I just bought an Ubuntu based Elonex WebBook from Carphone Warehouse.
It may be I have a dodgy network adaptor in the machine (one of the four). When I first set up the new IPCop firewall, I had the same problem, which now seems to have gone away too. Previously I had very bad connectivity with the old firewall, which went away after a few weeks. I think I may have another issue which is muddying the waters as far as my firewall goes. I think I’ll have to move my Subversion server onto my MythTV box which is always on – although I’m now tempted to give GIT a try, which I’ve also heard good things about.
It does have some security improvements over my existing set-up, although it doesn’t double-up very well as a mini server since it only includes the parts of the OS required for a Firewall.
However it was getting out of date (we’re now on Fedora 9) and I heard good things on the Ubuntu UK Podcast about IPCop, a firewall-only Linux distro. I had some traffic shaping and a limited number of ports open. I originally set up a Fedora 5 Linux box which worked reasonably well. channel files in /etc/smart/channels/ and Smart- GUI will pick them up. This went without hitch and in the process, I created some Smart channel files for RPM Fusion, the new third party software repository that merges Dribble, Freshrpms and Livna. There is a long thread on Fedora Forum about it, but after some hacking about and a general failure to get it sorted, I’ve decided to put Smart back on. It had been running nicely for two and a half weeks when an update caused any PackageKit use (even searching) to throw errors like this…įailed to get a TID: A security policy in place prevents this sender from sending this message to this recipient, see message bus configuration file. However, on installation of Fedora 10, I thought I’d give PackageKit a try. Fedora 10 PackageKit Problems | I’d been using the Smart Package Manager instead of the standard Fedora/RedHat offerings for the last couple of years, as it seemed to do a better job of sorting out RPM dependancy problems.
0 kommentar(er)
