Slashdot Mirror

Consider using System76. They sell a broad range of computers and the only OS they use is Ubuntu. I bought a netbook from them and have loved it. Their service before and after the sale is fantastic. Check out their forum at: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=341. Their site is: http://www.system76.com./

Why in the devil do you have ssh available to the world?

I almost automatically moderated this up, but decided instead to respond.

ssh is Secure Shell. It is supposed to be a secure method of accessing a system (remote or otherwise). It does this job well.

So well, in fact, that there are computers out there whose job it is to bounce username/password combos off machines, slowly, in order to attempt to compromise them. Some (most?) of these machines are simply poorly secured systems that have been previously compromised, and are now doing the bidding of an outside force. Many of these "compromised hosts" can act in concert, spreading the attacks out not only over time, but also over IPs, making them difficult to detect and/or block.

One solution is to watch vigilantly for these attacks, and block the IP addresses of those machines from your ssh port, or (as is more common) to block them from touching your network at all. Those machines will get lonely, eventually...

Another solution is to implement some other form of security, either replacing the default security (using ssh keys instead of passwords, for example), or augmenting (read: hiding) it (using port-knocking, non-standard ssh ports, etc). These methods can be combined, to make an even more secure system.

Unfortunately for all of these methods, the average user is unable or unwilling to perform them, due to complexity. Unfortunately for all of us, the moment it becomes simple enough for the average user to figure out (and thus use) these methods, there will be an exploit that attacks the newly-simplified access method.

In short, having sshd open to the world, on the standard port, is probably an indication that a system can be broken into more easily than one which does not appear to be running sshd on the standard port. This really says not much about the security of the system itself, and the only reason to secure your ssh more than the default configuration already is (valid username/password required) is to keep from having huge log files full of failed attempts to crack into your system.

Personally, I use a combination of several of the ideas I offered above, because I am lazy and hate reading logfiles, especially when it seems critical that I must do so (30 attempts to crack my ssh key in an hour? bad monkey, no cheeto!) It is much easier, less stressful, and not time-consuming in the slightest to have my firewall simply drop all packets destined for port 22.

It was pointed out on the freebsd security mailing list that changing the port of sshd is only a stop gap, what you need is a way to deal with a large number of invalid attempts to log into the machine via ssh.

Eventually, what ever port you have sshd running on will come under attack, and it would be best to have a plan for how to handle the malicious traffic.

The best advice is move sshd off of port 22, establish and configure your IDS and response, move sshd back to port 22.

Why in the devil do you have ssh available to the world?

I almost automatically moderated this up, but decided instead to respond.

ssh is Secure Shell. It is supposed to be a secure method of accessing a system (remote or otherwise). It does this job well.

So well, in fact, that there are computers out there whose job it is to bounce username/password combos off machines, slowly, in order to attempt to compromise them. Some (most?) of these machines are simply poorly secured systems that have been previously compromised, and are now doing the bidding of an outside force. Many of these "compromised hosts" can act in concert, spreading the attacks out not only over time, but also over IPs, making them difficult to detect and/or block.

One solution is to watch vigilantly for these attacks, and block the IP addresses of those machines from your ssh port, or (as is more common) to block them from touching your network at all. Those machines will get lonely, eventually...

Another solution is to implement some other form of security, either replacing the default security (using ssh keys instead of passwords, for example), or augmenting (read: hiding) it (using port-knocking, non-standard ssh ports, etc). These methods can be combined, to make an even more secure system.

Unfortunately for all of these methods, the average user is unable or unwilling to perform them, due to complexity. Unfortunately for all of us, the moment it becomes simple enough for the average user to figure out (and thus use) these methods, there will be an exploit that attacks the newly-simplified access method.

In short, having sshd open to the world, on the standard port, is probably an indication that a system can be broken into more easily than one which does not appear to be running sshd on the standard port. This really says not much about the security of the system itself, and the only reason to secure your ssh more than the default configuration already is (valid username/password required) is to keep from having huge log files full of failed attempts to crack into your system.

Personally, I use a combination of several of the ideas I offered above, because I am lazy and hate reading logfiles, especially when it seems critical that I must do so (30 attempts to crack my ssh key in an hour? bad monkey, no cheeto!) It is much easier, less stressful, and not time-consuming in the slightest to have my firewall simply drop all packets destined for port 22.

yes, yes, I know, SELinux and such could protect me if I configure them correctly. Not even I can easily do that however, and nobody that I know would go that far

Apparmor for Ubuntu isn't too difficult. The default settings are good for most users, you just have to install them and set them to enforce.

IIRC it's something like
sudo apt-get install apparmor-profiles
sudo enforce firefox

A nice instruction manual can be found here.

What options does Linux have for the above case where we need to fine tune network and computer policies on thousands of PCs?

If the hardware is the same then it's easy to set up one PC the way all the others are going to be then cloning the disk. The same used to be doable for Windows as well, Norton Ghost cloned disks, but now that MS has gotten strict with activation and spyware I don't know if people can do it now. A quick google for linux remote administration tools show that remote admin can be done.

Not a sarcastic question as I am not very Linux savvy.

Neither am I, that's why I find Google helpful. I'm about to install Ubuntu 10.04, Lucid, on my MacBook Pro and I've been using Google to map out a strategy to make it a smooth process. Sure, as some say Ubuntu is easy to install however I will be dualbooting and will use the same user files and datastores in both OSes. I'll need to calibrate my monitors, I'll have two of them. I also want to use KDE in Ubuntu and switch between Gnome and KDE.

Falcon

What options does Linux have for the above case where we need to fine tune network and computer policies on thousands of PCs?

If the hardware is the same then it's easy to set up one PC the way all the others are going to be then cloning the disk. The same used to be doable for Windows as well, Norton Ghost cloned disks, but now that MS has gotten strict with activation and spyware I don't know if people can do it now. A quick google for linux remote administration tools show that remote admin can be done.

Not a sarcastic question as I am not very Linux savvy.

Neither am I, that's why I find Google helpful. I'm about to install Ubuntu 10.04, Lucid, on my MacBook Pro and I've been using Google to map out a strategy to make it a smooth process. Sure, as some say Ubuntu is easy to install however I will be dualbooting and will use the same user files and datastores in both OSes. I'll need to calibrate my monitors, I'll have two of them. I also want to use KDE in Ubuntu and switch between Gnome and KDE.

Falcon

What options does Linux have for the above case where we need to fine tune network and computer policies on thousands of PCs?

If the hardware is the same then it's easy to set up one PC the way all the others are going to be then cloning the disk. The same used to be doable for Windows as well, Norton Ghost cloned disks, but now that MS has gotten strict with activation and spyware I don't know if people can do it now. A quick google for linux remote administration tools show that remote admin can be done.

Not a sarcastic question as I am not very Linux savvy.

Neither am I, that's why I find Google helpful. I'm about to install Ubuntu 10.04, Lucid, on my MacBook Pro and I've been using Google to map out a strategy to make it a smooth process. Sure, as some say Ubuntu is easy to install however I will be dualbooting and will use the same user files and datastores in both OSes. I'll need to calibrate my monitors, I'll have two of them. I also want to use KDE in Ubuntu and switch between Gnome and KDE.

Falcon

Whole disk encryption needs to become mainstream. There are many approaches. Here are a few useful links.

If you want your OS to encrypt everything, Fedora makes it easy. So does Ubuntu.

If you want an add-on software package, PGP works well. In a slightly more involved way, so does Truecrypt.

If you prefer a hardware solution, you can adapt regular, off-the shelf drives with an encryptor such as the Deskcrypt. Fully-encrypted hard drives are available from most vendors, too, but the ones I've found most generally useful (as in, "compatible with every other sort of hardware") are the Eclypt models from Stonewood.

I have owned and used all the products above and like them very much. If you feel different, feel free to Google things like "Momentus FDE" or "WinMagic" or "Guardian Edge Hard Drive" for other vendors and approaches. Take whatever path seems most reasonable and logical to you.

But for God's sake, would everyone please start encrypting your drives? That's not everything you need to do. It's just a minimal first step toward personal security. But it's a start.

I much prefer the diskGenie, which is also a product from istorage-uk.com, however it feels more rugged, has a very nice tactile feel. Has the same encryption level as most of the others and reqires a 6-16digit pin to access the data.I have the 500gb 256 version and a 128gb ssd both reasonably priced.

Whole disk encryption needs to become mainstream. There are many approaches. Here are a few useful links.

If you want your OS to encrypt everything, Fedora makes it easy. So does Ubuntu.

If you want an add-on software package, PGP works well. In a slightly more involved way, so does Truecrypt.

If you prefer a hardware solution, you can adapt regular, off-the shelf drives with an encryptor such as the Deskcrypt. Fully-encrypted hard drives are available from most vendors, too, but the ones I've found most generally useful (as in, "compatible with every other sort of hardware") are the Eclypt models from Stonewood.

I have owned and used all the products above and like them very much. If you feel different, feel free to Google things like "Momentus FDE" or "WinMagic" or "Guardian Edge Hard Drive" for other vendors and approaches. Take whatever path seems most reasonable and logical to you.

But for God's sake, would everyone please start encrypting your drives? That's not everything you need to do. It's just a minimal first step toward personal security. But it's a start.

Broadcom wirelss. Cause of a 100 page thread on the Ubuntu forums (and innumerable posts elsewhere) by people trying to get those bloody cards working under Linux.

So speaking as one of the many sufferers, how long before I can just slap Linux on an old Acer laptop and expect the wireless to just work?

You can try it today, and if it doesn't work, fix the driver.

Broadcom wirelss. Cause of a 100 page thread on the Ubuntu forums (and innumerable posts elsewhere) by people trying to get those bloody cards working under Linux.

So speaking as one of the many sufferers, how long before I can just slap Linux on an old Acer laptop and expect the wireless to just work?

For those who don't know ureadahead, there's a good explanation by the developer on the Ubuntu forums.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=830241
VM + iTunes + Apple TV.
The Apple TV is $99. Cheaper than every other suggestion I've seen on here so far.
And its Apple... can't get much more "non-Slashdot crowd" than that.

I can't buy a Linux PC from Apple, period. Helps if you read every word in the sentence.

- any Apple machine is a personal computer, what's your point? Do you want to buy with Windows tax or not? Also you can buy GNU/Linux machines from various vendors, here is Dell with Red Hat, and when I go to select models on Dell site I can choose to buy them with no OS and the price is decreased normally by at least 70USD.

I don't know where you're finding this place where the price goes down if you choose no OS, but on the link you provided, the only options are Windows OSes. That's right, even on the "Dell with Red Hat" page you just linked as evidence you can still only buy with Windows. Claims that Ubuntu PCs are cheaper have also been debunked by a bit of investigation. This is because when you buy Ubuntu you're still paying for a Windows non-license, which Microsoft forces OEMs to pay.

And Dell is is one of the largest, I didn't bother with other large suppliers, but there are plenty who'll sell you just Linux machines and you can buy empty boxes, or should I Google it for you?

That's not the point. My point is that Microsoft still has the market power, without government intervention, to force manufacturers to pay it even for selling a competitor's product. This is the opposite of competition. With government intervention (i.e. if the Justice Department had finished the job of pursuing the antitrust case it had already basically won) there would be open competition in the market for desktop OSes, instead of the anemic semi-competition that there is now.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You just Godwined an argument about whether monopolies are caused by government

- no I didn't. The truth is simple: IBM enjoyed many privileges from many governments, it wouldn't be where it is, one of the largest companies in the world without that...

Which has very little to do with the Nazis, but you brought them up anyway to make IBM look bad. This is basically the definition of Godwining. Look it up.

Wow, I didn't know that. I installed the 4.0b2pre in Ubuntu (via ppa). Firefox 3.6 x64 takes 3059.4ms in Sunspider, 4.0 x64 takes 1186.4ms -- yikes!

http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?s=9ab5d0b9fe408661ad3f39da16b2e376&p=7635884&postcount=24

Techrights=BoycottNovell, they just rebranded. Hey, it worked for Blackwater...

Before then, QuickTime, including QuickTime X, could render to multiple targets, including OpenGL textures and CoreAnimation layers. You can take an H.264 stream, send it through QuickTime, and then composite it using either OpenGL or CA.

What is your response to claims that you cannot use Quicktime's H.264 acceleration if you are not Apple?

But, really, this is all misdirection. FFMPEG uses no hardware acceleration,

FFmpeg does use hardware acceleration.

but manages to use about half of the CPU of Flash.

On which platform?

heya,

The early 9.X releases were dogged by constant crashes in Plasma.

That as well as serious issues with Intel display drivers (I experienced these first-hand, as I have a Lenovo X200 tablet, and before that a Fujitsu T4215, both with Intel graphics).

I also heard that there were issues with the Nvidia display drivers, but I didn't experience these first-hand, as I don't have any Nvidia systems.

Perhaps you're very blessed, or maybe you just don't tweak/use systems to the extend that I or other users do. Either way, I encourage you to read this on Ubuntu's own forums:

View Poll Results: Should Canonical devote more developers, time and resources to Kubuntu?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1462668

I mean, seriously, it's like everybody in Ubuntu/Kubuntu's community either hates KDE and thinks Kubuntu shouldn't exist, or just doesn't think Kubuntu is worth using anymore...*sigh*. It's really sad to see.

Cheers,
Victor

heya,

Lol, I don't think you've actually proven anything there.

Yes, people criticise every OS release, but the funny thing about the Kubuntu criticism is that:

1. It's dogged it from release to release - from the 6.X days, right through to the current 10.X days. You compare that against the criticism from say, Vista to Windows 7, or say, OSX 10.0 to 10.6, or heck, ironically, even KDE 4.0 to 4.4/4.5. Kubuntu has sucked, I regret to say, from day 1, right through to today, and unless Canonical suddently decideds to devote more resources to it, will continue to.
2. Everybody seems to be claiming the same things - it's not their little pet peeves, like how "Windows XP looks plasticky", or "it runs slow on my ". There are a number of persistent bugs that have dogged it - now, some of there were hardware driver related, but there were consistent show-stopping bugs (i.e. would not even boot) dogging the entire 9.04 and 9.10 releases (alpha, beta and right through to RC). Showstopping bugs in a RC does not bode well.
3. Even the Kubuntu developers themselves know they're under-resourced.

And if you need further confirmation, here it is straight from the horse's mouth. Ubuntu forums:

View Poll Results: Should Canonical devote more developers, time and resources to Kubuntu?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1462668

Gee, the top voted options were "Yes, Canonical should devote more developers/time and resources to Kubuntu.", or "No, Gnome is and should be Canonical's focus."

And coming in third was "Definitely, Kubuntu isn't living up to its potential.".

Coming in fourth, "No, there's simply not enough resources to go around and Gnome deserves priority."

And all the way down in position five was "No, I like Kubuntu the way it is and/or am not significantly affected by bugs or usability issues.", at a pathetic 5% of votes.

I think that pretty much sums up the sentiment of the Ubuntu/Kubuntu community - either they don't care about KDE, or don't think any effort should be given to Kubuntu, or they've basically written off Kubuntu as simply not a KDE distribution of choice.

Cheers,
Victor

If anyone at HP is reading this, make the drivers fucking work. That’s all I’m asking for.

From the HP color laserjet with its shitty colour that more often than not looked washed out or oversaturated with some odd hue, its 5-minute-long warm up cycle, the inexplicable your-print-job-got-borked please-cycle-the-power error code that the HP site itself could only throw out wild guesses for eliminating (copy and paste entire document into new blank document, re-print... try moving one of the images ever so slightly up, down, left or right... if you are printing from one application try printing from a different application... yeah, those were real suggestions; they’re fucking clueless)...

Or the HP laserjet with faulty firmware which requires the driver to sends it a firmware update every time the computer is booted, which it stupidly does by adding a job to the print queue with the result that if there was already a print job in the print queue when the computer was booted (say, because you rebooted because the fucking thing was frozen when you tried to print, but didn’t delete the job you’d just printed), the printer will freeze up completely (again)... and half the time it seemed like going to hibernation froze the printer up as well, or was it sleep mode that screwed it up... and apparently getting it to work on Ubuntu is even more fun...

HP drivers suck.

Really? According to these pages, the alpha was updated in February, 2010.

That said, this is a topic of discussion on the Ubuntu forums.

For whatever it's worth, I'm using the 32-bit version installed via the flashplugin-installer package. However, until the release of Ubuntu 10.04, I was using the 64-bit plugin without any problems.

1. First reason I use KDE because it doesn't require me to open gconf to remap my "show desktop" icon. In fact, most key mappings can be remapped by right-clicking. This is an excellent reason to use ANY desktop environment: Customization.

2. Second reason is the idea of Right Click --> Properties on ANY shortcut/icon. Other desktops have different behavior depending on where the shortcut is located, and that makes it hard to learn how to make your own shortcuts. I like making my own fucking shortcuts.

3. Third reason is because it .

4. Fourth reason is to have arguing ammunition with haters (read below, there's plenty of them!).

There are many other conflicting reasons that I like to use gnome (example: Pidgin/Empathy > Kopete, Firefox/Gimp more "native"). I simply use whatever works. I actually enjoy switching back and forth between desktops because the concept of a computer desktop is still young and subject to change.

No one desktop has even come close to perfecting human interaction, so we should praise the work that goes into improving them.

Someone posted about a tool called "Scantool" on Ubuntuforums a few years ago.

It's a calculated risk.

Several people on the MythBuntu forum claim to have had no problem with the latest upgrade, but several like me have had problems. I checked again the other day, and I've upgraded from 8.04 through 8.10/9.04/9.10/10.04, and this is the first time I've had significant problems. Others that haven't had problems probably haven't bothered checking the forum or posting, so the visible problem rate has the issue of self-selection.

If you have the ability, I'd suggest cloning your drive (not necessary to clone the recordings folder, just the MythBuntu install) or at least back up your database before upgrade. Going from 9.10 to 10.04 upgrades Myth from 0.22 to 0.23 database schema unless you enabled 0.23 auto-builds in 9.10 already. I think downgrading would be difficult. If you experience problems, you could always just reload your clone, or reinstall 9.10/0.22 and the database backup.

Here is my post on the problems I've had http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9287139

Lemme know if you have other questions.

Why bother? I swear to god, I can do anything I want in sun (oracle? no hate here.) oo32 that I used to do in o2k3

I've been hoping to think the same way as you for 6 years now, but I still can't have something as trivial as rotating an image in a word processor to be done within the program where the image is: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=689876

I made a poll on the ubuntu foums on what people thought of the name

options:

Love it!
It's ok
Don't care
Hate it
Its's cute!
When did Animal Channel and John McCain get together?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1445838

(yes i made a typo in the poll)

Sure it is x.org and not the video driver? When you leave it on console-only, is it using the nomodeset switch for the kernel?

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1311112&page=8
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/474930

There are also some intel video related information here:

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904

Nobody on the fucking worthless-as-tits-on-a-bull Ubuntu forums will do anything to help with these problems and if I file a bug report I basically get routed to Bug #1 in Ubuntu.

You wouldn't happen to be this guy, would you?

I swear I'm not kidding. But someone mentioned this too I believe.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1603426&cid=31700058

I think http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=308695 talks about it too, and the dates show that it's not a joke.

As I have already commented, I think this is a horrible idea. Windows is not going to change its window buttons, I have to use Windows, and I dread this change. And, if you have to put the buttons on the left, the most-commonly-used button (the Close button) should be in the left corner, so that in the common case where I have a maximized window, it's easier to hit.

I went ahead and read through Mark Shuttleworth's comments about the bug. In summary: they want to try some new cool stuff, they want to shake things up and not be bound by the past, they have some ideas (not described) for ways to use the right-hand side of the menu bar. (He was even talking about moving the scroll bar away from the right side of the window, on the grounds that few people use it, and scroll wheels/touchscreen interfaces are becoming the big new thing. This doesn't give me the warm fuzzies either.) They are shipping the beta like this to see what actual reactions are to this idea.

I went ahead and listened to the podcast also (the relevant bit starts around 0:39 into the podcast). Ivanka Majic said many things, but IMHO did not adequately explain why they think this is a good idea. Some vague comments about how they are actually testing things. She said many commendable things, such as talking about how new users can find it really hard to even understand just what Ubuntu is. And she said something that sounded like her department was behind the "papercuts" project, of which I firmly approve. But if you are trying to understand what the heck is going on with those crazy buttons, you can skip the podcast.

So, if (like me) you dread these new buttons, the best thing you could possibly do is to actually get a copy of the Ubuntu beta and try it out; then post, not just opinions, but informed opinions supported by personal experience. "I tried to click on the Edit menu and closed my window" (if that actually happens to you) should be much more persuasive than "I looked at your screen shot and I can already tell I hate it".

By the way, check this out: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1430585

So, I'm planning to download the Ubuntu Beta ISO image, and install it (possibly in VirtualBox), and try the thing out. Then I will add my voice to those commenting on the new buttons.

steveha

yep - subversion. Back when 8.04 came out. There was no svn 1.5 client available at the time. Take a look at ubuntu forums for some of the details on what it took to get a 1.5 client working on 8.04 x64.

You can use an iPhone or a Touch with Linux without jailbreaking it. Apparently someone has reverse-engineered the usb protocol and produced a program called iFuse that lets you mount the filesystem. As far as I know people are syncing their 3.0 devices with rhythmbox.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=953381

Of course this is all a bunch of needless crap since Apple should have implemented usb mass storage support to begin with.

I'd love to have an iPod-Touch-like android device. I don't want a phone. Just a good media player that runs android.

The symmetric cipher uses a master password I select as the key. That key is used locally.

I'm not sure what you're after, but I'm going to assume you haven't looked into it. If so, please do first - else I will be spending time writing what others have already written. If you're already well versed as to how LastPass works and know something I don't I'd be very interested in hearing about it though :)

http://devilsadvocatesecurity.blogspot.com/2009/04/lastpass-answering-security-questions.html

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5901550

See my previous post. Not only are many third-party applications not in the repositories, some applications that are in the repositories are out of date. In my case I was installing Samba on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. The version in the repository was 3.0x (about). I wanted to install a newer version of 3.x Samba. It was a completely manual process on my part. Now that I have it installed, apt won't maintain it from the Ubuntu repositories (or from any other repository that I've been able to find).

Out of curiosity I just did a quick Google search on the subject to make sure that things haven't changed. It doesn't look like they have. Here is another poster who had pretty much the exact same issue I did. He made his post within the last week.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1416233

I NEVER saw that popup on first boot

I am new to linux, but I definitely know how to use that fucking google. People who didn't use linux are not retards. Maybe they didn't have a reason to change and are "normal" in every other aspect of life. Normal people generally try the easiest way to solve a problem, and dont do difficult things unless they have to. Ubuntu has failed to list the nVidia driver as a possibly required driver many many, many times.

I NEVER saw that popup on first boot

I am new to linux, but I definitely know how to use that fucking google. People who didn't use linux are not retards. Maybe they didn't have a reason to change and are "normal" in every other aspect of life. Normal people generally try the easiest way to solve a problem, and dont do difficult things unless they have to. Ubuntu has failed to list the nVidia driver as a possibly required driver many many, many times.

I NEVER saw that popup on first boot

I am new to linux, but I definitely know how to use that fucking google. People who didn't use linux are not retards. Maybe they didn't have a reason to change and are "normal" in every other aspect of life. Normal people generally try the easiest way to solve a problem, and dont do difficult things unless they have to. Ubuntu has failed to list the nVidia driver as a possibly required driver many many, many times.

I NEVER saw that popup on first boot

I am new to linux, but I definitely know how to use that fucking google. People who didn't use linux are not retards. Maybe they didn't have a reason to change and are "normal" in every other aspect of life. Normal people generally try the easiest way to solve a problem, and dont do difficult things unless they have to. Ubuntu has failed to list the nVidia driver as a possibly required driver many many, many times.

I agree with you on this. However I think a good compromise would be just creating a shell script that calls gksudo and does whatever they need to do.

so, for example if the guy has to copy and paste:

sudo apt-get install build-essential
tar -zxvf ndiswrapper-1.51.tar.tar
cd ndiswrapper-1.51
make distclean
make
sudo make install
ndiswrapper -v
sudo make uninstall
cd ..
tar -zxvf win-drivers.tar.gz
sudo ndiswrapper -i netwpn11.inf
ndiswrapper -l
sudo ndiswrapper -r netwpn11
sudo ndiswrapper -i netwpn11.inf
sudo depmod -a
sudo ndiswrapper -m
sudo modprobe ndiswrapper
nano /etc/modules

He instead is provided with a ndisconfig.sh script that does all that including gksudo. In this way you just have to tell them "to download this configuration file" and right-click + run with the file explorer.

Having trouble getting things that are not well supported working isn't what makes for an idiot, posting a bunch of random offtopic questions is what makes for an idiot.

A question like "I'm still having trouble with x,y and z, do you see Canonical focusing on improving these areas?" would work just fine, but instead we get a litany of problems, composed of a mix of third party issues, obvious cases of obtuse-user-syndrome, and potential real problems.

(For instance, the first Google result for "Ubuntu task manager" is this page:

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-331065.html

I'm not using Linux/Gnome system, so I have no idea if the "System Monitor" mentioned there is a piece of shit or not, but I would bet it works fine, in which case OP really is to blame for not being able to figure it out)

and Linux edits AVCHD without transcoding? REALLY? Umm no.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=529871

Openoffice takes about 350MB of space, so it is a significant proportion of an ubuntu install, but c'mon. Despite the name "netbook", these devices in my experience spend a significant amount of time offline. This is bizarre choice - more discussion is here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1399012

We had a thread on Ubuntuforums dedicated to this topic. I think we concluded that tdfsb is awesome.

up, you're probably safe -- your cpu speed is increasing on demand and going back down when there's no demand. If it stays the same, that's when you know there's a problem. andy zebrowitz Re: Want to make the pc faster Heres what its

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get this to work in Chromium for Linux.

No, libertarians who write books on Natural Rights apply econometric formulas to empirically identify which societal rulesets are necessary for a civilized society.

Quoting my recent post from another socialist-leaning software forum:

In reality, Natural Rights come from the principle of competitive advantage: a society that violates Natural Rights the least would have an empirically-observable materialistic advantage over other societies that violate them more. It's almost as clear-cut as penicillin, except of course you can't observe human societies through a microscope, and the lenses of history are blurred by pro-government bias that funds and controls most knowledge-related institutions.

A society that tolerates murder has never made it out of the hunter-gatherer phase of human development. A society that tolerates theft is very unlikely to build a successful and stable economy. A society that believes in a false construct called "animal rights" (which violates actual Natural Rights of humans) wouldn't advance as well scientifically, due to the necessity of using animals for lab experiments. A society that believes in various false constructs called "positive rights" (ex. right to free food, health-care, unicorns, etc) will discourage economic productivity, experience flight of brains and capital, higher taxes, and it will eventually simply run out of competent people to tax (read Ayn Rand). Etc.

No society with a complete monopoly on force in the hands of the government has ever prospered for more than a generation or two. Just compare gun-controlled Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of Hitler to Switzerland - which Hitler actually wanted to invade, but it simply wasn't cost-effective for him to do so, because of its armed populace being ready for an active campaign of disobedience. If the Jews in Germany were as well armed as the Swiss, then Hitler's rise to power would have been simply impossible! Gun control has cost hundreds of millions of lives in the 20th century alone, while the side-effects of gun control are minuscule in comparison!

Furthermore, it is inevitable that avoidance of liabilities in the free market (cost of insurance, risk externalities, tort, perfectly legitimate local gun control by private property owners, etc) would inevitably lead to proliferation of "less lethal" self-defense technologies, and concentrate more firepower in the hands of qualified professionals. It is the government that's creating economic pressure for more lethal technologies, and it most certainly takes a government to create something as economically retarded as an aircraft carrier or an atomic bomb!

Now, once again, this socialist-leaning forum is not a good place to have this debate, especially when outspoken points of view are restricted to only 2 posts a day. If you want to debate this further then please go to a more libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist forum instead, where dissenting views are likely to be treated more substantively and not stifled, as they are here.

Which is complete BS, and utter speculation.

You talk about the Jews in Germany being as well armed as the Swiss? It still would have happened, to say otherwise is more speculative BS, and propaganda.

There is no economic advantage to competition, unless you can crush and eliminate the competition. While there is a huge advantage to cooperation. That's how trusts form. Its basic game theory.

No, libertarians who write books on Natural Rights apply econometric formulas to empirically identify which societal rulesets are necessary for a civilized society.

Quoting my recent post from another socialist-leaning software forum:

In reality, Natural Rights come from the principle of competitive advantage: a society that violates Natural Rights the least would have an empirically-observable materialistic advantage over other societies that violate them more. It's almost as clear-cut as penicillin, except of course you can't observe human societies through a microscope, and the lenses of history are blurred by pro-government bias that funds and controls most knowledge-related institutions.

A society that tolerates murder has never made it out of the hunter-gatherer phase of human development. A society that tolerates theft is very unlikely to build a successful and stable economy. A society that believes in a false construct called "animal rights" (which violates actual Natural Rights of humans) wouldn't advance as well scientifically, due to the necessity of using animals for lab experiments. A society that believes in various false constructs called "positive rights" (ex. right to free food, health-care, unicorns, etc) will discourage economic productivity, experience flight of brains and capital, higher taxes, and it will eventually simply run out of competent people to tax (read Ayn Rand). Etc.

No society with a complete monopoly on force in the hands of the government has ever prospered for more than a generation or two. Just compare gun-controlled Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of Hitler to Switzerland - which Hitler actually wanted to invade, but it simply wasn't cost-effective for him to do so, because of its armed populace being ready for an active campaign of disobedience. If the Jews in Germany were as well armed as the Swiss, then Hitler's rise to power would have been simply impossible! Gun control has cost hundreds of millions of lives in the 20th century alone, while the side-effects of gun control are minuscule in comparison!

Furthermore, it is inevitable that avoidance of liabilities in the free market (cost of insurance, risk externalities, tort, perfectly legitimate local gun control by private property owners, etc) would inevitably lead to proliferation of "less lethal" self-defense technologies, and concentrate more firepower in the hands of qualified professionals. It is the government that's creating economic pressure for more lethal technologies, and it most certainly takes a government to create something as economically retarded as an aircraft carrier or an atomic bomb!

Now, once again, this socialist-leaning forum is not a good place to have this debate, especially when outspoken points of view are restricted to only 2 posts a day. If you want to debate this further then please go to a more libertarian / Anarcho-Capitalist forum instead, where dissenting views are likely to be treated more substantively and not stifled, as they are here.

your cpu speed again. If it goes up, you're probably safe -- your cpu speed is increasing on demand and going back down when there's no demand. If it stays the same, that's when you know there's a problem. andy zebrowitz

cpu speed again. If it goes up, you're probably safe -- your cpu speed is increasing on demand and going back down when there's no demand. If it stays the same, that's when you know there's a problem. andy zebrowitz

andy zebrowitz