<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for A simple matter of...</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog</link>
	<description>Programming?</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on GFS - Goodgrief where&#8217;s the documentation File System by Bernard</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/02/11/gfs-goodgrief-wheres-the-documentation-file-system/#comment-14915</link>
		<dc:creator>Bernard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/02/11/gfs-goodgrief-wheres-the-documentation-file-system/#comment-14915</guid>
		<description>Dear Sir,
         Thanks for putting this online, i was trying to mount gf2 without starting cman, i thought i had a problem with the locking mechanism since lock_nolock was working.

anyway.. thanks again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Sir,</p>
<pre>
        Thanks for putting this online, i was trying to mount gf2 without starting cman, i thought i had a problem with the locking mechanism since lock_nolock was working.
</pre>
<p>anyway.. thanks again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Firefox 3 - security madness by adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/03/25/firefox-3-security-madness/#comment-14693</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/03/25/firefox-3-security-madness/#comment-14693</guid>
		<description>Absolutely.  I'm in the same place - awaiting a few plugins before moving to chrome which has nailed the SSL issue _first_ time - a clear, simple message which you can bypass easily.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely.  I&#8217;m in the same place - awaiting a few plugins before moving to chrome which has nailed the SSL issue _first_ time - a clear, simple message which you can bypass easily.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Firefox 3 - security madness by mayon</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/03/25/firefox-3-security-madness/#comment-14692</link>
		<dc:creator>mayon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2008/03/25/firefox-3-security-madness/#comment-14692</guid>
		<description>I've complained about it at several mozilla sites, with no success or even a slight suggestions how to overcome this SSL stupidity. The real problem - I use to visit a lot of sites where my development software is being installed - every day, new build, you know. And then I'm stuck with clicking, like 20 minutes for the whole day. I used to have the RCE addon, but it doesn't work anymore under Linux, as in 3.6 Mozilla managed to change the screen once again !!! I loved FF before the expansion they did with 3.5 and messed it up with no backwards compatibility like : about:config - disable.ssl.freaking.check=1. I'd soon be forced to leave FF in favor of Chrome, though I have some useful addons, but this is really wasting my time. Some users have convincing me to contact my IT department to use real SSL certificate ? ! Can you imagine that ? Please, give me a chance to shoot myself in the leg, I know what I'm doing. Hellish feature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve complained about it at several mozilla sites, with no success or even a slight suggestions how to overcome this SSL stupidity. The real problem - I use to visit a lot of sites where my development software is being installed - every day, new build, you know. And then I&#8217;m stuck with clicking, like 20 minutes for the whole day. I used to have the RCE addon, but it doesn&#8217;t work anymore under Linux, as in 3.6 Mozilla managed to change the screen once again !!! I loved FF before the expansion they did with 3.5 and messed it up with no backwards compatibility like : about:config - disable.ssl.freaking.check=1. I&#8217;d soon be forced to leave FF in favor of Chrome, though I have some useful addons, but this is really wasting my time. Some users have convincing me to contact my IT department to use real SSL certificate ? ! Can you imagine that ? Please, give me a chance to shoot myself in the leg, I know what I&#8217;m doing. Hellish feature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Getting things done - one year on by adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/01/20/getting-things-done-one-year-on/#comment-14663</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:39:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=333#comment-14663</guid>
		<description>I also use a wiki :-)

I've not thought about using google docs, I do know a wiki works quite nicely - I'm sure google docs can do most of these things too:
- content not style (lists of things to do)
- multi-user editing
- easy to update with minor corrections or amendments
- searchable and works well with links 

One thing I do wonder about is the availability of google docs - it doesn't seem terribly good from what I hear (from several sources).  Also if you need to get hold of your router documentation....  FWIW I actually mirror my sysadmin wiki so that even if a site is wiped out or inaccessible we still have a live copy (in addition to backups)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also use a wiki <img src='http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
I&#8217;ve not thought about using google docs, I do know a wiki works quite nicely - I&#8217;m sure google docs can do most of these things too:<br />
- content not style (lists of things to do)<br />
- multi-user editing<br />
- easy to update with minor corrections or amendments<br />
- searchable and works well with links </p>
<p>One thing I do wonder about is the availability of google docs - it doesn&#8217;t seem terribly good from what I hear (from several sources).  Also if you need to get hold of your router documentation&#8230;.  FWIW I actually mirror my sysadmin wiki so that even if a site is wiped out or inaccessible we still have a live copy (in addition to backups)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Getting things done - one year on by Imran Chaudhry</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/01/20/getting-things-done-one-year-on/#comment-14662</link>
		<dc:creator>Imran Chaudhry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=333#comment-14662</guid>
		<description>Interesting stuff Adrian, I've been meaning to read GTD since a colleague bought it last year. I'm a compulsive list-maker, recently I've moved all my lists into Google Docs spreadsheets.

One thing I'm interested in is how fellow sysadmins document and note their knowledge - most recipes suggest a wiki (eg. mediawiki). I'd like to use Google Docs as it can be available everywhere but there's no "wiki" function in it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff Adrian, I&#8217;ve been meaning to read GTD since a colleague bought it last year. I&#8217;m a compulsive list-maker, recently I&#8217;ve moved all my lists into Google Docs spreadsheets.</p>
<p>One thing I&#8217;m interested in is how fellow sysadmins document and note their knowledge - most recipes suggest a wiki (eg. mediawiki). I&#8217;d like to use Google Docs as it can be available everywhere but there&#8217;s no &#8220;wiki&#8221; function in it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SSL breakage and client verification by adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/ssl-breakage-and-client-verification/#comment-14496</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=334#comment-14496</guid>
		<description>That's my understanding, but I'm certainly no expert :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s my understanding, but I&#8217;m certainly no expert <img src='http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SSL breakage and client verification by Daniel Pope</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/ssl-breakage-and-client-verification/#comment-14494</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Pope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=334#comment-14494</guid>
		<description>Ah, I misunderstood the gist of the bug thread - I read it that the upstream had disabled a little-used feature over security concerns, rather than fixing it. I didn't realise it can't be fixed without changing the TLS protocol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, I misunderstood the gist of the bug thread - I read it that the upstream had disabled a little-used feature over security concerns, rather than fixing it. I didn&#8217;t realise it can&#8217;t be fixed without changing the TLS protocol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SSL breakage and client verification by adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/ssl-breakage-and-client-verification/#comment-14492</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=334#comment-14492</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure I agree - the problem is that there isn't an ideal solution ATM:
- either all your SSL connections are at risk of hijacking
- or SSL client-side verification is broken (which is very, very rarely used)

I'd expect it to be the same case on stable, or Ubuntu, or Fedora,...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I agree - the problem is that there isn&#8217;t an ideal solution ATM:<br />
- either all your SSL connections are at risk of hijacking<br />
- or SSL client-side verification is broken (which is very, very rarely used)</p>
<p>I&#8217;d expect it to be the same case on stable, or Ubuntu, or Fedora,&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SSL breakage and client verification by Daniel Pope</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2010/02/04/ssl-breakage-and-client-verification/#comment-14491</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Pope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/?p=334#comment-14491</guid>
		<description>An elegant reminder of one of the reasons not to use Debian unstable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An elegant reminder of one of the reasons not to use Debian unstable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cloning a Linux machine by adrian</title>
		<link>http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2005/05/16/cloning-a-linux-machine/#comment-14477</link>
		<dc:creator>adrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.smop.co.uk/blog/index.php/2005/05/16/cloning-a-linux-machine/#comment-14477</guid>
		<description>Thanks - fixed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks - fixed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
