Slashdot Mirror
Domain: oreillynet.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to oreillynet.com.
Comments · 1,029
-
Here is why... the story of 2 api'sApple has 2 api's available for MacOSX.
Cocoa which is the old NEXT api upgraded and tweeked to MacOSX. It can be used from object C and java.
Apple wasn't getting super good feedback from developers about porting all there apps to Cocoa so apple under pressure released....
The Carbon api, which is a bit like the old mac os (I think like 80-90% the same). This allowed companies to rewrite existing apps for OS-X easily.
These are the 2 native api layers for OSx. Older apps (mac os 7-8-9) still run in a compatability mode.
Oreilly has an article on Carbon/Cocoa that is quite good.
Microsoft is using Carbon for there port..So not as super easy to port.. But then again they just might not want to port it....
-
Re:When it will stopAnd you used IPsec/ESP to connect to Slashdot, right? No? Well, at least Joe Average has IPsec and IKE running on his Win98 box, right? No?
That's a big blow to widespread IPsec connectivity, presuming that the Slashdot crowd doesn't represent the majority of broadband users and music-swapping fiends. The fewer people running IPsec/ESP, the less you can connect to securely. Less people, less files. Etc.
Why isn't IPsec widely used? For one, few non-techs have heard of it. Also, it can be a pain to configure--and unless it gets a lot easier, "we won't throttle some of your traffic" isn't enough incentive to drive users en-masse to set it up.
Don't get me wrong, I love IPsec. I've written about it, and use it a lot. But it's not ready for prime-time, "let's hide all our traffic everywhere" use. There's just not enough folks using it yet.
-
Carbon vs Cocoa
I dont know why everyone has this carbon versus cocoa debate. Carbon and Cocoa are just different API's for the same functions. Carbon. actually is a framework on top of Cocoa, and you can access most, if not all the features through Carbon This article, is the first one i found on it, google will probably turn up more in the carbon versus cocoa debate.
-
There Is No Off Switch This Time!!!
As noted in this editorial over at O'Reilley, how can you pull the plug on something that is decentralized? This is why people went to Kazaa and other P2P solutions after overly-centralized plump target Napster got emasculated. Long live P2P!!! Elvis has left the building!!!
-
Sylpheed
Don't forget there's another reader available that hopes to be a replacement for Outlook also.
-
Great scripting layers for Cocoa & Objective-C
A big strenght of ObjC is that it integrates wonderfully with scripting languages. This is really great!
Look at this article at O'Reilly:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2001/11/30/scr ipting_fscript.html -
Other (non-book) resources.
Two resources I've found useful in Cocoa programming are stepwise.com and O'Reilly's Mac Devcenter.
-
I just had my first wardriving experience
A couple weeks ago, I bought an Orinoco Gold access card, downloaded netstumbler, and had my homemade Pringles antenna ready to go.
The wife and I got out last Sunday to see if I could find any access points. We live a few files from Indianapolis, so I figured we would have to go downtown to find any access points. NOT TRUE! Many of the APs we found were on personal home networks. Every time we would pass an apartment complex.. blip!.. an AP or two would show up. Where they encrypted? Heh, no. We made one loop through downtown Indy and came back to our house and we found 40 access points. 5 were encypted.
So, we found one near a Mr. D's (grocery store). We stopped in the parking lot, I set up my Pringles antenna, and browsed the web via someone's @home connection. Really cool!
You can imagine the looks that I received when passersby saw me scanning back and forth with a pringles antenna, wires coming out of it, and a laptop on my lap. Anyway, wardriving is fun for the whole family. It's kinda like Geocaching, but quite a bit easier. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Re:It's all part of the same kind of thinking.
Hire someone from a company known for its inability to make secure software, and put him in charge of what his company always did poorly.
Who would you prefer?
- Someone from openssh, which just released a new version to correct a remote exploit?
- A linux hacker who cant figure out how to handle syn cookies?
- Someone from lotus, who cant protect their documents
- A webalizer coder who cant remember to filter out cross site scripting?
- Maybe an IBM coder?
- Cisco is flawless, right? nope
- Redhat must be perfect, they make linux! oh wait
- SGI/IRIX is flawless, they never have security proble... oh, nevermind
- How about a linux kernel hacker, they sure must be perfect! They'd never allow a root exploit into a stable kernel!
Getting the point yet? Everyone has holes. Everyone releases patches. It just happens that microsoft designs their code for ease of use, and because of that there happen to be a lot of unqualified microsoft admins. This isnt a MS problem. This is a side effect of their popularity. -
Spanning Tree Protocol
While it's true that the purpose of the 5-4-3 rule is to avoid collisions of packets that are travelling at the rather slow speed of electromagnetic propagation over copper, and that the 5-4-3 rule envisions hubs, not switches, as the intermediary devices, it is also true that there is a maximum number of switches allowed on a network. Switches act as Layer Two bridges, and it is their responsibility to store and forward information about all known MAC addresses on all physical interfaces. A network with too many remote segments, containing too many MAC addresses, will die in a broadcast storm. The Spanning Tree Protocol was originally designed for use in IBM Token Ring networks, which were confined to ~250 stations per ring [depending on the implementation] in the absence of a Spanning Tree. The Spanning Tree Protocol has since been borrowed by ethernet networks, and is now in the public domain, governed by IEEE 802.1D [the most recent version of which dates from 1998]:http://a957.g.akamai.net/7/957/3680/v0001/standar
Chapter 8 of this PDF document [pages 76 through 127] is the official Spanning Tree Protocol [together with source code for a model implementation]. In Table 8.1 [page 126], the maximum bridge diameter of a spanning tree is recommended to be seven, which is not a lot more than the maximum of the old 5-4-3 rule. Note that seven bridges means eight physical subnets, so it's sort of an 8-7 rule, as opposed to the old 5-4 rule. Curiously, though, this is only a recommendation; the requirements, as listed in Table 8.2 [also page 126], concern timing issues, not the physical diameter.d s.ieee.org/reading/ieee/std/lanman/802.1D-1998.pdf For background reading, you might consider some of these articles:
Source Routing and the Spanning-Tree Protocol
The last article, about the disgruntled vendors, concerns the newer Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol. [If you've ever set up some switches in a Spanning Tree, you know that it can take a long time for them to finish their negotiations.]
http://developer.novell.com/research/appnotes/1991 Understanding Spanning-Tree Protocol
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/rt rmgmt/sw_ntman/cwsimain/cwsi2/cwsiug2/vlan2/stpapp Understanding Spanning Tree Protocol -- the Fundamental Bridging Algorithm
http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a//network/2001/03/3 0/net_2nd_lang.htmlMetro vendors question Spanning Tree standard
http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/123588_08-06- 2001.html -
Also check out this link
One might want to check out this link as well.
-Vic -
Snd?
-
Snd?
-
Re: Sick of political bickering in software...Don't put words in his mouth
RMS hasn't come right out and said he wants a ban on other licenses. Indeed, Eric Raymond publicly asked him whether he would support a law banning all licenses but the GPL, and he has not to my knowledge replied.
But he made it clear that nothing but the GPL is acceptable, in an essay he co-wrote:
Tim O'Reilly says the most fundamental software freedom is: "The freedom to choose any license you want for software you write." Unstated, but clearly implied, is that one person or corporation chooses the rules to impose on everyone else. In the world that O'Reilly proposes, a few make the basic software decisions for everyone. That is power, not freedom. He should call it "powerplay zero" in contrast with our "freedom zero".
He says, explicitly, that the freedom of a developer to choose a license is not freedom; it is power over the users.
If code is law, as Professor Lessig has stated, then the real question we face is: Who should control the code you use -- you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of free software.
In other words, authors of code should not have control over what license to use. He stops short of saying he wants a law, but I can't see why he wouldn't.
[Using the GPL] is the ethical choice, in a situation where laws give us and others such power.
If it is the ethical choice, why not make it the only choice? I support laws making stealing illegal, because I feel stealing is unethical. If RMS feels any license but the GPL is unethical...
I give RMS credit: he is very honest and consistent. Given that he has laid down his views on what should happen, on what is ethical, it follows that he would support laws requiring it. I'd be pleased if he would prove me wrong by explicitly saying he would not support such laws.
He is free to use the "bully pulpit" all he likes; he can write essay after essay on why free software is better, and I'm all for that. And he does write good essays. But I'm opposed to laws actually requiring the use of GPL.
I've always liked the hood-welded-shut analogy too. Do you support leaving people destitute or imprisoned for daring to unweld their own hoods, or having a friend or mechanic do it for them?
I support people abiding by the contracts they sign. If you want the ability to tinker under the hood, don't buy a car from Welded-Shut Motors. I certainly won't.
Note that I also do not support a law requiring all cars to be welded-shut cars. Nor do I support a law requiring all cars to not be welded-shut cars. I support maximum freedom: freedom to make products you want to make, however stupid they may be, and freedom to buy what you want to buy, however stupid it may be (to me, anyway).
Tell me, do you support a law making it illegal to sell any computer that isn't built from readily-available spare parts? (Before you answer, consider how many custom parts there are in an iMac, let alone a sub-notebook.)
steveha -
"All licensing is power"I can't get to the article, but according to michael, a theme is that "all licensing
While strictly true, this is a blatantly unfair claim. If we accept that actions are expressions of either freedom or power (as per Kuhn and Stallman's definition), we must also accept that expressions of power either limit others' freedom, or limit others' power. Using power to limit freedom, we can all agree is evil. Using power to limit power, however, must be allowed in some form, unless you feel that no-one may stop thieves and murderers.
If you acknowledge that software licensing is a form of power (and it is RMS's primary contension that proprietary licensing is an exercise of power that deprives users of essential freedoms), then it follows that GPL licensing uses power to limit power. It becomes a question of whether it's acceptible for individuals to limit others' power in this way. But you can't simply vilify all forms of power.
-
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Re:Day's Complete?
sad, isnt it? it's a shame you dont see some good ol' unix holes on
but then again, I suppose I can start that out...
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/ 04n et.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/04/insecurities.html?pa ge=1#ope
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#syn
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/ 05/ pub/a/linux/2001/11/05/insecurities.html#web
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/11/05
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/ 29/ pub/a/linux/2001/10/29/insecurities.html#ssh
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/29
ah, yea, there's a lot more, this is just a few weeks worth... -
Intel has a Vision library with calibration tools.Intel has a Open Source Computer Vision Library.
I played with it for a while many months ago. After reading this Oreilly Net Article about it. The link is to page 2, because that's where the calibration stuff is.
This is how you can find out where all the pixels are pointing. I suspect there is code for calibrating intensities, but I didn't use it.
-
Re:Latency, latency, latency ...
I agree and disagree. You're entirely correct about the Windows GDI's being notoriously slow. However, check out this quote from the article I linked in my original post:
Ron Kuper (CTO of Cakewalk) stated that "... an obtainable target for audio latency under Win2k is 5 msec, even under heavy system loads" (from Audio I/O, Today and Tomorrow). However, in order to hit that target, it is necessary to bypass Microsoft's KMixer (kernel mode audio mixer) in their Win32 driver model, because (quoting Mr. Kuper again) "...
The point being -
Latency, latency, latency ...
Wine isn't a bad approach, but it is still an implementation of the Windows API that sits on top of X. Would/could a DirectX for Linux be implemented any differently ?
If not then we might see dissatisfaction to the point of R&D failure because real-time peformance may not be possible in such situations. The biggest issue being latency.
Here is a good, though somewhat dated, article on the topic of Linux Latency. -
rootless X server
I think you want to run a rootless X server as descibed here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2001/08/14/ma
c _dev.html.
You can then run Xemacs or Emacs as an X client. The article claims cut and paste works between X and Aqua.
~swain -
Re:Say WHAT?
Exactly. The *BSD's do exactly the same thing with their Linux compatibility layers. All the code behind that is BSD-licensed, not GPL'd.
There's an excellent set of articles at the O'Reilly Network on just how they accomplish this. -
guitar software
If you are interested in guitar software for linux, this
article by Dave Phillips has reviews for some pretty good applications.... including Stompboxes2 (my own project -
Re:Audio latency & Linux
Another excellent article on the topic by David Phillips can be found at http://linux.oreillynet.com/lpt/a//linux/2000/11/
1 7/low_latency.html. It includes good descriptions and solutions. -
Re:I'm sure this is good for somebodymy 11mb wireless lan is already 11 times faster than my net connection
While
Tim -
O'Reilly can help
A while ago a story was posted on Slashdot about O'Reilly attempting a similar thing, except he was trying to get 802.11 to travel 20.9 miles using a standard
The good news is that it worked for him, but the bad news is the he was going for less than half the distance you need. He did use a relay station after the 20.9 mile mark tho' so it might be of use if you want to build 3 of them (presuming that you own/can afford the land to build them on).
Oh, and his target was halfway up a big hill, making line of site no problem! -
this is possible with a 2.4ghz amp and two dishesif you have line of sight, get two high-gain dishes, two bi-directional amplifiers mounted at the antenna and some LMR-800 coax running to your 802.11 card. you'll have to come up with a way of interfacing the coax with your 802.11 card. get creative with a soldering iron and it shouldn't be a big deal.
i don't know what the legal power limit is for the 2.4ghz public band...but as long as no one complains, chances are you will have no problems.
this place has everything and it's probably all legal
this place has lots of cloices for high-gain antennas and good prices
-
Article about long distance 802.11b
I have read some articles about using 802.11b over long distances. Perhaps these links might help.
O'Reilly Network: A Wireless Long Shot [May. 03, 2001]
O'Reilly Network: An 802.11 ISP on Maine's Rocky Coast [Oct. 12, 2001] -
Range Reality CheckHere is an article called "Range Reality Check" that looks at the range from a purely physical perspective. The conclusion drawn by the author, one of the NoCat folks, is that
"...your antennas would have to be at least 104 feet above the surrounding terrain, separated by 25 miles, pointed directly at the ground 12.5 miles away, with no intervening ground clutter."
So, in theory the original poster could achieve a range of ~50 miles with a repeater station (PC with two 802.11b cards) at the midpoint, 4 high-gain directional antennas, etc. -
Re:Because it's the best
QuickTime is the most complete multimedia there is, which is why MPEG-4 is based on it. Real has a server and a player, and Microsoft has a server, a player, and an OS monopoly, but QuickTime is in cameras, audio apps, music apps, Web authoring apps, animation tools, DVD authoring tools, DV editors, and open source streaming servers on every major platform. It supports almost every image, video, and audio format in existence, along with animated images and Flash movies. It has a built-in software synth with DLS. For $29 you can author with QuickTime Player Pro just by cutting and pasting and exporting. QuickTime is one of the major reasons why creative people use Macs. While Microsoft was trying to get their developers to support a GUI, Apple had their developers integrating their apps with QuickTime, so you can move media back and forth between apps as files or with the clipboard and get great results.
Almost every video you can find on the Web was in QuickTime format at some point in it's life. There aren't any other vendors with this kind of technology. It may be possible to do digital video without Apple, but it's not something you'd do by choice.
If you want to run QuickTime on Linux, here's how.
Crossover Brings QuickTime to Linux
Guys
-
Re:UrkOh, and speaking of Unicode and Perl, I'd have to say that once again O'Reilly is probably a great place to start, and sending the dev team in charge of the Unicode conversions to ORA Unicoe boot camps/geek cruises is probably not a half bad approach.
There is also this fascinating title, which I've been meaning to read, merely because the page layout and typography within is a work of art. If you're in the bookstore and see this one, check it out. It's impressive. -
Re:Harddrive sets the limit
Tangentially on topic (read: offtopic).
I'm not sure what kind of hard drive you have, or what Operating system... So I'll start assuming things (in true slashdot style)... Assuming that you're running Linux and a newer IDE drive, you can increase your drive transfer rates (in my case, by nearly a factor of 2) using hdparm. It has a man page, and there is a good article on Oreillynet about it here
Andrew -
QT on Linux (was Re:*nix)Still can't watch quicktime movies unless I'm running MacOS or Windows
because Apple wrote a license which forbids operating quicktime on
alternative platforms.How 'bout doing some research before speaking.
See:
http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/09/06 "Not only was Apple helpful with the technology issues," Graham said, "but they even changed the QuickTime license..."
Where's the blackhole and who's the whore? -
Re:Microsoft vs. Ximian?Oh come on, Ximian never claimed that they and Microsoft were collaborating on Mono. The most that Ximian ever said was that they had briefly talked to Microsoft about it, but were developing Mono independently.
And for the ten millionth time, Mono !=