Slashdot Mirror

In all seriousness, if you put Linux on an old 486/Pentium, it's quite a usefull box. Other OS's just aren't as efficient, you don't have thousands of people optimizing the same code.

I'm not just saying this because /. is pro-Linux... I use a 486/66 for my firewall and mail server, and a P200 for my web server, and they still sit there twiddling their thumbs 99.999% of the time. The P200 also makes a very good desktop system, even while serving pages itself.

I'd buy something better, but why?

MadCow.

In all seriousness, if you put Linux on an old 486/Pentium, it's quite a usefull box. Other OS's just aren't as efficient, you don't have thousands of people optimizing the same code.

I'm not just saying this because /. is pro-Linux... I use a 486/66 for my firewall and mail server, and a P200 for my web server, and they still sit there twiddling their thumbs 99.999% of the time. The P200 also makes a very good desktop system, even while serving pages itself.

I'd buy something better, but why?

MadCow.

>> Sorry, no; better luck next time.

Sorry, but I stand by my statement, but I'll clarify it for you. Using "native" Windows NT Server "Services for Macintosh" (probably the most robust Mac file connectivity at the moment, but still far from great), you will retain resource forks on an NTFS partition but not on a FAT one.

>>stick to file-sharing software that stores files using macbinary or binhex formats

Are talking about DAVE or PC MacLan? Get real! Have you ever used these jokes? DAVE is flakey as heck, a pain in the butt to set up, you have to buy a copy for EACH Mac, and crashes often! PC MacLan is better, but uses Appletalk instead of TCP/IP, so it's slow as hell! Sure, they're ok for small shops, but in any "real" environment, using the NT Server services is the only way to go.

NT Server has it's own issues, such as only showing a maximum of 4GB of disk space on any volume when seen on a Mac (unless you hack the registry), but it's not that bad overall.

As for my explanation of resource forks: is it wrong? No. Is it incomplete? Yes. Was it meant to be a thesis of the underworkings of the Mac operating system? No. Go see my website below.

Before you start flaming someone, know what the heck you're talking about, and take into account the intended purpose and audience of the original message.

MadCow.

>> The time overlay is a useful idea, however I don't know if many webcams support such features.

I use a Creative webcam with "iSpy" software for automatically uploading images to an FTP site on a regular (user-set) basis. It automatically overlays the time/date in the format you wish.

FYI, see my site (Keyword: fuckoff) for an example, under "things to do".

I currently upload an image every 10 seconds to a "local" server, but you could do it as often as you like.

MadCow.

>> ? It strikes me as amazing that the first thing people want to do is externalize the causes of these tragedies, to find scapegoats to blame for the actions of a misguided (and in some cases, truly ill IMHO) few.

Not to justify the actions of Klebold and whatshisname, but are video games REALLY the thing that pushed them over the edge? Wasn't it the years of tormenting from other kids (i.e. the Jocks that they shot), feeling outcast by others, etc.?

Hey, I wasn't a popular kid in school, and I sure as hell wanted to get revenge on the jocks and idiots that thought it was fun to pick on me and others... If I was a little less stable, THAT would have put me over the edge, not video games.

Shouldn't the victims be suing the kids that tormented these two, rather than iD et al? I guess that's just harder to proove...

MadCow.

Keyword: fuckoff

Your suggestion may be a valid method of stepping out of the loop, but then you may be just working to enable people to do harm... I'm not a lawyer, but I see even bigger legal issues there...

With my website in particular, there is certainly potential for abuse... after all, it's called "Fuckoff!". I want users to be able to sent light-hearted "fuckoff" postcards to other people, but don't want them to do serious damage or harm at the same time. The only way I can think of to make sure that users don't go "over the line" is to MAKE them take responsibility for their own actions. Giving them anonymity is giving them a license to shoot somebody and get away with it.

People use anonymity to avoid responsibility for their actions. There are cases where this is valid (such as whistleblowing), but there are many more where it is not.

Do people disagree with systems such as mine taking steps to ensure (as much as possible) that people are accountable for their own actions, and know it? If you don't want to admit to doing something, don't do it!

MadCow.

I agree... "anonymous" posts should remain anonymous, and sysadmins should go to great lengths to make sure they stay that way. However, it brings up the question of whether or not a sysadmin should allow anonymous posting at all, because of the liability questions...

I'm facing a similar dilemma... I'm going to post a "Postcard" feature on my website (Keyword: Fuckoff), but want to ensure that users KNOW that they can be tracked down, so that overly-abusive posts don't get sent unless the poster is willing to take responsibility for them.

Sure, there's always disclaimers and things, but if somebody gets hurt in the process, and the person who originated the damaging message can't be tracked, I'm sure that I'd be the one on the hook...

Anonymity is great, unless you're using it to willfully hurt other people. Then you should stand up and take responsibilty.

MadCow.