Earlier (in 1999 I remember, for example) they said, people look at the GPL and take it as an example how to write a license. Nowadays, they rename the LGPL to "Lesser" and want everything GPL'd.
In my eyes viral, which I stated more above in this postings.
The choice of "viral" and "infection" with regards to the GPL is a choice that I made willingly once I realized that RMS and the FSF think that dynamic (as opposed to sta- tic) linking of GPL'd libraries does af-/ in-fect your main programmes' code, too. It's a matter of taste which can't be dis- cussed, but I rather archive it here. If you think different, it is one right of yours, but this very point was exactly why I converted to the BSD group (in fact, the license used by me includes a clause which isn't GPL-compatible, namely the jurisdic- tion is specified). Also look how RMS dis- criminates (bad word, but English isn't my native language) against the LGPL renaming from "Library" to "Lesser" and that all. It's just a philosophy fact (check out the philosophy page at FSF's) but IMHO the way the FSF wants to get all software free may lead to anger. The BSD/MIT/X11 group tries to get all software better instead.
ATTN Moderators, this expresses my private opinion, and I hope to have made clear the post is not a flamebait.
The GPL does not permit combinated code (i.e. linked-together programmes) being under a different license than the GPL. But because the gcc etc. in the example are not linked to that other code, just packaged with it, it doesn't infect the other code as it would if e.g. it would be linked to libreadline etc.
You know the difference between NT 4 and Win 95, do you?
I did run Starcraft Multiplayer (IPX) on a P-133 with 16 MB RAM and Win95. It worked fine. (Though I had no sound at this time)
And with regards to wine, there is a howto saying some 1999er release is said to be better than the new, although I don't know with regards to 2002er wine and rewind versions.
Actually, OpenBSD 3.1 with KDE 3.0 is felt much easier to use than Windows by Windows users. I have made this experience oftenly the last few days, when I finished compiling (on a 3.1-current system actually;) StarCraft ought to run under Wine on OpenBSD, too, and since it is a Win95/P-90/16MB game, it probably will even run smoothly. Sound isn't a problem either.
Actually, the special a.out flavour used by OpenBSD for everything (on i386 et al.) is called NETBSD_NATIVE. You can also find a lot more hints at the NASM (Netwide ASseMbler) page at http://nasm.2y.net The format is called aoutb (in contrast to aout) and fairly modern, there is (in the nasmdoc) a tutorial how to write shared libraries, which also explains the few (user-visible) differences like the traditional underscore. By the way, if ELF hadn't been underscore-less, we would have gas with.intel_syntax not needing those cruelful % signs before the registers. That sucks (which does GNU, anyway, but with GNU it is like with democracy: choose the smaller bad).
Yes, it is true at the moment, but more and more architectures are switching to ELF/OLF, and i386 will be amongst them until 3.3, but probably even 3.2 - as Art has received the gcc/binutils config he had requested, he will probably do it soon. You can look for ELF on http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/ on the OpenBSD mailing lists (I think it was on misc@).
If this is going to be a more qualitative version of Win32 I find this really cool. Ok, Microsoft will be able to integrate parts of Rewind into Windows, but, hey, BSD spirit is not "Let's make free software better!" but more like "Let's make _all_ software better!" Probably even some folks at Microsoft will be able to contribute to Rewind - hey am I dreaming? Anyways, let's see which one will be better than the other one, which evolves to the more accepted.
If only the Rewind developers would care about it running on OpenBSD... the last Wine that did is from 1999, because it is said to require new binutils (which OpenBSD doesn't have on i386 because it uses a.out-bsd format and not ELF) and kernel threads.
When I write about Mozilla not running under OpenBSD, I do know that even self-compiled and/or tweaked programmes do not run. There is no way to bring a recent Mozilla to OpenBSD except by the Linuxulation. (Maybe FreeBSD binaries work, I don't know.)
I wonder about this every then and now, mostly when I read about new releases on slashdot.
The last mozilla that natively ran on OpenBSD/x86-32 is, if I remember correctly, 0.9.3 Newer versions run in Linux binary emulation (I should s/emulation/personality/ though), ok, but you will have to have a tens-of-megabytes package (the RH 6.2 libraries) around unless your Moz-Linux binary is fully statically linked - preferably against a 2.2 or even 2.0 kernel.
I currently work on a pentium-75 notebook that has only 32 MB RAM, thus rendering Linux binaries nearly unusable, and even BSDI Netscrap 4.7? is sucking slow. Maybe I should try konq-embedded, but you still need kdelibs for this.
So my solution is, and I am quite happy with this, to use Lynx and xloadimage for browsing only (even without starting X11). But _when_ I wish to graphically browse a website, I have no real option.
*considering Netscrap 3 for BSD/OS* hmmm...
Anyways, I hope the folks at Moz are working to get OpenBSD on most platforms (minus vax, I suppose, and probably minus hppa and sparc64) to run. Many people I know of would like to hear of success.
Nothing against Americans, but I hope they won't, unless they bring about four million plus their number jobs with them;) Speaking of which, it is quite hard to find not even a job nowadays, but even places to learn (Ausbildungsstelle for those who can understand German, I don't know the word right now).
I fear more and more Americanism get imported to Germany. If this gets through, rights that were deeply ingrained into our behaviour change, and no one will be able to see what's next...
I found that Symlink (http://www.symlink.ch/) has an article of a member of the German Party SPD covering this very topic. See there if you understand German, the article is from this week - dunno exactly. Symlink is quite a nice Slashdot on German.
Slightly OT, but: while you're at it, check OpenBSD - http://www.openbsd.org - out, it is a very fine OS for desktop and server.
Ok, now to your topic: for upgrading the Slowlaris boxen (for the Windoze it is possible, too, only the transfer way differs), first get some boot disc thingy of your new OS, whether it be GNU/Linux or BSD. Then you get that boot image, which preferably consists of a kernel, an initrd (for OpenBSD it's integrated into the kernel file) and a loader. Modify the initrd so it automatically gets IP address from DHCP, makes partitions, filesystems and untars some archive get over the network to the target root filesystem. Then prepare the archive, i.e. a complete install, and put it to the server. Put the initrd+kernel and loader somewhere to the hard disc where the next boot can find it, e.g. another partition, something available to GRUB, be improvisating. You'll find a way. For DOS, there is LoadLin.
Then modify the next boot to load the new OS' loader instead of the old, or put a
loadlin linux initrd=initdisk.gz in the autoexec.bat of the DOS boxen. Then reset the machine. All of this can be done remotely.
The next boot should load the new OS, the initramdisc, partition the hard discs, make filesystems and popu- larize them. Then reboot, and voilá you got it.
Re:What the hell are you smoking, HeUnique?
on
Qt For The Console
·
· Score: 1
I find it quite ok that it is under the LGPL. This is because my programmes can still be BSD/MIT/X.net-style licensed, while my modifi- cations to the library itself must be LGPL, and thus their source being provided on redistribution.
The whole stuff around the LGPL, such as renaming from Library to Lesser and having some discussion, is just around RMS' opinion, all software shall be "free" as in GNU. There are different kinds of freedom, which he neglects. This is ok, because everyone has to draw his own priorities, but mine are different. I will not write bad about RMS, it's just that many people I know of (including myself) think the GPL is viral and even worse than using, say shareware.
Real Programmers use Assembly. I, not a Real Programmer of THAT time (referring to the Jargon Book), due to my late (1982) birth, however, favour BASIC in combination with ASM.
And sometimes, when I am done coding some things in this combination, done debugging (which is one things I really liked on MS-/DR DOS and hate on GNU/Linux and OpenBSD), _then_ I have some sexual feeling right down...
This is no April Joke, because I do not belong to the culture holding it. I have even a different date than 01-04.
Thawte does not only integrate nicely into OjE, but in nearly any product I've seen. I for example get my freemail cert via IE, then export it as.pfx (M$ home-brown pkcs#12 extension) and convert it to PEM via openssl pkcs12. These files I can use with, e.g. openssl smime.
Thawte's free mail certs are good because they are free and their root cert is in nearly any known browser (and IIRC in the openssl source, too).
Pax actually is in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 folder, too. Rename it to tar.exe or posix.exe and you see it works as intended, too. It even has ancient BSD RCSID strings in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I found that using only the
/etc/ssl/openssl.cnf file with
openssl(1) commands, namely
openssl req -new -newkey rsa:1024 [...]
openssl x509 [...]
openssl ca [...]
being much easier than using OpenCA
or CA.{pl,sh} _once_ you have made
your
reasonable values for your CA, and
probably installed the infrastructure
(i.e. CA key/cert etc).
I have built a CA structure consisting
of a Root CA, two subsidiary CA certs
(signing the server certificates or
the client certificates) and many individual
(server or client) certificates using this
simple structure and found it working ok.
I even have a shared "index" and "serial"
database file for the three CAs, and they
share a single CRL (signed by the Root CA)
as well.
If I could be given a clue how to push this
through the lameness filter, I would help you
out posting the directory structure I use and
the configuration file.
Any document which I wrote is copyrighted, and
Licenses are not Laws, which are open (even more
than, e.g. RFCs).
I can forbid publishing and distributing my license
except verbatim and bundled with the software, for
example.
Yes I did really intend to say this.
Cooler Nick, btw.
Oh, it is that mean != meinen(.de)
Actually, you can't fork off the GPL/LGPL because
recently the FSF has made clear that they own
copyright on them and only wish verbatim copies.
However with written OK it is allowed.
Earlier (in 1999 I remember, for example) they
said, people look at the GPL and take it as
an example how to write a license.
Nowadays, they rename the LGPL to "Lesser"
and want everything GPL'd.
In my eyes viral, which I stated more above
in this postings.
The choice of "viral" and "infection" with /
;-)
regards to the GPL is a choice that I made
willingly once I realized that RMS and the
FSF think that dynamic (as opposed to sta-
tic) linking of GPL'd libraries does af-
in-fect your main programmes' code, too.
It's a matter of taste which can't be dis-
cussed, but I rather archive it here.
If you think different, it is one right of
yours, but this very point was exactly why
I converted to the BSD group (in fact, the
license used by me includes a clause which
isn't GPL-compatible, namely the jurisdic-
tion is specified). Also look how RMS dis-
criminates (bad word, but English isn't my
native language) against the LGPL renaming
from "Library" to "Lesser" and that all.
It's just a philosophy fact (check out the
philosophy page at FSF's) but IMHO the way
the FSF wants to get all software free may
lead to anger. The BSD/MIT/X11 group tries
to get all software better instead.
ATTN Moderators, this expresses my private
opinion, and I hope to have made clear the
post is not a flamebait.
PS: Writing in paragraph style is cool
*Wannahave!*
I haven't seen such things yet in an EULA (and
yes I read them _when_ I encounter them), but
you have made a good point.
I'll think over it.
The GPL does not permit combinated code
(i.e. linked-together programmes) being
under a different license than the GPL.
But because the gcc etc. in the example
are not linked to that other code, just
packaged with it, it doesn't infect the
other code as it would if e.g. it would
be linked to libreadline etc.
You know the difference between NT 4 and Win 95,
do you?
I did run Starcraft Multiplayer (IPX) on a P-133
with 16 MB RAM and Win95. It worked fine.
(Though I had no sound at this time)
And with regards to wine, there is a howto saying
some 1999er release is said to be better than the
new, although I don't know with regards to 2002er
wine and rewind versions.
Actually, OpenBSD 3.1 with KDE 3.0 is felt much ;)
easier to use than Windows by Windows users.
I have made this experience oftenly the last few
days, when I finished compiling (on a 3.1-current
system actually
StarCraft ought to run under Wine on OpenBSD, too,
and since it is a Win95/P-90/16MB game, it probably
will even run smoothly.
Sound isn't a problem either.
OpenBSD is a.out-bsd, on i386.
r ch /
With regards to the other arches, I do not operate
them so I don't know it without having to look.
But the source is free, try it yourself:
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/a
Actually, the special a.out flavour used by OpenBSD .intel_syntax not needing
for everything (on i386 et al.) is called NETBSD_NATIVE.
You can also find a lot more hints at the NASM
(Netwide ASseMbler) page at http://nasm.2y.net
The format is called aoutb (in contrast to aout)
and fairly modern, there is (in the nasmdoc) a
tutorial how to write shared libraries, which also
explains the few (user-visible) differences like
the traditional underscore.
By the way, if ELF hadn't been underscore-less,
we would have gas with
those cruelful % signs before the registers.
That sucks (which does GNU, anyway, but with GNU
it is like with democracy: choose the smaller bad).
Yes, it is true at the moment, but more and more
architectures are switching to ELF/OLF, and i386
will be amongst them until 3.3, but probably even
3.2 - as Art has received the gcc/binutils config
he had requested, he will probably do it soon.
You can look for ELF on http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/
on the OpenBSD mailing lists (I think it was on
misc@).
If this is going to be a more qualitative version
of Win32 I find this really cool.
Ok, Microsoft will be able to integrate parts
of Rewind into Windows, but, hey, BSD spirit is
not "Let's make free software better!" but more
like "Let's make _all_ software better!"
Probably even some folks at Microsoft will be able
to contribute to Rewind - hey am I dreaming?
Anyways, let's see which one will be better than
the other one, which evolves to the more accepted.
If only the Rewind developers would care about it
running on OpenBSD... the last Wine that did is
from 1999, because it is said to require new
binutils (which OpenBSD doesn't have on i386
because it uses a.out-bsd format and not ELF)
and kernel threads.
If you type
$ man 8 ssl
you get a basic introduction into this.
When I write about Mozilla not running under
OpenBSD, I do know that even self-compiled and/or
tweaked programmes do not run.
There is no way to bring a recent Mozilla to
OpenBSD except by the Linuxulation.
(Maybe FreeBSD binaries work, I don't know.)
if this will run on OpenBSD.
I wonder about this every then and now, mostly when
I read about new releases on slashdot.
The last mozilla that natively ran on OpenBSD/x86-32
is, if I remember correctly, 0.9.3
Newer versions run in Linux binary emulation (I should
s/emulation/personality/ though), ok, but you will have
to have a tens-of-megabytes package (the RH 6.2 libraries)
around unless your Moz-Linux binary is fully statically
linked - preferably against a 2.2 or even 2.0 kernel.
I currently work on a pentium-75 notebook that has only
32 MB RAM, thus rendering Linux binaries nearly unusable,
and even BSDI Netscrap 4.7? is sucking slow. Maybe I should
try konq-embedded, but you still need kdelibs for this.
So my solution is, and I am quite happy with this, to use Lynx
and xloadimage for browsing only (even without starting X11).
But _when_ I wish to graphically browse a website, I have no
real option.
*considering Netscrap 3 for BSD/OS* hmmm...
Anyways, I hope the folks at Moz are working to get OpenBSD
on most platforms (minus vax, I suppose, and probably minus
hppa and sparc64) to run.
Many people I know of would like to hear of success.
Nothing against Americans, but I hope they won't, ;)
unless they bring about four million plus their
number jobs with them
Speaking of which, it is quite hard to find not
even a job nowadays, but even places to learn
(Ausbildungsstelle for those who can understand German,
I don't know the word right now).
It only displays me kind of a menu with Lynx...
I fear more and more Americanism get imported to
Germany. If this gets through, rights that were
deeply ingrained into our behaviour change, and
no one will be able to see what's next...
I found that Symlink (http://www.symlink.ch/) has
an article of a member of the German Party SPD
covering this very topic. See there if you understand
German, the article is from this week - dunno
exactly.
Symlink is quite a nice Slashdot on German.
Slightly OT, but: while you're at it, check OpenBSD -
http://www.openbsd.org - out, it is a very fine OS
for desktop and server.
Ok, now to your topic: for upgrading the Slowlaris
boxen (for the Windoze it is possible, too, only
the transfer way differs), first get some boot disc
thingy of your new OS, whether it be GNU/Linux or
BSD. Then you get that boot image, which preferably
consists of a kernel, an initrd (for OpenBSD it's
integrated into the kernel file) and a loader.
Modify the initrd so it automatically gets IP
address from DHCP, makes partitions, filesystems
and untars some archive get over the network to
the target root filesystem.
Then prepare the archive, i.e. a complete install,
and put it to the server.
Put the initrd+kernel and loader somewhere to the
hard disc where the next boot can find it, e.g.
another partition, something available to GRUB,
be improvisating. You'll find a way.
For DOS, there is LoadLin.
Then modify the next boot to load the new OS' loader
instead of the old, or put a
loadlin linux initrd=initdisk.gz
in the autoexec.bat of the DOS boxen.
Then reset the machine. All of this can be done
remotely.
The next boot should load the new OS, the initramdisc,
partition the hard discs, make filesystems and popu-
larize them. Then reboot, and voilá you got it.
I find it quite ok that it is under the LGPL.
;)
This is because my programmes can still be
BSD/MIT/X.net-style licensed, while my modifi-
cations to the library itself must be LGPL, and
thus their source being provided on redistribution.
The whole stuff around the LGPL, such as renaming
from Library to Lesser and having some discussion,
is just around RMS' opinion, all software shall be
"free" as in GNU.
There are different kinds of freedom, which he
neglects. This is ok, because everyone has to draw
his own priorities, but mine are different.
I will not write bad about RMS, it's just that
many people I know of (including myself) think
the GPL is viral and even worse than using, say
shareware.
But the stuff is cool
Real Programmers use Assembly.
I, not a Real Programmer of THAT time (referring
to the Jargon Book), due to my late (1982) birth,
however, favour BASIC in combination with ASM.
And sometimes, when I am done coding some things
in this combination, done debugging (which is one
things I really liked on MS-/DR DOS and hate on
GNU/Linux and OpenBSD), _then_ I have some sexual
feeling right down...
This is no April Joke, because I do not belong to
the culture holding it. I have even a different
date than 01-04.
Thawte does not only integrate nicely into OjE, .pfx (M$ home-brown pkcs#12 extension)
but in nearly any product I've seen.
I for example get my freemail cert via IE, then
export it as
and convert it to PEM via openssl pkcs12.
These files I can use with, e.g. openssl smime.
Thawte's free mail certs are good because they
are free and their root cert is in nearly any known
browser (and IIRC in the openssl source, too).
Pax actually is in the WINNT\SYSTEM32 folder, too.
Rename it to tar.exe or posix.exe and you see it
works as intended, too.
It even has ancient BSD RCSID strings in it.
But heck, where can I download that CD?