Slashdot Mirror

He wrote the window manager I was always looking for: ion.

I now use it more than a year and I am very happy with it. If you prefer the keyboard to operate your computer, try out this fine wm, you might like it!

I'm not remotely excited about `true' transparency and drop shadows - features which are no use beyond looking pretty for me. However I can see that in order to get support, which is what an OSS project thrives on, the screenshot-happy users need to be pleased. So in that regard I think such developments are a trade-off.

What significant X developments would impact me? Well, has anyone tried adding a 3rd-party driver to X? I have to download the entire x source (apt-get source xfree86) and stick a diff from aiptektablet into the debian patch directory and build the whole freakin` thing (which, with .o's, clocks in over 300MB) in order to get my graphics tablet to work. Thats an enormous download and compile job when a mere fraction of that code and the result is needed. Streamlining and simplifying this process would allow more people to experiment with x hacks and make our lives easier.

I think hardware support for vector rendering will be a great benefit to how quickly window-manager and toolkit operations are performed - anyone profiled a GTK2 app recently, and seen the slice pango takes up?

Finally there is a lot of innovation going on outside of the x.org project which I think is equally as important as the framework - examples of next-generation window management such as ion and devil's pie show where I think things are moving for power-users.

• X with dropshadows (from the article)
• Old X which shipped with Red Hat 5.0
• Windows 95
• Windows XP
• Mac OS X

Where the Linux desktop really shines, however, is when it comes to customization. I prefer to operate in a very Windows-like manner, with maximized windows and taskbar. KDE allows me to do that (and gives me a nice launcher command bar with autocompletion - I haven't used the "start" menu in ages). Some want a nice file manger - KDE gives you Konqueror, GNOME gives you Nautilus. Others prefer doing everything in the shell, where you can use Midnight Commander and feel like you're back in the old DOS days.

Some want virtual desktops or virtual screens (larger than the physical screen size). Any decent window manager provides that. Some want a very efficient, slim system - they use something like Windowmaker or XFCE. Others want all the bells and whistles and install KDE or GNOME with lots of applets. Some like to experiment with innovative new UIs and try out window managers like ion. Others are happy just using a cloned Windows or Mac interface.

If you're willing to experiment, no system offers you as many possibilities as Linux. If you just want a clean, working desktop, all the major distro makers provide that by now.

There's room to improvement, and the devil is in the details: clipboard interoperability is still buggy and incomplete, performance in some areas can be improved (try resizing your window very fast with content visible), the driver situation is unsatisfactory etc. But none of the problems before us is unsolvable. It's just a matter of time.

Bluecurve is very attractive, and I find Ion to be extremely pleasant to work in, far better than any OS X or Windows offers.

This quote was found here...

"What brings you so far from home ?"
"We look for things."
"What were you looking for ?"
"Things we need."
"Can you be more specific ?"
"Things that make us go. We need help."
"What is the nature of your mission ?"
"We look for things."

-- Riker and Grebnedlog in ST:TNG "Samaritan Snare"

From the same state that gave us the mental wizards confused by the butterfly ballots.

ion2

For those with FreeBSD who hate the mouse...
# cd /usr/ports/x11-wm/ion-2
# make install

No funny key combinations. Repeat, no funny key combinations. Everything must be accessable through the menus. Yeah, I know you want to be able to bind any control key combination to any function. Don't. It doesn't really speed up use anyway. Read Apple's old studies on this. People blank out on the 500ms they're thinking about the control key combo.

As a person who is (mildly, for now) affected by RSI, I must disagree with this, at least for power users. I do most of my work (at least, when I'm on an operating system which allows it) without the mouse, and generally learn the keyboard interface for a new tool as quickly as possible. This is because I find it both faster and easier on the wrists to use the keyboard for most of my work (programming). Unless I'm designing a human interface myself, I have very little use for the mouse because programming requires lots of text input and no mouse input.

For the occasional thing that the novice would use a menu for, I probaly have my hands on the keyboard already, and so even if there were half a second delay to think up the key combo, it would still be more convenient than the mouse. (Usually, I bind intuitive key combos so that this isn't an issue.)

For a window manager, I use Ion, which entirely violates your usability thesis: most of its features cannot be accessed using the mouse without a good deal of scripting, but on the other hand, almost all of its features can be accessed extremely quickly from the keyboard. While its model is not so intuitive as the one pushed by Windows, and it takes some getting used to, it is much easier and much more comfortable to use once one is used to it (and in my case, has customized the settings).

As a result of its terrible practices of hiding mouse interfaces and indicators, and its preferred model leaving out things like overlapping windows, Ion wastes very little screen space, and one can navigate to a given window with only one keystroke (two if it's hidden or on a different desktop), which once you've been using it for a month or so is much faster than one mouse click.

Thanks to Firefox's interactive searching and generally good keyboard navigation capabilities, I don't even have to use mouse there (although I often do anyway; for web browsing, it's just as fast as the keyboard).

I must say that I'm an Apple user also, and that I like their (mostly, see rant elsewhere) transparent metaphors and simple configuration, and I often find Open Source Software to be lacking in these categories. But you must remember that in general it is written by programmers, for programmers, and not for novices. If you're going to be using a tool fairly often, the most obvious interface might not be the best one.

Nope, not alone at all. I've always got windows tiled over my desktop on my windows machine. Eventually, I replaced Explorer with Litestep and shut off the desktop.

However, on my freebsd machine, ion is very nifty. It lets me keep the windows tiled but makes it much easier to swap between windows too. Plus, it's designed to be used entirely with a keyboard, as opposed to most window managers where mousing with the odd keyboard shortcut is expected.

Oops, the link got mangled as usual. The correct link is here.

DailyWireless has more on Wearable Communicating Costumes and the Adidas Hot Shoe.

"Smart clothing" and wearable computing developers include:

• France Telecom invented a flexible fiber optic system that can be embedded in clothes. Static or animated graphics can be displayed.

• Chipmaker Infineon has created a packaging technology that allows circuitry to be woven into ordinary fabrics, which can then be normally washed or even dry-cleaned. The company created a prototype jacket with an embedded MP3 player.

• Orang-Otang Computers has patented designs for gadgets like a phone that fits under a shirt sleeve, a wrist-mounted audio recorder, a wearable laptop and a wearable camera.

• California's Charmed Technology, an MIT Media Lab spin-off, is poised to be a world leader in affordable, wearable Internet products. Their CharmBadge is designed for aiding the communication and networking.

• Fossil, best known for trendy watches, has created wrist devices that exchange information with handheld computers and Microsoft's Spot.

• The Smart Shirt System uses biological sensors to monitor heart rates or the locations of those wearing the technology, says Jeffrey Wolf, CEO of Sensatex Inc.

• Tactex Controls uses "smart fabric" for a touch-sensitive MIDI controller.

• Zigbee-equipped sneakers might record speed, body telemetry and even external sensors.

• Orientation, communications and geographic positioning electronics can all be incorporated into outdoor clothing. Heat can be transferred through conducting fibres to colder areas of the body

• The SCOTTeVEST shows the way traditional garments may be altered to meet the demanding needs of spies and undercover agents.

No, the problem is a ballot that is confusing and easy to screw up. And once you do punch the wrong candidate, election officials would not allow you to caast it correctly. Furthermore, Hanging chads were a problem because some election machines didn't totally punch out the paper -- leaving a small scrap hanging on 1, 2 or 3 sides, or sometimes even just an indentation! Which of the above counts as a vote?

themes?

More than themes--completely different desktop environments. Sure, GNOME & KDE are pretty much Macish/Windowsish--but fvwm2, ion (my personal favourite) or emacs (which can run without X, and provides an entire operating environment: mail, news, web, calendar, appointments, program editing, compiling, debugging, word processing &c) are entirely different.

With free software, one has real, meaningful choice--not just 'paint the windows another colour' (my problem with much of the KDE/GNOME stuff), but actual radically different behaviours. This means that your environment can be customised for what you do. A truck's cockpit is not like a car's, and neither's is like a subway train's--why must every user's environment be the same?

Taskbar grouping is basically the same thing as grouping via tabs, which is very popular in some browsers and window managers.

"If I recall, there was an alternate windows manager called the Cube, that worked similar to this... what ever happenned to it?"

There's the 3D-CUBE project which includes 3Dwm (site appears to be down at the mo).

Personally, I agree with you - a 3d window manager won't work very well on a 2d screen. The is some real innovation in 2d window managers however, look at WindowLab and Ion.

Blah blah blah.

Read this and weep.

Now, because you want to pretend you're some expert in this field (hint: By what you said you're clearly a wannabe) let me absolutely rip to shreds every last thing you said. And then some. Because I do consider myself an amateur going on expert. And, if you're the only competition, I'd a God in this field.

From this expert source:

#1. Beta Hi-Fi had a nice 60 Hz hum. What a piece of shit. VHS ORIGINAL and Hi-Fi didn't have that pathetic problem. Even a first year high-school electronics student knows how to filter 60 Hz hum. One series capacitor. Since the audio isn't even balanced, it can even be a cheap 'n nasty polarized electrolytic. We're talking $0.02 here people, if that, and Sony was too bloody cheap to put it in. And these are the people you look up to for quality.

#2. A slightly damaged Beta tape could ruin your stereo speakers if played at high volume (note "tape damage"). That's sweet. Again, we're talking a few pennies spent on some clamping diodes (or, better yet, some REAL filter circuitry) or filtering capacitors. How *cheap* can you get?

The rest will come from this handy guide (I hope it isn't too complicated for you):

#3. Luminance horizontal resolution (equiv.):

Beta: 250
VHS: 240
% Difference: 4%

#4. Luminance vertical resolution:

Beta & VHS: 576 -- 0% difference

#5. Luminance signal to noise ratio:

Beta: 48 dB
VHS: 43 dB
% Difference: (I am too lazy to work out logs today) about 180%

#6. Horizontal colour (chroma) equivalent resoultion:

Beta: 45
VHS: 40
% Difference: 21%

#7. Chroma vertical resolution:

Beta: 240
VHS: 200
% Difference: 16%

#8. Sound.

0% difference between Beta and VHS.

Let's average everything out now.

(4 + 0 + 180 + 21 + 16 + 0) / 6 = 36% difference.

Now, let's assume the truth, that people won't notice a few sparklies on their TV (especially in 1980, when the picture travelled to the TV modulated on channel 3 through cheap 'n nasty coax):

8.2% difference.

And next time think twice about posting so late to squeeze your comment in before the Don't Post timer runs out just to make yourself look smart. Because:

a) You're clearly not as smart as you think you are (or at least not smart enough to research before you go blathering off about things). A smart person would have given that proof first, rather than let me tear it apart to my benefit first.
b) Corollary: There's always smarter people than you and I out there.
c) You can't beat how often I check slashdot.

Now, HAND now, you hear?

...in those attacks, like they have in the numerous Microsoft leaks. Imagine the strife we'd be in if they stole the source to Debian!

But seriously, how shall I put this? ChkRootKit, TripWire, AIDE, FICC, ProSum, Toby, msec, Nessus, LSAT, Saint, LIDS and of course if you want totally proactive, try SELinux, Medusa DS9 or OpenWall. That's hardly an exhaustive list, but it does hit many of the highlights. Boy, youse bin livin in a monoculture too damn long!

IETF RFCs are merely suggestions that people are making a 'request for comments' on.

Congratulations, you can parse an acronym.
But too bad for you, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, or in otherwords, you are wrong.

From the document, What RFCs are: All so-called Internet standards are published as RFCs...

There are many posts here claiming the XSS bug is in IE, not in Hotmail or Yahoo. These posts were written by morons.

The point is, filtering HTML is a hard problem. Few sites get it 100% correct. To call a XSS bug in Hotmail an IE bug is to completely misunderstand the problem. Similarly, to call a page-widening bug an IE problem completely misses the point.

Should a user-agent render breaks at its own whim? Probably not. If a user-agent does not render spaces at its own whim, is it a bug? Probably not. If a "suprising" script language gets trhough the Hotmail filters, is it a bug in Hotmail or the user-agent? If a page widening post gets through slashdot, is it a bug in Slashdot or the user-agent?

Anyhow, go here to read how other people have looked at the problem. It is a solvable problem, and solving it could generally make for a better user experience here on slashdot. However, I don't see it happening any time soon, because Slashdot treats it as a bug in the user-agent.

I figure there's more open source window managers for X Windows then there are proprietary GUIs, and it's a shame that GUIdebook doesn't cover them. There's a good site here that does.

Unlike proprietary GUIs, some of the open source offerings are more innovative. I particularly like Ion, a tiled wm, and WindowLab, which seems pretty original.

they just put their cleverness into more questionable things ;)

like this : independent

The '/me' command, aka special CTCP action thingy... why does it use CTCP!?!?!?

because CTCP uses in band signalling that something special is happening /me is not part of the irc protocol and therefore is considered 'something special'

CTCP uses ^A or chr(1)
You'll see from this table that ^A is defined in ASCII as :

A transmission control character used as the first character of a heading of an information message.

Curiously the authors chose to end the text with another ^A rather than ^C. In their defence there is no End of Heading marker defined. /me is a client dependent implemtation of how to send : ^AACTION : $emote^A

You can see the other CTCP messages here

Gimp is okay for 2d stuff (please someone give it a docked interface rather than having to shuffle through dozens of independent windows...)

Or get a WM without such silly things at all. Best way to run the Gimp, but YMMV.

Both are perfectly usable, small, and almost without any runtime configuration. Still, those are my top-2 of window managers. If I did a top-3 list, then Ion would be the third I think.

NTSC TV is 525 scan lines

Almost 45 of those lines are blank, hence the "480i" designation. A stated resolution of about 440x480 pixels for a pristine NTSC TV broadcast is about right.

In contrast, SVHS recorders can handle about 400 scan lines

The expression of "lines" on a video recorder might initially strike readers as counterintuitive. It relates to the number of horizontal pixels in a distance equal to the height of the screen; to convert this to a computer-friendly resolution, multiply this by 4/3.

I have graduated from Tampere University of Technology, in Finland. I remember one course about networking protocols that had quite an interesting approach to course material.

Anyway, the story was that according to Finnish copyright law, the definition of "fair use" is that you can quote/copy or whatever up to 20 pages of a "publication" (not sure if that absolute page number is a real value or not). Anyway, the point was that different editions of the same book constitute as different "publications".

As you can see on the course page, the course material includes several "chapters" from Stallings book about datacomm. The page says "fifth edition". However, the actual material was distributed as a 100-page photocopied collection. 20 pages from first edition, 20 pages from the second, 20 pages from the third...you get the idea.

Students in that course kinda liked the idea, saved us some money :) I'm not sure if this would ever be applicable to United States.

I have graduated from Tampere University of Technology, in Finland. I remember one course about networking protocols that had quite an interesting approach to course material.

Anyway, the story was that according to Finnish copyright law, the definition of "fair use" is that you can quote/copy or whatever up to 20 pages of a "publication" (not sure if that absolute page number is a real value or not). Anyway, the point was that different editions of the same book constitute as different "publications".

As you can see on the course page, the course material includes several "chapters" from Stallings book about datacomm. The page says "fifth edition". However, the actual material was distributed as a 100-page photocopied collection. 20 pages from first edition, 20 pages from the second, 20 pages from the third...you get the idea.

Students in that course kinda liked the idea, saved us some money :) I'm not sure if this would ever be applicable to United States.

What do you find is better than twm now?? =)

You'd probably like ion.
It's worth a shot, I used it for about 6 months but just recently switched back to a more "traditional" wm.

More seriously, KDE tries to do more than GNOME, and succeeds pretty well at it. KDE's a really cool environment built within a crufty language--it's like a really nice house built on sand. GNOME tends to be more like a shack built on a skyscraper-class foundation.

I'm really not certain which is better. But then, I like ion.

I just got a couple of these joysticks from ebay, and am going to build an adapter so I can use them with MAME. I found two circuits on the net for this purpose:

This link has a wealth of information on older game controller hardware.

This one has another (perhaps simpler) circuit design, with diagrams in postscript format. (Use gsview to view them on Windows.)

... to give the impression of continuous movement due to the idiosyncrasies of human perception.

Thats why the old fashioned 8mm movies were (usually) shot at that speed.

CC.

Come on, this is the web. Make a usable link. At any rate, it makes sure that /. doesn't reformat it.

By "file integrity checker" I presume they mean something like AIDE.

One makes hashes of each file and stores them on a non-networked system and/or read-only media. Then periodically runs a check (hopefully from a statically linked binary that is also on RO media) on the files and compares the hashes.

If they match (and any number of other conditions are met, like the machine and the media the hashes were stored on are physically secure, etc.) you can say with reasonable certainty that the files are unmolested.

-Peter

There's always intrusion detection systems, you know? Some of those machines had Aide installed on them.

Ah, okay, cos it wasn't in 2001.

So, please, show me some URLs to OSS projects that you think are really innovative and are not copies of commercial initiatives.

I have 4 heads right now and it is a pleasure to work with. Some people may have to get used to it, though. It took me some time to figure out the best setup. At this moment I have all the 'push' content (IRC, news ticker, GAIM, top, xmms) on the outer screens, while my inner screens show my mail, editors and documentation.

I use ion as my window manager, which allow for inter and intra screen switching with your keyboard, making your mouse almost obsolete and speeding up your work.

One word of caution though: I started with two heads and now I have four. It's kinda addictive....

I agree. I'm a big supporter of light. I use PWM. All keyboard shortcuts. No cute GUI stuff. And very fast...

Hey awesome guy, even though I'll probably be the millionth to point this out, this story is not a dupe. It's a different company with a different project. Let me paraphrase for you:

No one takes the parent post seriously because he didn't RTFA. The poster's lack of cleverness and almost childish and poorly thought out comments didn't help his cause either.

Original is here: this is what you are thinking of.
This is the "fog screen" tech made by the university students.
Here is a link to a company that is creating vertical projections.

Read the goddamned article, and stop wasting space. Go away and never come back.

There are two distinct groups developing and commercializing similar technology.

The previously-posted story was about a walk-thru screen developed at Tampere University of Technology, Finland, demonstrated at SIGGRAPH 2003, which is being commercialized by FogScreen, Inc.

In the current story, the technology was developed at MIT, demonstrated for the media, and is being commercialized by IO2 Technology".

Both systems appear to use a particle wall or sheet, onto which video is projected. Neither is anywhere close to "holographic," so I'm afraid those late-night session "learning Vulcan" with Virtual T'Pol are still a few years off.

`Linux' (really, free software in general) is not a person; it is not a corporation; it is the emergent product of thousands of developers. There is no central direction. There is no-one to enforce any silly dicta which come down the pike. It's freedom, baby: everyone doing his own thing, and thereby producing something great and Free. Sure, it has rough edges, but it's truly Free.

Even if one looks at the `Linux' community as a self-directed organism, is its goal conversion from Windows? Is its goal dumbed-down software? No: the goal of the free software community is freedom--and we have that. It is for proprietary software users to come to us; not for us to come to them. If users wish to remain lusers, so be it: we will help them become better, but we will not worsen ourselves.

How would he--or any other person advocating uniformity--propose to enforce a common standard on all? By violence? The basic issue is that we do not all agree on what is good. I like Ion; you like fvwm2; he likes sawfish. Which would you choose? Each has its pros and cons. Each is infinitely better than the utterly loathsome metacity.

As long as there is freedom, there will not be uniformity. Since freedom is the highest good of free software, free software will never be uniform. Particular collections might be (witness the GNU Project, whose tools mostly follow the same conventions), but the whole will never be.

This is a good thing, because freedom is good, and choice is good, and people are different. To those with brains, freedom and choice are exhilarating--who cares for those without?

BTW, WTF's up with /. not respecting ‐?

Last time I checked, evas was running on systems from x86 linux to win32 to Shaps' Zaurus to Qtopia to win32 ce to directfb. And a MacOS port is on the way.

When was this? I already said that the last time I looked at the code (which was at the time unportable shit) was a few years ago; I can believe that there's been improvement since.

Anyhow, though, unportable shit C is hardly something specific to window managers. If you want me to show you someone who does it better, I'll gladly do that -- but it won't be from a WM; I only rarely dabble in window manager code.

As for my window manager, I use ion.

Unfortunately it's when you see the video that you realise that the technology has, shall we say, some way to go before we'll all be using it in dull business meetings.

Rich.

>It is analogue. That does not make it infinite.

Yes, it does make it infinite. In fact, that is the very DEFINITION of analog.

analog: <electronics> (US: "analog") A description of a continuously
variable signal or a circuit or device designed to handle such
signals. The opposite is "discrete" or "digital".

Continuously variable, of course, means infinite.

If it were finite (like digital) you would be able to discern points if the image were blown up large enough. As you increase the size of a laserdisc image, you can clearly see each scanline, but you will not be able to discern any horizonal points if the source were analog, ever. It will simply become a smear, so there is simply no point giving LD a horizontal resolution -- doing so is a complete insult to the very idea of an analog signal. It would be like suggesting your skin has a "resolution" by counting the pores. It doesn't work.

The fact is that with an analog signal, with better technology the signal can be improved to any point you like by improving the signal to noise ratio.

In contrast, the definition of digital:

<data> A description of data which is stored or transmitted
as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most
commonly this means binary data represented using electronic
or electromagnetic signals.

Which clearly specifies that digital is finite.

A sufficiently advanced analog device will always be better than a digital one, but far harder to design, and normally more expensive to record, so digital is preferred for its simplicity.

(Both definitions courtesy of The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2003 Denis Howe)

>According to:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/ResolutionCompari son/
laserdiscs are 560x360 which is worse than DVD's.

Actually, that's the letterbox resolution, which it specifies has the same amount of scanlines (vertical resolution) as DVDs. As I (and every EE in the world would also do so) have exlpained, because LD is analog, there is positively no point giving it a horizontal resolution. So, in fact, the quality of the picture, on a well designed, new (which they don't make, sadly) player can range from worse than DVD to better than DVD -- it's impossible to tell.

Now, when DVD gets more scanlines than NTSC video, we can reconsider this. But until then, the formats are relatively equivalent, and on my ancient LD player, (an old Pioneer industrial model) the output, apart from the usual analog signal problems (sparklies, etc) introduced by the aged crappyness of this player, is the same as DVD for quality.

802.1X, TKIP, WPA and so on are all nice methods to control WLAN access, but even they cannot correct a louzy WLAN architecture.

The problem is that in several, even most places, people are connecting their access points directly to their intranet and then rely only on the WEP key, MAC address lists, 802.1X and the WiFi security standard of your choice. In this kind of architecture when a standard is broken or the access point is compromised or just mis-configured, the attacker is able to gain access instantly to the protected network.

In our university this was the starting situation. Every department had their own WLAN with own WEP keys and MAC lists and some didn't even have those, just completely open network without any kind of access control. Not to mention about radio channel allocation or planning. Instead of the seamless, combined radio coverage there were several separate networks often disturbing each other.

A project was then started to define a common architecture for building wireless network securely and to provide that seamless combined radio coverage instead of all these kind of wild networks. What we decided was that WLAN networks are hostile networks and they should be treated as such. In the new architecture the organisation wide WLAN network is separated outside protected networks so that even if the access control of the wireless networks is breached, the only access the attacker directly gains is the access to the Internet, not to organisation's protected networks.

We didn't choose to use WEP key and MAC access control lists because they were useless. We didn't yet integrate 802.1X as a access control, because the terminals aren't yet ready for it. Instead we chose to build our WLAN network by using a captive portal to control the traffic demanding less security and VPNs to protect the traffic demanding more. By providing several means to authenticate we achieved the better interoperability and usability of the WLAN network than before.

With this architecture we are now able to server several different terminals, utilise old access points not capable of WEP encryption and support the customised solutions the different departments want to use. The architecture supports even Radius-based WLAN roaming so that people between organisations may use their home user accounts for authentication in the roaming partner's public access network. The same roaming architecture can be then used even if the WLAN network is in the future migrated to the 802.1X.

802.1X, TKIP, WPA and so on are all nice methods to control WLAN access, but even they cannot correct a louzy WLAN architecture.

The problem is that in several, even most places, people are connecting their access points directly to their intranet and then rely only on the WEP key, MAC address lists, 802.1X and the WiFi security standard of your choice. In this kind of architecture when a standard is broken or the access point is compromised or just mis-configured, the attacker is able to gain access instantly to the protected network.

In our university this was the starting situation. Every department had their own WLAN with own WEP keys and MAC lists and some didn't even have those, just completely open network without any kind of access control. Not to mention about radio channel allocation or planning. Instead of the seamless, combined radio coverage there were several separate networks often disturbing each other.

A project was then started to define a common architecture for building wireless network securely and to provide that seamless combined radio coverage instead of all these kind of wild networks. What we decided was that WLAN networks are hostile networks and they should be treated as such. In the new architecture the organisation wide WLAN network is separated outside protected networks so that even if the access control of the wireless networks is breached, the only access the attacker directly gains is the access to the Internet, not to organisation's protected networks.

We didn't choose to use WEP key and MAC access control lists because they were useless. We didn't yet integrate 802.1X as a access control, because the terminals aren't yet ready for it. Instead we chose to build our WLAN network by using a captive portal to control the traffic demanding less security and VPNs to protect the traffic demanding more. By providing several means to authenticate we achieved the better interoperability and usability of the WLAN network than before.

With this architecture we are now able to server several different terminals, utilise old access points not capable of WEP encryption and support the customised solutions the different departments want to use. The architecture supports even Radius-based WLAN roaming so that people between organisations may use their home user accounts for authentication in the roaming partner's public access network. The same roaming architecture can be then used even if the WLAN network is in the future migrated to the 802.1X.

802.1X, TKIP, WPA and so on are all nice methods to control WLAN access, but even they cannot correct a louzy WLAN architecture.

The problem is that in several, even most places, people are connecting their access points directly to their intranet and then rely only on the WEP key, MAC address lists, 802.1X and the WiFi security standard of your choice. In this kind of architecture when a standard is broken or the access point is compromised or just mis-configured, the attacker is able to gain access instantly to the protected network.

In our university this was the starting situation. Every department had their own WLAN with own WEP keys and MAC lists and some didn't even have those, just completely open network without any kind of access control. Not to mention about radio channel allocation or planning. Instead of the seamless, combined radio coverage there were several separate networks often disturbing each other.

A project was then started to define a common architecture for building wireless network securely and to provide that seamless combined radio coverage instead of all these kind of wild networks. What we decided was that WLAN networks are hostile networks and they should be treated as such. In the new architecture the organisation wide WLAN network is separated outside protected networks so that even if the access control of the wireless networks is breached, the only access the attacker directly gains is the access to the Internet, not to organisation's protected networks.

We didn't choose to use WEP key and MAC access control lists because they were useless. We didn't yet integrate 802.1X as a access control, because the terminals aren't yet ready for it. Instead we chose to build our WLAN network by using a captive portal to control the traffic demanding less security and VPNs to protect the traffic demanding more. By providing several means to authenticate we achieved the better interoperability and usability of the WLAN network than before.

With this architecture we are now able to server several different terminals, utilise old access points not capable of WEP encryption and support the customised solutions the different departments want to use. The architecture supports even Radius-based WLAN roaming so that people between organisations may use their home user accounts for authentication in the roaming partner's public access network. The same roaming architecture can be then used even if the WLAN network is in the future migrated to the 802.1X.

802.1X, TKIP, WPA and so on are all nice methods to control WLAN access, but even they cannot correct a louzy WLAN architecture.

The problem is that in several, even most places, people are connecting their access points directly to their intranet and then rely only on the WEP key, MAC address lists, 802.1X and the WiFi security standard of your choice. In this kind of architecture when a standard is broken or the access point is compromised or just mis-configured, the attacker is able to gain access instantly to the protected network.

In our university this was the starting situation. Every department had their own WLAN with own WEP keys and MAC lists and some didn't even have those, just completely open network without any kind of access control. Not to mention about radio channel allocation or planning. Instead of the seamless, combined radio coverage there were several separate networks often disturbing each other.

A project was then started to define a common architecture for building wireless network securely and to provide that seamless combined radio coverage instead of all these kind of wild networks. What we decided was that WLAN networks are hostile networks and they should be treated as such. In the new architecture the organisation wide WLAN network is separated outside protected networks so that even if the access control of the wireless networks is breached, the only access the attacker directly gains is the access to the Internet, not to organisation's protected networks.

We didn't choose to use WEP key and MAC access control lists because they were useless. We didn't yet integrate 802.1X as a access control, because the terminals aren't yet ready for it. Instead we chose to build our WLAN network by using a captive portal to control the traffic demanding less security and VPNs to protect the traffic demanding more. By providing several means to authenticate we achieved the better interoperability and usability of the WLAN network than before.

With this architecture we are now able to server several different terminals, utilise old access points not capable of WEP encryption and support the customised solutions the different departments want to use. The architecture supports even Radius-based WLAN roaming so that people between organisations may use their home user accounts for authentication in the roaming partner's public access network. The same roaming architecture can be then used even if the WLAN network is in the future migrated to the 802.1X.

• Baseball Reference for historical baseball data. Want to see which career is most like Barry Bonds, find out here (the answer is Micky Mantle).
• Basketball Reference. Similar to the above site, but concerned with historical NBA data.
• Soccer has two excellent sites with historical and current data. The International Soccer Server and the Rec.sport.soccer Statistics Foundation. Both sites have details on which team won the league for all of history. And you should probably check out the UEFA European Cup Football Results and Qualifications page also. It doesn't contain historical results, but is a very detailed overview on how UEFA league qualifying is determined.