A copy of Nick's "404" post in my private mail box jogged my memory that I had started a scan for broken links on this web-site, and was interested to see if any progress had been made... Unfortunately no from the scan just started... Within a relatively short time I had 52 broken links and aborted. The vast majority fell into just a few types :-
404 - the majority
Links to sites other than clearos that do not exist or provide a 403 or 503 response
Pages with no text or no response whatsoever
Also notable was the number of retires required - presumably the clearos site taking too much time to respond....
As users we can only speculate why this is so. Maybe...
Not enough staff
Staff lacking the skills, education, experience
Poor morale - lack of motivation - poor management
Poor design/planning of the site producing a maintenance nightmare
Poor choice/inadequate function of software
others not listed above or a combination thereof....
Surely this is frustrating ClearOS users and possibly driving potential customers away.
It damages the reputation that ClearOS has deservedly built up over the years... a real shame.
Also on this documentation page the "Old Clearfoundation Guides" link 404's.
This clearos site riddled with 404s. I ran a little utility that scans a website for broken links. Within a minute I had 18 and still going. I killed it at that point. Why the clearos site admins cannot do something similar and clean up their act, only they can answer...
OK - I accept that the Forum Software is to blame and naturally understand you were doing this to help - Peace :-)
I believe the forum software should automatically add something like "Edited by Bill Bloggs on 12/12/15" when any post is edited by anyone other than the original creator. Having the ability to change some-one else's words with no indication it has happened seems to me completely wrong. I doubt whether it would happen, but I guess it could go legal if someone got upset enough over a changed append they now considered it to misrepresented them and what they originally wrote.
Nick apology accepted - but please, if you modify someone's append, then have the courtesy of adding some words explaining what and why for example.
At the moment my appends make me look like an idiot complaining about a problem that doesn't apparently exist, if you judge by my "supposed" test results. Those test results are in fact, now invalid and fake, following those edits....
Michael- when I click on your link I get :-
This topic does not exist yet
You've followed a link to a topic that doesn't exist yet. If permissions allow, you may create it by clicking on “Create this page”.
So I'll do my test again...
Cannot see how do a preview (plase tell me) - so will have to reply and see what it looks like :-(
The only forum I monitor now is this one, on an irregular basis, to ascertain if the problems are rectified. It seems the only people who care are those who are powerless to make any changes; and those who do have the power, cannot for whatever reason, exercise it :-( As a result of this lack of professionalism in the management of the forum software, and the very slow response times, I have lost all desire to install and test Version 7. It's just not good use of my time any longer. There are more than enough other projects to keep me busy... The ones I feel sorry for are the developers. Sorry Peter, Ben and the rest. If there is a radical change - then I will re-consider. Bye for now...
P.S. Code tag test once again to see if something as simple as this has been fixed...
Response time is still woeful. It really shows at the moment as I am in hospital (4th hospital and 4th operation so far this year) and using their patient WiFi network. Other sites are still reasonable, but this one often just times out with a blank screen.
and this is a test to see if the code tag problem has been fixed.... (dropping spaces already reported).
The way it seems to work is the first time it runs you can access on http: port 3000
or https: port 3001 on any address so you can configure. After that initial run it will
only open ports as per /etc/ntop.conf. You missed that opportunity as a result of the
start/stop problems. At least that's the way it appeared to me.
However all is not lost. Just edit /etc/ntop.conf manually. Mine is below. As you can
see I only allow https: access on one address and only local for http:
John, Could be my mistake and not yours
I was assuming he wanted to run the actual ethtool command from my reading of his append as I
stated in my response. I may have got the wrong impression. However, if he just wants to imbed
the ethtool parameters, then yours is the more elegant solution.
As is often the case with Linux - there is more than one solution...