From lists at stringsutils.com Wed Sep 1 01:13:57 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:13:57 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Cloud Providers with FreeBSD References: <6459B640-9FA5-4859-A7A0-6FD4F627D513@nomadlogic.org> <20100823025044.GA61659@mail.scottro.net> Message-ID: Matt Juszczak writes: > Thanks for everyone's replies! I'm checking out Arp Networks. http://bsdvm.com The one very interesting point of that provider is that they claim to have free un-metered bandwith. Other than that arp networks seems to have a better deal. From mlists at konjz.org Thu Sep 2 13:00:41 2010 From: mlists at konjz.org (Bruno Scap) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:00:41 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides Message-ID: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> Thank you all for coming, it was a pleasure to have a fun discussion about the many complexities of e-mail infrastructures. http://konjz.org/presentations/Building_E-mail_Infrastructure.pdf From lists at stringsutils.com Fri Sep 3 11:52:16 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:52:16 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides References: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> Message-ID: Bruno Scap writes: > Thank you all for coming, it was a pleasure to have a fun discussion > about the many complexities of e-mail infrastructures. Thanks for the presentation and for the slides. Follow up question to the meeting.. Do you have any customers that do, valid, large mailings? Have you found any service to do whitelisting of your servers? From mlists at konjz.org Fri Sep 3 13:09:21 2010 From: mlists at konjz.org (Bruno Scap) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:09:21 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides In-Reply-To: References: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> Message-ID: <4C812BC1.8050305@konjz.org> On 03/09/2010 11:52 AM, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Bruno Scap writes: > >> Thank you all for coming, it was a pleasure to have a fun discussion >> about the many complexities of e-mail infrastructures. > > Thanks for the presentation and for the slides. > > Follow up question to the meeting.. > Do you have any customers that do, valid, large mailings? Have you found > any service to do whitelisting of your servers? No, we don't have any, but I have some experience in that industry and it is a lot of work to do it right - I'm sure you know. Depending on what the customers want, how clean their lists are, how willing they are to work with you to clean them as mailings go along, and how big part of the business this service is, I think using a separate pool of IPs is a basic requirement. Then they could be rotated for example, and so on. They should also have reverse DNS always working, otherwise the big guys will blacklist them right away.. I haven't looked for whitelisting services, so I am not aware of any. Do you mean a service that would whitelist your IPs and tell for example Yahoo about them? I believe all big guys (AOL, Yahoo, etc.) have such services on their websites, and you can set up what they call a feedback loop. They will then send you automated emails that will help you manage the mailings to their domains. You can also submit IPs to be whitelisted. Bruno From lists at stringsutils.com Fri Sep 3 19:37:39 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:37:39 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides References: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> <4C812BC1.8050305@konjz.org> Message-ID: Bruno Scap writes: > Depending on what the customers want, how clean their lists Even with clean lists it is always a problem. All the mailings I deal with are pretty much guaranteed to be valid users and yet people forget or don't want to be bothered and sometimes mark the emaisl as spam instead of using the unsubscribe option. > Do you mean a service that would whitelist your IPs and tell for example > Yahoo about them? Yes. > I believe all big guys (AOL, Yahoo, etc.) have such services on their > websites, and you can set up what they call a feedback loop. I have tried going directly to the large providers, but it's a pain so I am going to spend the effort more on finding a company to do the whitelisting. From spork at bway.net Sun Sep 5 20:45:52 2010 From: spork at bway.net (Charles Sprickman) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides In-Reply-To: References: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> <4C812BC1.8050305@konjz.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Bruno Scap writes: > >> Depending on what the customers want, how clean their lists > > Even with clean lists it is always a problem. All the mailings I deal with > are pretty much guaranteed to be valid users and yet people forget or don't > want to be bothered and sometimes mark the emaisl as spam instead of using > the unsubscribe option. Correct. Or if you do sign up for feedback loops, you see that lots of people ar just really, really f-ing stupid. I see stuff from AOL, TW, and MSN subs that is clearly personal mail (including responses to resumes, booty calls, and other "important" communication) that the recipient has hit the "MARK AS SPAM" button on. That email then gets forwarded to the FBL owner's abuse box. It's absolutely stunning what people will click the spam button on. I think some simply use it in place of delete. >> Do you mean a service that would whitelist your IPs and tell for example >> Yahoo about them? > > Yes. >> I believe all big guys (AOL, Yahoo, etc.) have such services on their >> websites, and you can set up what they call a feedback loop. Anyone that sends a large quantity of email should have an FBL setup. AOL makes it easy, Hotmail/Live/MSN is a bit of a pain, TW was easy. > > I have tried going directly to the large providers, but it's a pain so I am > going to spend the effort more on finding a company to do the whitelisting. While I don't know of anyone that does that (there are the firms that provide "reputation services"), I can hook you up with a mailing list company that may be able to work with you. They have an API that you can use to send "double opt-in" bulk content, and they have gone to the trouble over the many years I've worked for them to maintain relationships with all the major ISPs. Let me know if you're interested and I'll put you in contact with someone. Thanks, Charles > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk at lists.nycbug.org > http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > From george at ceetonetechnology.com Mon Sep 6 19:56:04 2010 From: george at ceetonetechnology.com (George Rosamond) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:56:04 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] NY Times article on passwds Message-ID: <4C857F94.2030204@ceetonetechnology.com> Kind of interesting. . . http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/business/05digi.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=randall%20stross&st=cse Certainly passwds and related policies aren't everything. Lockout policies, ssh keys, etc., certainly matter. The open questions to me, though: 1. Cracking passwds remains a common method (the most?) of accessing systems without authorization. And it's not only via brute forcing. Acquaintances are also an issue for many end-users, I'd guess. 2. With that in mind, it's been said, probably by Schneier, that technical security is the only war in which the civilians are on the front lines. Now, they're not the only ones on the front lines, of course, but they are the most common threat for network. And that includes sloppy devs and sysadmins with access they don't appreciate. 3. Why would you discourage people from using better security practices? Consciously stupid passwds could easily mean that the lockout policy is irrelevant. 4. And for the online service providers that don't require passwd complexity, I'd bet they approach it on the cost-benefit angle. Individual accounts get cracked? Oh, well. It's not a high-publicized case. We'd rather deal with the fall-out through the molasses-dripping like customer service process, instead of costing us an arm and a leg with customers forgetting and reforgetting complex passwds. Sort of like Lee Iaccoca and Ford deciding it was cheaper to settle the exploding Pintos in and out of court instead of doing a recall. 5. Run a crack on thousands of logins with two common passwds. . . who cares about lock policies? g From spork at bway.net Wed Sep 8 03:36:02 2010 From: spork at bway.net (Charles Sprickman) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:36:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine Message-ID: Hi all, Not much more to it than that... I've had a cursory look at both and the really huge thing for me is having the ability for a config engine to understand jails. If I weren't using jails, I could keep getting by without any configuration manager. But with jails I'm now looking at upwards of 30 "hosts" and growing, which is not easy to manage. One of our biggest reasons for throwing stuff in jails is portability. We have an odd mixture of hardware, varying amounts of work per jail, and a need to be able to shuffle jails from host to host should we either have a hardware failure or capacity issues that demand a move of a jail to beefier hardware. If either puppet or cfengine can both understand jails and be able to tie a jail and some host config options together (ie: an alias on an interface on the host is "connected" to a particular jail), I will be all over that. Any general jail/config management info more than welcome as well... Thanks, Charles From edlinuxguru at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 10:04:17 2010 From: edlinuxguru at gmail.com (Edward Capriolo) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:04:17 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote: > Hi all, > > Not much more to it than that... ?I've had a cursory look at both and the > really huge thing for me is having the ability for a config engine to > understand jails. > > If I weren't using jails, I could keep getting by without any > configuration manager. ?But with jails I'm now looking at upwards of 30 > "hosts" and growing, which is not easy to manage. ?One of our biggest > reasons for throwing stuff in jails is portability. ?We have an odd > mixture of hardware, varying amounts of work per jail, and a need to be > able to shuffle jails from host to host should we either have a hardware > failure or capacity issues that demand a move of a jail to beefier > hardware. > > If either puppet or cfengine can both understand jails and be able to tie > a jail and some host config options together (ie: an alias on an interface > on the host is "connected" to a particular jail), I will be all over that. > > Any general jail/config management info more than welcome as well... > > Thanks, > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk at lists.nycbug.org > http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > Interesting topic. To be clear, you do not want to run puppet/cfengine inside the jail? That is probably the preferred way. I have quick define that lets me create vserver jails with puppet. define make_vserver($vname, $hostname, $ip, $distro) { exec { "/usr/sbin/vserver $vname build -m template --hostname $hostname --interface eth0:$ip/24 -- -d $distro -t /vservers/Cent5-x86-vs.tar.gz": unless => "/usr/bin/test -d /vservers/$vname", } } Usage looks like this: make_vserver { cas2: vname => "cas2", hostname => "cas2.mydomain.com" , ip => "10.10.12.2", distro => "centos5" } For puppet you could make modules like File or package and add jail based information: service { "cassandra": enable => true, ensure => running, require => File["/etc/init.d/cassandra"] } Becomes something like: jail_service { "cassandra": jail => "serverhostnamehere" enable => true, ensure => running, require => File["/etc/init.d/cassandra"] } Maybe a better solution then this exists out there, but I think building modules like the jail_service I described would not be very difficult. From matt at atopia.net Wed Sep 8 17:32:18 2010 From: matt at atopia.net (Matt Juszczak) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] AD <-> LDAP Message-ID: Hi folks, I have a bit of a theory question here, and I'd like to get people's opinion. We have about 10 Windows servers, and about 200 *nix servers. The Windows servers are Active Directory, but the *nix servers aren't central auth quite yet (we're working on it). In any event, we're currently using an OpenLDAP setup to store Puppet node configuration, sudo info, internal DNS, and authentication for the *nix instances tied into the "new standardized setup". However, there's one negative - the Windows servers use AD for authentication, and the *nix boxes use the OpenLDAP servers for authentication, and they aren't tied together. There's been some talk about removing the OpenLDAP instances, and tying all 200 *nix instances into the Active Directory servers with Winbind. In order to get rid of the OpenLDAP instances entirely, I'd also have to move the puppet, powerdns, etc. schema into Active Directory as well. I suppose the OpenLDAP instances could just be kept up to store puppet and internal DNS info. To be honest, this option scares me, as I'd much rather have a sync script that syncs accounts from AD -> OpenLDAP, and keep the native OpenLDAP authentication going (which will also continue to store the puppet node configuration, sudoers info, and internal DNS). However, if there are people on here who have had positive experiences with this, I'd love to hear them so my mind can change, as there's definitely pressure to completely stick with AD for everything, and utilize Winbind to link the 200 *nix boxes to central authentication. Thanks, Matt From edlinuxguru at gmail.com Wed Sep 8 17:47:44 2010 From: edlinuxguru at gmail.com (Edward Capriolo) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:47:44 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] AD <-> LDAP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Matt Juszczak wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have a bit of a theory question here, and I'd like to get people's > opinion. > > We have about 10 Windows servers, and about 200 *nix servers. ?The Windows > servers are Active Directory, but the *nix servers aren't central auth quite > yet (we're working on it). ?In any event, we're currently using an OpenLDAP > setup to store Puppet node configuration, sudo info, internal DNS, and > authentication for the *nix instances tied into the "new standardized > setup". ?However, there's one negative - the Windows servers use AD for > authentication, and the *nix boxes use the OpenLDAP servers for > authentication, and they aren't tied together. > > There's been some talk about removing the OpenLDAP instances, and tying all > 200 *nix instances into the Active Directory servers with Winbind. In order > to get rid of the OpenLDAP instances entirely, I'd also have to move the > puppet, powerdns, etc. schema into Active Directory as well. ?I suppose the > OpenLDAP instances could just be kept up to store puppet and internal DNS > info. > > To be honest, this option scares me, as I'd much rather have a sync script > that syncs accounts from AD -> OpenLDAP, and keep the native OpenLDAP > authentication going (which will also continue to store the puppet node > configuration, sudoers info, and internal DNS). ?However, if there are > people on here who have had positive experiences with this, I'd love to hear > them so my mind can change, as there's definitely pressure to completely > stick with AD for everything, and utilize Winbind to link the 200 *nix boxes > to central authentication. > > Thanks, > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk at lists.nycbug.org > http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk > I know some people who have lifted the schema restrictions on Active Directory and just went to town on it, adding sudo schema etc. http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.2/admin/html/Windows_Sync.html I can not say I have tried it but the literature claims two way synchronization. I have administered many iplanet,389,RHDS (whatever you want to call it) instances and have had great luck with the complex features like the Multi-Master replication. I know you were probably not looking to dump OpenLDAP, but when faced with dumping OpenLDAP or linux. 389/RHDS might be able to give you what you need. As you mentioned there is always "code it yourself options" From lists at stringsutils.com Sat Sep 11 00:21:33 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:21:33 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Building E-mail Infrastructure Slides References: <4C7FD839.90407@konjz.org> <4C812BC1.8050305@konjz.org> Message-ID: Charles Sprickman writes: > Anyone that sends a large quantity of email should have an FBL setup. AOL > makes it easy, Hotmail/Live/MSN is a bit of a pain, TW was easy. Our biggest pain is Yahoo. > provide "reputation services"), I can hook you up with a mailing list > company that may be able to work with you. They have an API that you can > use to send "double opt-in" bulk content, and they have gone to the > trouble over the many years I've worked for them to maintain relationships > with all the major ISPs. Sure. Doesn't hurt to talk to them. Send me the info. Thanks. From lists at stringsutils.com Sat Sep 11 10:59:32 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:59:32 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine References: Message-ID: Edward Capriolo writes: > Interesting topic. To be clear, you do not want to run puppet/cfengine > inside the jail? That is probably the preferred way. Waiting on Charles to clarify... but I would think that running it from the jail is the right way, specially since he mentioned portability as a concern. That way if a jail is moved it will get the puppet/cfengine bits moved with it. From lists at stringsutils.com Sat Sep 11 11:08:47 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 11:08:47 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] NY Times article on passwds References: <4C857F94.2030204@ceetonetechnology.com> Message-ID: George Rosamond writes: > 3. Why would you discourage people from using better security > practices? Consciously stupid passwds could easily mean that the > lockout policy is irrelevant. Even with lockout policies if someone uses 'password' as their password even with lockouts, there is a good chance the account will get hacked. > like customer service process, instead of costing us an arm and a leg > with customers forgetting and reforgetting complex passwds. Sort of > like Lee Iaccoca and Ford deciding it was cheaper to settle the > exploding Pintos in and out of court instead of doing a recall. And sadly, that is likely a valid thought. However, even those places that are lax on their password policy I would think they should at least have a list of words they don't allow as passwords. > 5. Run a crack on thousands of logins with two common passwds. . . who > cares about lock policies? Before I switched ssh from 22 to another port I used to see daily attempts on the logs to hundreds of different user accounts. So I think that scenario, try lots of different users, is a common practice. From spork at bway.net Sun Sep 12 22:14:30 2010 From: spork at bway.net (Charles Sprickman) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:14:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Edward Capriolo writes: > >> Interesting topic. To be clear, you do not want to run puppet/cfengine >> inside the jail? That is probably the preferred way. > > Waiting on Charles to clarify... but I would think that running it from the > jail is the right way, specially since he mentioned portability as a concern. > That way if a jail is moved it will get the puppet/cfengine bits moved with > it. I've sort of mashed two questions into one. For files inside the jail, running cfengine/puppet inside it makes sense. But the other part of the question is on the host hosting the jails, can either of these tools handle configuring the jail and see it as something of an "entity" that can be moved amongst hosts. There is some overlap where it would be helpful if the two environments could be tied together - for example changing the IP of the jail involves changes on the host (interface, firewall) as well as the jail (any config files that reference that IP). I might be overestimating what these tools can do, I was running with the assumption that either of them can do things like tie together interface aliases and instances of that IP occurring in config files... Thanks, Charles From george at ceetonetechnology.com Mon Sep 13 22:55:55 2010 From: george at ceetonetechnology.com (George Rosamond) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:55:55 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] BSD Talk Message-ID: <4C8EE43B.4050108@ceetonetechnology.com> FYI, Mark Saad and GNN did an interview with Will about the conference. http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/ Registration and schedule should be released this week. g From lists at stringsutils.com Mon Sep 13 23:35:11 2010 From: lists at stringsutils.com (Francisco Reyes) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:35:11 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine References: Message-ID: Charles Sprickman writes: > question is on the host hosting the jails, can either of these tools > handle configuring the jail and see it as something of an "entity" that > can be moved amongst hosts. I am a puppet newbie myself.. but so far from the little I have looked into it I think it would be difficult to configure anything with puppet on the host hosting the jail. I think it may be possible to do something with the jail itself. For example something along the lines of a jail defaulting to DHCP and then having puppet/cfengine getting whatever setup files the jail needs. Although it may be possible my first impression is that it would not be easy. > helpful if the two environments could be tied together - for example > changing the IP of the jail involves changes on the host (interface, > firewall) as well as the jail (any config files that reference that IP). I can't see how it would be done with a program like puppet/cfengine. It is more than just "pushing" files and starting process. You are basically looking into what for all intent and purposes are different machines and coordinating actions based on information retrieved from the machines. > assumption that either of them can do things like tie together interface > aliases and instances of that IP occurring in config files... I think they may do that, but how does that tie back to the machine hosting the jails? I guess the part I don't believe would be easy to implement is the jail to host communication. I think an in-house/custome made program would be needed for that. Have you tried asking in either of those programs mailing lists? From edlinuxguru at gmail.com Tue Sep 14 10:19:45 2010 From: edlinuxguru at gmail.com (Edward Capriolo) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:19:45 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] jails: puppet vs. cfengine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote: > Charles Sprickman writes: > >> question is on the host hosting the jails, can either of these tools >> handle configuring the jail and see it as something of an "entity" that can >> be moved amongst hosts. > > I am a puppet newbie myself.. but so far from the little I have looked into > it I think it would be difficult to configure anything with puppet on the > host hosting the jail. I think it may be possible to do something with the > jail itself. > > For example something along the lines of a jail defaulting to DHCP and then > having puppet/cfengine getting whatever setup files the jail needs. > > Although it may be possible my first impression is that it would not be > easy. > >> helpful if the two environments could be tied together - for example >> changing the IP of the jail involves changes on the host (interface, >> firewall) as well as the jail (any config files that reference that IP). > > I can't see how it would be done with a program like puppet/cfengine. It is > more than just "pushing" files and starting process. You are basically > looking into what for all intent and purposes are different machines and > coordinating actions based on information retrieved from the machines. > >> >> assumption that either of them can do things like tie together interface >> aliases and instances of that IP occurring in config files... > > I think they may do that, but how does that tie back to the machine hosting > the jails? I guess the part I don't believe would be easy to implement is > the jail to host communication. I think an in-house/custome made program > would be needed for that. > > Have you tried asking in either of those programs mailing lists? > You should check out puppet modules. http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/Puppet_Modules Including the puppet puppet module. http://github.com/lak/puppet-puppet And the xen module. git://oppermannen.com/modules/xen.git/ Both puppet and cfengine do not have built in capabilities to manage jails, but in the end all these tools "really" do is manage files, and packages. So if you can figure out a way to turn your problem into a bunch of files that puppet can manage you have the problem solved. Edward From mark.saad at ymail.com Wed Sep 15 12:32:56 2010 From: mark.saad at ymail.com (Mark Saad) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] NPF - New NetBSD Packet Filter Message-ID: <335787.17544.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hey Talk I saw this on os-news today and it sounds interesting. As usual the comments on Osnews are fun. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2010/09/13/msg000110.html http://www.osnews.com/comments/23810 -- Mark Saad mark.saad at ymail.com From george at ceetonetechnology.com Fri Sep 17 11:53:25 2010 From: george at ceetonetechnology.com (George Rosamond) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:53:25 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] NYCBSDCon status Message-ID: <4C938EF5.5030801@ceetonetechnology.com> A few things to note. 1. The schedule and presentations have been posted. We are very happy with the content, and are excited that we'll have a great con for 2010. 2. We are waiting on registration to be ready to fully publicize, as we have a broad general announce for the presentations and registration. 3. We also have an announce for those interested in building the conference. That email will be sent to our nycbug announce list also. 4. With an increase in costs this year, we were worried about keeping the early registration fee at $95 as in the past. However, some big sponsors came through, and with the commitments, $95 is the price again. And it again includes breakfast and lunch for Saturday and Sunday. Remarkable to think you can be at 13 great technical presentations, each four meals and get that kind of conference experience in NYC. Lots of things are happening around the conference right now. Sponsors, publicity planning, brochure and badge creation, etc. If you want to be involved in the discussions and in organizing the conference, we strongly recommend you join the nycbsdcon list at lists.nycbug.org Thanks g From george at ceetonetechnology.com Tue Sep 21 15:28:59 2010 From: george at ceetonetechnology.com (George Rosamond) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:28:59 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] NYCBSDCon 2010 registration is open Message-ID: <4C99077B.8000605@ceetonetechnology.com> Here's the announce. Please circulate far and wide. Blog it. Forward it. Get it out there. * * * The New York City *BSD User Group is proud to announce the opening of registration for NYCBSDCon 2010. NYCBSDCon is the main technical conference for the BSD projects on the US East Coast. It will be held from November 13th to 14th, opening with a social event on the evening of November 12th. This year's venue is New York's prestigious Cooper Union, located in the heart of downtown Manhattan. Past conferences were held in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Early registration will be open until November 1, and we strongly encourage potential attendees to take advantage of the low entry fee of $95. The conference cost covers over a dozen technical presentations on an array of topics related to the BSDs. Additionally, breakfast and lunch will be provided for both Saturday and Sunday sessions. A number of "birds-of-a-feather" sessions are also planned. NYCBSDCon is organized by the New York City *BSD User Group. After November 1st, the registration fee will increase to $125 until November 12th, when the fee will increase to $150. To register, please visit: http://www.nycbsdcon.org/2010/register.html A strong program of speakers is lined up for NYCBSDCon 2010, with topics covering security, networking and development. You can see the current schedule by visiting: http://www.nycbsdcon.org/2010/schedule.html Full descriptions of the presentations are at: http://www.nycbsdcon.org/2010/presentations.html We are proud to have NYCBSDCon 2010's backend finances handled by BSD Fund, a US 501(c)(3). Any conference profits will go back to the BSD projects. The conference organizers are thankful to the sponsors who make the event possible. Current premier sponsors include About.com, Isilon Systems, Marvell Micro Semiconductor Inc, New York Internet and ixSystems. Additional sponsors include the FreeBSD Foundation, the publisher Pearson and the pfSense project, in addition to a number of other small businesses. From jschauma at netmeister.org Tue Sep 21 15:57:25 2010 From: jschauma at netmeister.org (Jan Schaumann) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:57:25 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] NYCBSDCon 2010 registration is open In-Reply-To: <4C99077B.8000605@ceetonetechnology.com> References: <4C99077B.8000605@ceetonetechnology.com> Message-ID: <20100921195724.GA5937@netmeister.org> George Rosamond wrote: > Here's the announce. Please circulate far and wide. Blog it. Forward > it. Get it out there. Tweet it! :-) https://twitter.com/#!/jschauma/status/25147010145 -Jan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skreuzer at exit2shell.com Sat Sep 25 23:09:49 2010 From: skreuzer at exit2shell.com (Steven Kreuzer) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 23:09:49 -0400 Subject: [nycbug-talk] Speaker for ACM meeting at Cooper Message-ID: <9D8FD695-6E28-4F56-87C0-A334D4D86D8F@exit2shell.com> Would anyone be interested in giving a short talk about BSD Unix to members of the ACM/IEEE group at Cooper Union? A few folks from NYCBUG will be meeting with both groups on October 5th at noon. We would like to have a large number of Cooper students so up at NYCBSDCon and the first step is to meet with them to give them a little background on what BSD Unix really is, its history etc Email admin at nycbug.org if you are available and interested. Thanks From matt at atopia.net Mon Sep 27 11:44:22 2010 From: matt at atopia.net (Matt Juszczak) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nycbug-talk] Off Topic: Journey for Justin Message-ID: Hi folks, I don't like to spam these lists too often, but I know that many of you are residents of New Jersey and also know me personally. A friend/business partner/colleague recently came down with a very rare combination of cancer at age 26: a Germ Cell tumor plus Leukemia. He's a United States citizen, but had been living in Hong Kong, so unfortunately his Hong Kong health insurance isn't covering the treatment he's receiving in the States. We've put together a website/association for him - http://www.journeyforjustin.com. For those in New Jersey, we're having a lunch (casual, no specific plan) on October 9th in Central Jersey. If any of you like Italian food, it's actually quite a good deal. Thanks for your few seconds of distraction :) -Matt