Hi LUV members,
1. As you certainly know, you can still lodge proxies until 7pm
2. For the proxies I've received so far, I've been sending
individual confirmations to the members. I figured it would
be comforting to get acknowledgement that your proxy had been
received, and hadn't disappeared into the aether.
I mention this because I probably won't have time to do this
for any proxies I receive from here on in. So if you send
your proxy now, you probably won't get any explicit
acknowledgement before the AGM. It'll be open-loop.
-- Smiles, Les (as LUV Sec.)
In the past I've been using HP servers with 3rd party components (disks/memory) as these are often well overpriced for the same components with a HP logo on them. The latest round of servers appear to be adopting some technologies from printers and complaining when non-HP components are installed.
I need a tower with similar build quality to a HP that comes with all the caddies etc that is known to run Linux well (it will be a Bacula server).
On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 00:15 +1000, Les Kitchen wrote:
> Oh, about your (Daniel's) LA-linkup resolution: I was going to
> post to luv-main, but I'm too tired to start a new mail message,
> so I'll just dump my thoughts here. I like the spirit of your
> motion, but I'm just worried that it's not debugged yet, and we
> won't be able to even do a proper code walk-through before
> For example, how is the LA rep on the LUV committee chosen? By
> LUV? Or by LA?
In this proposal, all the details are of course the subject of
discussion between interested parties and Member contribution will be
welcome. The actual agreement if we get there will be agreed to by LA
and LUV. Consistent with the spirit, I will suggest that the LA rep
will be appointed by LA and up to them how they decide who that person
> Even though I've been particular about getting the proxies right
> (maybe overly so), in general I think the more things are left
> to informal good sense the better. Codifying can be brittle.
> As I understand it, we already have at least one LA member on
> the LUV committee. (Right, Russell?) And all this has reminded
> me that I really should get around to joining LA myself.
Well I am a Member of LA myself!! And I dont claim to represent LA on
the Ctte. Russell was "elected" the Ctte in his own right, not as a
representative of LA. I mean by a representative, someone authorised by
the LA Council to speak on its behalf and report back to it. The LA
rep position will be guaranteed irrespective of the outcome of the LUV
Ctte election. Of course it's entirely possible for a future the LUV
Ctte to think all this is crap, but then LA will be entitled to renege
on any agreement that may been in place.
> I guess what I'm saying is that almost all we might want to do
> in collaborating with LA we can do organically, without setting
> up a lot of formal machinery.
Absolutely agree here. The formality is only in a one time agreement,
but how that plays itself out on a day to day basis can be as formal or
informal as we like.
> Anyway, must sleep...
Already slept!! haha.
> -- Smiles, Les.
> luv-ctte mailing list
I have a program that keeps crashing. gdb is next to useless as it gives a "generic error" enumerating threads most of the time, and even when it doesn't none of the backtraces make any sense (mostly 0's and random values). It's a heisenbug so the fault cannot be reproduced under valgrind.
Is there any way I can do a reasonableness test on the stack from C/C++? At a minimum I think all I would need to do is get the return address and check that is within a certain range and not null's etc.