headers
jen montserrat | 1 Feb 02:01
Picon

Re: super-restrictive IPtables

80% of those Windoze systems not 0wned, how many actually are but the users
are totally unaware that they are 0wned?

You could run Tinyproxy with Dansguardian and then use the filters in
Dansguardian to restrict where the XP host can go via the web, if at all?
Then use IPTABLES to further restrict.

This is also a configuration from squid to allow windows update that should
be placed at the top of the acl.

acl windowsupdate<http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2008/04/howto-allow-windows-updates-through.html#>dstdomain
windowsupdate.microsoft.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain
.update.microsoft<http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2008/04/howto-allow-windows-updates-through.html#>
.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain download.windowsupdate.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain redir.metaservices.microsoft.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain images.metaservices.microsoft.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain c.microsoft.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain www.download.windowsupdate.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain
wustat.windows<http://linuxpoison.blogspot.com/2008/04/howto-allow-windows-updates-through.html#>
.com
acl windowsupdate dstdomain crl.microsoft.com

acl CONNECT method CONNECT
acl wuCONNECT dstdomain www.update.microsoft.com

http_access allow CONNECT wuCONNECT localnet
http_access allow windowsupdate localnet
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Keith Lofstrom | 1 Feb 07:23
Favicon

Re: super-restrictive IPtables

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 05:01:49PM -0800, jen montserrat wrote:
> You could run Tinyproxy with Dansguardian and then use the filters in
> Dansguardian to restrict where the XP host can go via the web, if at all?
> Then use IPTABLES to further restrict.
> 
> This is also a configuration from squid to allow windows update that should
> be placed at the top of the acl.
...

This is Excellent Stuff, thanks!  I had not thought of filtering
the windoze box through a proxy, a pretty easy solution, thank you
for pointing it out.  I assume that a proxy can be compatable with
AJAX-style active conversations between servers and browsers.

I will look for more tools in the DansGuardian genre.  DG may be
the best, or there may be other filters that are better suited. 
I will be whitelisting rather than blacklisting, with cooperative
users.  The windoze box and the dedicated Alix firewall are the
only machines on that LAN segment.  That simplifies the task.

The proxy/filter tool should run entirely on the firewall, no
change to the windoze box beyond telling it to use the proxy
(no packets will move otherwise).  It would be nice if the
tool can automagically train, with a training on/off switch. 
During training, it accepts (and logs) every outgoing request.
With training disabled, the tool shouldn't talk to anybody new. 
Perhaps Dansguardian can do that.  This is a medical office,
there will be anatomical words and even "nekkid pichers"
going by, so content-based filtering probably won't work.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
jgw | 1 Feb 18:03
Favicon

Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

Greetings PLUGers,
I'm trying to help out a first-time author using OOo Writer 3.2.0 on Ubuntu
10.4 who needs to collaborate with a book editor using MS Word, probably
the 2007 version on Windows 7.  Ideally, the book editor would be using
the "Record Changes" feature in Word, then forwarding it back for the author
to run "Edit>Accept or Reject Changes" on. Probably several rounds of this
sort of thing on an approx. 400 page book.  Alternately, it appears both
programs can also merge differences via the "Compare Files" feature which
avoids having to deal with externally-generated "diffs" as with "Record
Changes".

Anyways, my simple single page tests using the .rtf format were a mixed
bag, sometimes resulting in file corruption.  The .doc format seems to be
more robust over several rounds of changes.  However, there are several
Word versions available under "File>Save As>File Type" and I'm wondering
which is most likely to be best for this project?

OOo "Save As>File Type" choices:

MS Word 6.0 (.doc)
MS Word 95 (.doc)
MS Word 97/2000/XP (.doc)
MS Word 2003 (.xml)
MS Word 2007 (.docx)  ## I think this is read-only so a non-starter

I've not tested OpenDocument Text (.fodt) or DocBook (.xml).

I am aware of the ODF Converter module for MS Office however it didn't
perform well in my tests which featured frequent MS Word (earlier 2000
version) crashes whenever an .odt file was opened.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Rogan Creswick | 1 Feb 19:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM,  <jgw <at> sdf.org> wrote:
> Greetings PLUGers,
> I'm trying to help out a first-time author using OOo Writer 3.2.0 on Ubuntu
> 10.4 who needs to collaborate with a book editor using MS Word, probably
> the 2007 version on Windows 7.  Ideally, the book editor would be using
> the "Record Changes" feature in Word, then forwarding it back for the author
> to run "Edit>Accept or Reject Changes" on. Probably several rounds of this
> sort of thing on an approx. 400 page book.  Alternately, it appears both
> programs can also merge differences via the "Compare Files" feature which
> avoids having to deal with externally-generated "diffs" as with "Record
> Changes".

I can't caution /against/ this enough.

OO has a long and distinguished history or corrupting documents in
many ugly ways.  Often, this corruption only appears once the document
is loaded in Word.  eg: Everything will look peachy to the
linux/OO.org user, then the client (or in this case, publisher) will
see something that looks like it went through a blender.

This might work if you don't have any formatting or images (eg: if
you're essentially sending a text document), but given that Word is
even in the picture, I suspect that that is not the case.

The publisher may offer other formats that are acceptable, such as
LaTeX or DocBook.  Those technologies have strong support on a number
of platforms, and offer a better solution.  If Word is a requirement,
then I strongly recommend setting up a VM with Word installed, and
accessing it via VirtualBox.  It will cost $200-300 in licensing, but
you'll save days of frustration.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard England | 1 Feb 20:03
Favicon

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

Try the latest version that is available and also try LibreOffice 
(www.*libreoffice*.org) There have been numerous changes made since the 
fork to LibreOffice.

FWIW, I regularly use LibreOffice 3.3.4 on my Fedora system to open 
received .docx files for my wife and save them in Word97 .doc files so 
she can edit them. She has been successful sharing these with 
colleagues.  She uses the equation editor, but not the change tracking 
features you mention.  I think investigation would be worth your time.

~~R

On 02/01/2012 09:03 AM, jgw <at> sdf.org wrote:
> Greetings PLUGers,
> I'm trying to help out a first-time author using OOo Writer 3.2.0 on Ubuntu
> 10.4 who needs to collaborate with a book editor using MS Word, probably
> the 2007 version on Windows 7.  Ideally, the book editor would be using
> the "Record Changes" feature in Word, then forwarding it back for the author
> to run "Edit>Accept or Reject Changes" on. Probably several rounds of this
> sort of thing on an approx. 400 page book.  Alternately, it appears both
> programs can also merge differences via the "Compare Files" feature which
> avoids having to deal with externally-generated "diffs" as with "Record
> Changes".
>
> Anyways, my simple single page tests using the .rtf format were a mixed
> bag, sometimes resulting in file corruption.  The .doc format seems to be
> more robust over several rounds of changes.  However, there are several
> Word versions available under "File>Save As>File Type" and I'm wondering
> which is most likely to be best for this project?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Rich Shepard | 1 Feb 23:46
Favicon

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, jgw <at> sdf.org wrote:

> I'm trying to help out a first-time author using OOo Writer 3.2.0 on Ubuntu
> 10.4 who needs to collaborate with a book editor using MS Word, probably
> the 2007 version on Windows 7.

   .doc

Rich
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Rich Shepard | 1 Feb 23:47
Favicon

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, jgw <at> sdf.org wrote:

> MS Word 97/2000/XP (.doc)

   Oops! Didn't see this before my first response. I use this with all my
clients, even when they send me a .docx file.

Rich
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Michael M. Moore | 2 Feb 00:40
Picon

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Richard England <rlengland <at> frontier.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I regularly use LibreOffice 3.3.4 on my Fedora system to open
> received .docx files for my wife and save them in Word97 .doc files so
> she can edit them. She has been successful sharing these with
> colleagues.  She uses the equation editor, but not the change tracking
> features you mention.  I think investigation would be worth your time.

Interesting.  I was just corresponding this morning with a new Ubuntu
user who was telling me that she couldn't find the option to save in
*.doc format in LibreOffice.  I wonder if Ubuntu's version is behind
Fedora and doesn't have that capability, or if she just couldn't find
where to do it?  (I don't know her well, but I get the distinct
impression her computer skills are not highly developed.)  I suggested
to her she might check into installing OpenOffice.org, but perhaps
that isn't necessary.

Michael
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Richard C. Steffens | 2 Feb 01:21
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Best File Format for OOo Writer <=> MS Word Collaboration?

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Richard England<rlengland <at> frontier.com>  wrote:
> Interesting. I was just corresponding this morning with a new Ubuntu 
> user who was telling me that she couldn't find the option to save in 
> *.doc format in LibreOffice. I wonder if Ubuntu's version is behind 
> Fedora and doesn't have that capability, or if she just couldn't find 
> where to do it? (I don't know her well, but I get the distinct 
> impression her computer skills are not highly developed.) I suggested 
> to her she might check into installing OpenOffice.org, but perhaps 
> that isn't necessary.

Could she have been thinking it would be an export type of function 
under the File menu?

Tell her it's in the dialog box that opens when she tells Libre Office 
to save the file. There is a line that says, "File Type" and has a 
little arrowhead pointing to the right. If she clicks on that line the 
arrow head changes to pointing down and there is the list of all the 
available file types. My Ubuntu installation of Libre Office has options 
for saving as a .doc in MS Word 97/2000/XP or MS Word 95. There are also 
options for saving as MS Word 2003 XML (.xml) and MS Word 2007 XML 
(.docx). These are lower in the list, and not adjacent to the .doc 
options. Perhaps that's why she couldn't find .doc.

Another possibility is that she was looking for the way to tell Libre 
Office to always save a file as .doc. This is under the Tools > Options 
menu in the Load/Save section. The extensions are not shown, but the one 
she probably would want is MS Word 97/2000/XP. In this tool all the MS 
file type options are grouped together. It might have been confusing to 
her because the file extensions are not shown.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ken Stephens | 2 Feb 05:35
Favicon

Re: Scanning pci bus

Mike Connors wrote:
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:09:47 -0800
>> From: Ken Stephens<kens <at> cad2cam.com>
>> Subject: [PLUG] Scanning pci bus
>> To: "General Linux/UNIX discussion and help;    civil and on-topic"
>>         <plug <at> lists.pdxlinux.org>
>> Message-ID:<4F22F67B.7020805 <at> cad2cam.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Is there a way to scan the PCI bus for devices not discovered by the
>> kernel?  I have an EEEPC1000 that the Ralink wireless card is not detected.
>>
>> There should be a Ralink NIC in the list somewhere, but isn't.
>>
>>   >uname -r
>> 3.0.0-15-generic
>>
>> --
>> Ken Stephens, SV Aventura, Portland, OR
>>
> Curious if you tried running lspci w. -v, -vv, -vvv or -M options set?
>
>>   -M     Invoke  bus  mapping  mode which performs a thorough scan of all
>>
>>                PCI devices, including those behind misconfigured bridges,
>>>   etc.
>>                This option gives meaningful results only with a direct
>>> hardware
>>                access mode, which usually  requires  root  privileges.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane