|
i think puppylinux is also an OS. whats wrong in posting here?. is there any limitations to post threads?
|
|
|
|
|
prathuraj wrote: i think puppylinux is also an OS. whats wrong in posting here?
If you ask a question here about anything Non-Microsoft based you're probably not going to get any help. Honestly I don't care what OS you use, I am willing to help either way. But in this case I know nothing about Puppy Linux and therefor can't help much.
Try the Puppy Linux Forum if you need some help.
Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before.
Neo: That's why it's going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in using the best, most qualified, and focused resources to get my questions answered. If I have PuppyLinux questions, I go find a PuppyLinux forum. It's that simple. The odds of someone knowing anything about PuppyLinux are MUCH MUCH greater.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: If I have PuppyLinux questions, I go find a PuppyLinux forum. It's that simple. The odds of someone knowing anything about PuppyLinux are MUCH MUCH greater.
Now, now... That's too sensible and rational an answer.
|
|
|
|
|
What was I thinking?? 
|
|
|
|
|
what is acpi? whats the difference in adding acpi-off in syslinux file? pls explain me
Arise Awake Stop Not Till ur Goal is Reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACPI primarily controls on-board interfaces at the motherboard by detecting when they are idle and reducing or disconnecting power from them until the OS calls the related services. If you have ACPI enabled, and are running an OS that attempts to control power saving itself, sometimes there is a conflict. Windows 2000 and earlier were famous for screwing up computers with ACPI capability because there were two incompatible schemes trying to control the same functions. The soultion was to disable ACPI in BIOS and let Windows handle it. If you are running a version of Linux that has power conservation functions built in, you may find it works more reliably when acpi-off is specified.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
|
|
|
|
|
Every hour on the hour the application I'm working on loses focus. I'll be typing away and all of the sudden... nothing! It's enough to make your eye start twitching after a while.
I'm not sure why this is happening, but I'm pretty sure it's Zone Alarm running a scan of my computer. Why they would set it up so that your current application loses focus I'll never understand. Something seems fishy. Perhaps I have some sort of trojan on my machine.
Two questions: a) has this ever happened to you or have you heard about it? b) what do you think I should do to fix it?
Thanks for your help.
"Go to, I’ll no more on’t; it hath made me mad." - Hamlet
|
|
|
|
|
Ive never heard of anything like that. And I don't know why some program would do so either.
It could be possible that zonealarm would be doing it, sometimes i use ZA for testing things, but its never happend to me.
It could also be some virus/trojan/malware etc. Try scanning the computer, if you dont use a antivirus program check out avast, its free for home/personal use. If you already are using a antivirus program which doesnt detect anything, try doing a free online virus scan, avaliable from TrendMicro (Housecall) and some other companies like Kaspersky. (no antivirus will detect all virri)
Also, see what happens in safemode, if it occurs under safemode its probably windows, if not then it may be some other app
Hope this helps
//Johannes
|
|
|
|
|
I have had this issue and yes, it is what you think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi folks!
Did you ever use System Console Software?
If no, try it now. Very interesting approach to scalable and amazing features for every day (more info: www.syscon.tsoftech.com ).
|
|
|
|
|
Well nothing is better than self made computer tools!!!
To follow the path, Walk with the MASTER, See through the MASTER, Be the MASTER!
|
|
|
|
|
when i boot puppy linux from usb drive it was hang after i type xwin it will booted what is a problem.how can i overcome this.please help me.
|
|
|
|
|
Please refer to my reply to your last question.
Trinity: Neo... nobody has ever done this before.
Neo: That's why it's going to work.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I hope someone can help me out here, I need to decrypt a password a RC5 128 bit password, it's a Citrix app, I could change it, but it would be a major thing for me.
Thanks
Kim
|
|
|
|
|
helbo wrote: I could change it, but it would be a major thing for me.
That's nowhere near as hard as trying to crack this password. Change it. You won't find anyone here to help you crack a password. This is because we have no way of knowing what this password is really used for, whether it's really yours or not, or ...
And none of us wants to leave ourselves open to a lawsuit for helping you breech anyones security, no matter how "well intentioned".
|
|
|
|
|
ok, I understand.
The reason is that the password is an old password, and the employee has left the company, and the password is integrated into a lot of Citrix clients all over the world.
but is it possible to decrypt a RC5 128 bit?
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's possible. It just takes an awful lot of horsepower and brute-force guessing of the password.
|
|
|
|
|
how to move a string to register in assembly language.
say mov si, msg; where msg = "hello"; pls help me
Arise Awake Stop Not Till ur Goal is Reached.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't put a string into a register. All you can do is put the address of the string in a register.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume that you want to load the si register with the address of a string. Please use accurate language, especially when talking about assembly language. In Win32 you should use esi and not si:
char* sp_ptr="hello!";
_asm {
mov esi,sp_ptr
}
Rilhas
|
|
|
|
|
How do you he's not doing it on a 286? 
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, I don't! 
As you can see from his post if we want to give help right away then we have to make a lot of assumptions! I assumed Win32 (could be LINUX, or any other OS), assembly inside C (could be assembly only, why not?), 386+ code, _asm directive availability, and C-style strings (as oposed to VB strings, for example), and possibly more which I didn't even realize! The alternative would be not to give any help right away.
Anyway, my post still stands as I was giving an example for Win32 which is most comonly used with Intel 386+ processors (I don't think there is any Win32 version that can run on a 286).
Rilhas
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah. I'm not bashing your post at all. It was just a litle jab at what you mentioned here. The mountain of assumptions we all-to-often have to make to answer what they think is a simple question.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
