<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Avaktavyam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam</link>
	<description>Some things just can't be expressed...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by Maese.Oli</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9589</link>
		<dc:creator>Maese.Oli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9589</guid>
		<description>Your update works great!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your update works great!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by Louis-Dominique</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9465</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis-Dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9465</guid>
		<description>Andrew, thanks for the feedback. I&#039;m glad people are still finding the script useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew, thanks for the feedback. I&#8217;m glad people are still finding the script useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by andrewm</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9464</link>
		<dc:creator>andrewm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9464</guid>
		<description>Hi, I just wanted to say that I came across your script and have successfully converted my revelation password database.  Many thanks for taking the time to write this, and also to the other contributors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I just wanted to say that I came across your script and have successfully converted my revelation password database.  Many thanks for taking the time to write this, and also to the other contributors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by Louis-Dominique</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9015</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis-Dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9015</guid>
		<description>Thank your for sharing, jendrek.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank your for sharing, jendrek.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by Louis-Dominique</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9014</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis-Dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9014</guid>
		<description>Oops. It seems I forgot to comment. Let me fix this omission: 

Thank you, Oleg, for sharing your changes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops. It seems I forgot to comment. Let me fix this omission: </p>
<p>Thank you, Oleg, for sharing your changes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on bochs vs qemu by Louis-Dominique</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2006/02/15/bochs-vs-qemu/comment-page-1#comment-9013</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis-Dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=102#comment-9013</guid>
		<description>Let me clarify a few things:

1. You are commenting on a post which is over 4 years old (almost 5).

2. VirtualBox was not released when the post was composed. (Wikipedia shows a first release date for VirtualBox of January 15, 2007, almost a year later than my post.)

3. kqemu and qvm86, which I mention in my post, are virtualization modules for qemu. That is, qemu by default emulates but if qemu is used with these modules, it virtualizes. So the difference between VirtualBox and qemu is not one of virtualization vs emulation, since qemu can both emulate and virtualize.

4. Since writing this post, I moved from qemu+kqemu to kvm and then to VirtualBox. The reason I moved to VirtualBox was not virtualization because I already had that with kvm (and even with qemu+kqemu) but some additional features of VirtualBox and its user-friendliness.

5. Here is a better explanation of the difference between emulation and virtualization. In emulation each instruction which is to be executed by the virtual CPU must be translated into a series of instructions on the host CPU. Even if the virtual CPU and the host CPU are the same architecture, this translation must be performed. When the virtual CPU and host CPU are the same architecture, this translation is a net loss in performance. (When the virtual CPU and host CPU are different architectures, emulation can actually result in a gain over running a physical version of the CPU being emulated if it so happens that it is an architecture which in the models historically produced were much slower than the host CPU. This happens sometimes when running emulations of old game consoles.) In virtualization, most instructions to be executed on the virtual CPU can be directly executed on the host CPU if it happens that the two CPUs share the same architecture or if there is special hardware on the host CPU to accomplish this vritualization. (I am speaking in the general case. In general, it is possible to create a CPU with hardware providing virtualization support for an architecture very different than its own.) Some instructions might still need emulation.

So VirtualBox may beat bochs because VirtualBox virtualizes whereas bochs does not (and it does not seem to have evolved). But it is not the case that VirtualBox beats qemu &lt;em&gt;because of virtualization&lt;/em&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me clarify a few things:</p>
<p>1. You are commenting on a post which is over 4 years old (almost 5).</p>
<p>2. VirtualBox was not released when the post was composed. (Wikipedia shows a first release date for VirtualBox of January 15, 2007, almost a year later than my post.)</p>
<p>3. kqemu and qvm86, which I mention in my post, are virtualization modules for qemu. That is, qemu by default emulates but if qemu is used with these modules, it virtualizes. So the difference between VirtualBox and qemu is not one of virtualization vs emulation, since qemu can both emulate and virtualize.</p>
<p>4. Since writing this post, I moved from qemu+kqemu to kvm and then to VirtualBox. The reason I moved to VirtualBox was not virtualization because I already had that with kvm (and even with qemu+kqemu) but some additional features of VirtualBox and its user-friendliness.</p>
<p>5. Here is a better explanation of the difference between emulation and virtualization. In emulation each instruction which is to be executed by the virtual CPU must be translated into a series of instructions on the host CPU. Even if the virtual CPU and the host CPU are the same architecture, this translation must be performed. When the virtual CPU and host CPU are the same architecture, this translation is a net loss in performance. (When the virtual CPU and host CPU are different architectures, emulation can actually result in a gain over running a physical version of the CPU being emulated if it so happens that it is an architecture which in the models historically produced were much slower than the host CPU. This happens sometimes when running emulations of old game consoles.) In virtualization, most instructions to be executed on the virtual CPU can be directly executed on the host CPU if it happens that the two CPUs share the same architecture or if there is special hardware on the host CPU to accomplish this vritualization. (I am speaking in the general case. In general, it is possible to create a CPU with hardware providing virtualization support for an architecture very different than its own.) Some instructions might still need emulation.</p>
<p>So VirtualBox may beat bochs because VirtualBox virtualizes whereas bochs does not (and it does not seem to have evolved). But it is not the case that VirtualBox beats qemu <em>because of virtualization</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on bochs vs qemu by Adam</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2006/02/15/bochs-vs-qemu/comment-page-1#comment-9012</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:31:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=102#comment-9012</guid>
		<description>VirtualBox beats both of these, as it is a virtualizer, as opposed to an emulator.

Emulation is when the actual CPU of a machine is emulated. It is slow due to all of the low-level simulation of the CPU.

Virtualization, comparatively, uses the underlying hardware available through drivers that shepard calls by the virtualized OS to the host. This is far faster due to not actually emulating the CPU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VirtualBox beats both of these, as it is a virtualizer, as opposed to an emulator.</p>
<p>Emulation is when the actual CPU of a machine is emulated. It is slow due to all of the low-level simulation of the CPU.</p>
<p>Virtualization, comparatively, uses the underlying hardware available through drivers that shepard calls by the virtualized OS to the host. This is far faster due to not actually emulating the CPU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Going from Revelation to KeePassX by jendrek</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/2009/02/07/going-from-revelation-to-keepassx/comment-page-1#comment-9008</link>
		<dc:creator>jendrek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/?p=474#comment-9008</guid>
		<description>added some support for Databases.
http://pastebin.com/mR2RnwsS</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>added some support for Databases.<br />
<a href="http://pastebin.com/mR2RnwsS" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/mR2RnwsS</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux on a J7F4K1G2E-PB by Louis-Dominique</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/linux-on-a-j7f4k1g2e-pb/comment-page-1#comment-8733</link>
		<dc:creator>Louis-Dominique</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 22:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/linux-on-a-j7f4k1g2e-pb/#comment-8733</guid>
		<description>I have not tried other drivers. As far as I know both ethernet ports should use the same driver. I would guess if 10.04 has one port working but not the other, there must be some driver/kernel parameter which must be set. I have not upgraded yet but eventually I will have to. Unfortunately, I do not have time to research this right now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not tried other drivers. As far as I know both ethernet ports should use the same driver. I would guess if 10.04 has one port working but not the other, there must be some driver/kernel parameter which must be set. I have not upgraded yet but eventually I will have to. Unfortunately, I do not have time to research this right now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Linux on a J7F4K1G2E-PB by Shamus</title>
		<link>http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/linux-on-a-j7f4k1g2e-pb/comment-page-1#comment-8729</link>
		<dc:creator>Shamus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 13:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lddubeau.com/avaktavyam/linux-on-a-j7f4k1g2e-pb/#comment-8729</guid>
		<description>I too seem to have LAN problems; I have tried installing 10.04 server, 9.04 and eventually had to settle on 8.04. One of the Ethernet ports is working, but the other won&#039;t. 

My main issue is getting Avahi to work properly. I think I&#039;ve traced the problem to the fact that Avahi needs the LAN driver to properly handle multi-cast. 

From what I can see, Hardy Heron is using the r8169 driver; have you tried any others? I found the following post https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/linux/+bug/562742 but haven&#039;t had a chance to try alternatives.

Just looking to see if anyone else has figured out the LAN drivers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too seem to have LAN problems; I have tried installing 10.04 server, 9.04 and eventually had to settle on 8.04. One of the Ethernet ports is working, but the other won&#8217;t. </p>
<p>My main issue is getting Avahi to work properly. I think I&#8217;ve traced the problem to the fact that Avahi needs the LAN driver to properly handle multi-cast. </p>
<p>From what I can see, Hardy Heron is using the r8169 driver; have you tried any others? I found the following post <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/linux/+bug/562742" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/linux/+bug/562742</a> but haven&#8217;t had a chance to try alternatives.</p>
<p>Just looking to see if anyone else has figured out the LAN drivers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

