September 2013 - luv-main

Proxy submission and acknowledgement
by Les Kitchen 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Hi LUV members, 1. As you certainly know, you can still lodge proxies until 7pm tonight. 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.)

1 0

cheap server for backups
by James Harper 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

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). Any suggestions? Thanks James

3 2

Re: [luv-ctte] Some questions about proxies, etc.
by Daniel Jitnah 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

On Mon, 2013-09-02 at 00:15 +1000, Les Kitchen wrote: Hi Les, > > 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 > Tuesday. > > 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 may be. > > 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. Cheers Daniel. > -- Smiles, Les. > _______________________________________________ > luv-ctte mailing list > luv-ctte(a)luv.asn.au > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-ctte

2 1

checking for stack corruption
by James Harper 01 Sep '13

01 Sep '13

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. Thanks James

3 2