














Remember to look at /var/log/audit files as root and run audit2allow to get some useful hints with SELinux. SELinux comes with a set of rich GUI tools, be sure to use them as you walk through the seemingly friendly maze of SELinuxI found some help on the mediawiki site that gave me instructions on how to setup SELinux and mediawiki together. To my surprise, I found quite a few software vendors providing additional instructions for setup when SELinux is enabled.
“...given the threat models and capabilities of the adversaries involved, that's probably appropriate... But that’s not necessarily appropriate for all users. SELINUX is so horrible to use, that after wasting a large amount of time enabling it and then watching all of my applications die a horrible death since they didn't have the appropriate hand-crafted security policy, caused me to swear off of it. For me, given my threat model and how much my time is worth, life is too short for SELinux.” — Theodore Ts’oYou can only imagine how relieved I was to see this quote
Life is too short for SELinuxI was not alone, others hated it and found it hard to use as well. How pathetic can such happiness be, but I was overjoyed, excited to say the least.
We know that if
then the sum converges to
which expands to







def lagrange(x):NOTE: Blogger keeps messing up my indentation, I am yet to figure out why.
tmp = scipy.poly1d([0])
result=scipy.poly1d([0])
for i in x.keys():
numerator=scipy.poly1d([1])
denom = 1.0
for j in x.keys():
if (i != j):
tmp = scipy.poly1d([1,-j])
numerator = numerator * tmp
denom = denom * (i - j)
tmp = (numerator/denom) * x.get(i)
result = result + tmp
return result
input = {0:5, 1:10, 2:21}
print lagrange(input)








Yet I think that a few programs, such as Adobe Photoshop, will always be superior to competitors like the Gimp—for some reason, I really don’t know why! I’m quite willing to pay good money for really good software, if I believe that it has been produced by the best programmers."
"I might as well flame a bit about my personal unhappiness with the current trend toward multicore architecture. To me, it looks more or less like the hardware designers have run out of ideas, and that they’re trying to pass the blame for the future demise of Moore’s Law to the software writers by giving us machines that work faster only on a few key benchmarks! I won’t be surprised at all if the whole multithreading idea turns out to be a flop, worse than the "Titanium" approach that was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write."
"The machine I use today has dual processors. I get to use them both only when I’m running two independent jobs at the same time; that’s nice, but it happens only a few minutes every week. If I had four processors, or eight, or more, I still wouldn’t be any better off, considering the kind of work I do—even though I’m using my computer almost every day during most of the day.
So why should I be so happy about the future that hardware vendors promise? They think a magic bullet will come along to make multicores speed up my kind of work; I think it’s a pipe dream. (No—that’s the wrong metaphor! "Pipelines" actually work for me, but threads don’t. Maybe the word I want is "bubble.") From the opposite point of view, I do grant that web browsing probably will get better with multicores"
"On a positive note, I’ve been pleased to discover that the conventions of CWEB are already standard equipment within preinstalled software such as Makefiles, when I get off-the-shelf Linux these days."








Some of the policy from the app automation refers to https://rclone.org/privacy/ if you are a general blog reader, follow Google's polic...