Slashdot Mirror


Overclockix 3.7 Released

prostoalex writes "Overclockix 3.7 is released, available via bittorrent. It's a live Linux CD with a bunch of utilities for 'torturing' the PC hardware, hence the name. The authors seem to take a reasonable approach on graphical desktop, cutting out what they consider unnecessary eye candy, but leaving in the tools essential for effective GUI. 'Some new package highlights such as knoppix firewall, vlc, superkaramba, KDE 3.3.1, newer 2.6.7 kernel, NX client, and many more', the site says."

148 comments

  1. Torture the computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Windows ME on there?

    1. Re:Torture the computer? by roseblood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Nope, that'll be Longhorn, you know it needs 3d accelerated video cards? That is NEEDS, not can use them as an option.

      --
      There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    2. Re:Torture the computer? by Skidge · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would be against the Geneva Convention.

    3. Re:Torture the computer? by christopherfinke · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be torturing the user, not the computer.

    4. Re:Torture the computer? by Victor+Antolini · · Score: 1

      Above url links to goatse (very obvious though)

    5. Re:Torture the computer? by GuruBob · · Score: 0, Troll

      it's only overclocking if you know that spinning up the processor will result from your actions, if causing overclocking is not your objective, you lack the requisite specific intent even though the overclocker did not act in good faith.
      so...
      if you have a good-faith belief your actions will not result in overclocking, you lack the mental state necessary for your actions to constitute overclocking.

      no jury could possibly convict you if you're over clocking from Guantanamo;)

      --
      Facebook is a woodpecker tapping on the skull of Humanity, Forever.
    6. Re:Torture the computer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get the truth about Long-delay-Horn @ http://www.windows-longhorn.org

    7. Re:Torture the computer? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      Geneva Convention?

      Dude, we're Americans! We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Convention.

    8. Re:Torture the computer? by jasonjacks0n · · Score: 1
      Get a free Mac Mini! [freeminimacs.com]

      Damn, that was fast.. *sigh*

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  2. Kinda late... by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is this being posted just now? Not that this isn't really interesting, but the link says it was released on December 7th...

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
    1. Re:Kinda late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a reverse dupe. They meant to post it before and post it again now, but missed the first time.

    2. Re:Kinda late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be new here.

      Oh, no, wait... this guy's new here

    3. Re:Kinda late... by pronobozo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Why is this being posted just now? Not that this isn't really interesting, but the link says it was released on December 7th..." Some of us can't keep up with every single release of every single program. Although we try.. some slip past. Did you know when it was released? seems to me you just found out today. :-) Not picking on you, just trying to figure out your point.

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
    4. Re:Kinda late... by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      People often use the linguistic fragment "lol" when they're just marginally amused, as opposed to actually laughing aloud. Well, let me tell you something bucko. lol. And I mean it.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  3. no distributed.net client? by rahard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    unfortunately, there's no distributed.net client. :(

    does anybody have a bootable CD with dnetc client :)

    1. Re:no distributed.net client? by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Got a floppy drive? You could run it from there. :)

    2. Re:no distributed.net client? by rahard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Got a floppy drive? You could run it from there. :)
      ... if only I could find a good floppy disk.
      These days, it is more difficult to find a working floppy drive and floppy disk.
      It's even more expensive than blank CD!
  4. new?!?! by Coldglow · · Score: 2, Funny

    2.6.7 I hope you don't try an xfs filesystem or a nforce2 system on this kernel. woo superfase lameness

    1. Re:new?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot. I ran 2.6.7 on an nforce2 (Abit NF7-S) with XFS from when 2.6.7 came out, to the time 2.6.10 came out, and never had a single problem. It was probably the most solid kernel I have ever used, actually.

  5. Cutting out eye candy?? by kidgenius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why include KDE then? Why not something lighter like fluxbox, rox, etc?

    1. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Justin205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why include KDE then?

      Some degree of familiarity to make it usable by non-Linux users? (i.e. Windows users who found it and want to play with it.)

      --
      "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
    2. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Some degree of familiarity to make it usable by non-Linux users?"

      This isn't meant as a troll but has it never occurred to anyone that it would be prudent to make it usable for Linux users? As someone who was weened on UNIX, KDE and Gnome are practically unusable. They're overly complex and confusing IMO and it's an increasing source of irritation that many of the good applications that are around today assume that they'll be ran in one of these "desktop" environments. It would be a good project for someone to adapt this Overclockix distro for Linux users.

    3. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Homology · · Score: 1
      This isn't meant as a troll but has it never occurred to anyone that it would be prudent to make it usable for Linux users? As someone who was weened on UNIX, KDE and Gnome are practically unusable. They're overly complex and confusing IMO and it's an increasing source of irritation that many of the good applications that are around today assume that they'll be ran in one of these "desktop" environments.

      Then you'll find xfce usable :

      What is Xfce 4.2 ?
      Xfce is a lightweight desktop environment for unix-like operating systems. It aims to be fast and lightweight, while still being visually appealing and easy to use.
      Xfce 4.2 embodies the traditional UNIX philosophy of modularity and re-usability. It consists of a number of components that together provide the full functionality of the desktop environment. They are packaged separately and you can pick and choose from the available packages to create the best personal working environment.
      Another priority of Xfce 4 is adhereance to standards, specifically those defined at freedesktop.org.

      On an older laptop I use xfce because KDE/Gnome has such a long time to load.

    4. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Because KDE is primarily about functionality

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run kde on a dual 500mhz celeron w/512M ram and it runs fine. I also run it on a dual opteron 244 w 2G of ram. It runs much faster on the dual opteron, but it still runs fine at work where I have the dual celerys. So I don't get the problem.

    6. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have tried Xfce in the past and it is pretty good. However, it's still too complicated IMO. The dock bar type launcher is poor IMO and it's method of iconification is confusing to me; both the taskbar and the iconbox don't work as expected. I much prefer the Windomaker style of launcher and iconification. If the Windowmaker people could bring the manager upto speed with regards to the modern desktop protocols, I'd be a happy bunny.

    7. Re:Cutting out eye candy?? by Jameth · · Score: 1

      KDE, I can see, but then keeping SuperKaramba and claiming you are cutting out frills is just bunk.

  6. mmm... Folding by PaintyThePirate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using Overclockix for a few months for Folding@Home. It is brilliant in that you can set up a Folding box that needs no HDD, and a keyboard/video/mouse only to configure the Folding client.

  7. Overclocking damage via software, Possible on PCs? by 10000000000000000000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you remember the good old days? When software configuration had the power to wreak physical havoc on the machine components themselves?

    ahhh, I recall a coworker telling me the other day about ancient IBM printers.

    "Giant beasts!" they were described as. "Stacks of alternating row color feed paper as tall as a MAN!" he said. He was in school and was waiting in line to print out a program he held in his hands as several hundred punch cards. The woman at the front of the line inserted her cards and set the system running.

    Apparently she sent some kind of malformatted instruction, because this printer (which was quite substantial in size itself - computers used to be so much more like washing machines and fridges didn't they :) slowly opened it's mechanical lid and began to shoot paper 10 feet out at amazing velocities.

    It took some time for an instructor to get called in to stop the madness, and apparently a good amount of paper had been blown through by that point ¦D

    anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

    just curious =)

  8. Superkaramba? by GameGod0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Superkaramba isn't unncessary eye-candy?

    1. Re:Superkaramba? by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Although maybe it is there as a tool to put excessive amounts of stress on the system. It certainly tortured my hardware when I last tried to run it.

    2. Re:Superkaramba? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      No. It's necessary eye-candy. ;)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    3. Re:Superkaramba? by houghi · · Score: 1

      No. It's necessary eye-candy. ;)

      I looked at it and for me it's not necessary eye-candy.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Superkaramba? by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Then don't use it - nobody's forcing you to. And if it's taking up space on the CD that you'd rather use for something else, then just remove it...

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  9. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a beowulf cluster of Overclockix 3.7

    Would the clockx go forward in time?

  10. Overclocking damage via software, Possible on HDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?"

    Hard Drives apparently need no help in that department.

  11. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Lafe · · Score: 1

    I guess this is a fairly common story. We had high-speed line-printers at my college as well. Great fun was had when we wrote a program to send page feeds to the printer in an infinite loop. The paper actually arced through the air. The lab assistants were less than amused.

  12. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    "is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions?"

    Why don't you just blast the thing with a shotgun?

  13. So useful for Windows OC'ers by roffles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the biggest problems when overclocking is testing stability, and when you're running windows it's hard to tell just what is causing the instability. I think this will be very successful in the OC community because not only will it provide an environment to push the hardware, but it likely won't crash as randomly as windows does, won't require repartitioning to get into linux, and will probably generate more informative error messages if you push things too hard.

    1. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by toddestan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure it would be so useful if you plan on running Windows. From my experience, Linux seems to be a bit more tolerant of flakey hardware, and a system that's stable in Linux may not run Windows reliably at all.

    2. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by The+Green+Skeleton · · Score: 1

      will probably generate more informative error messages
      I dunno, blue smoke comming from under the headsink is pretty damn informative.

    3. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It used to be folklore that the opposite was true.

      Linux tended to use clean code and take the attitude that the code was correct and problems external to the code were somebody else's problem. Widows had a reputation for including tons of messy work arounds for glossing over problems with flakey hardware.

      Was the folklore wrong, or has something changed?

    4. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This was mostly true with Win9x, which never used STOPCLK instructions in its idle loop without running some third party utility like Rain or CPUCool. Thus, the CPU tended to get quite hot in Win9x, even when it wasn't doing anything.

      Linux, BSD, and every WinNT variant use STOPCLK in their idle loops. This folklore is really no longer true.

    5. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      This might not be true in all circumstances, but it is for me:

      I bought a new computer about 2 years ago, and the psu managed to damage (not completely fry) the motherboard (turned out to the the ram slots). Windows 98SE/2000/XP would fail to install every single time i tried, linux would install and run just fine, with an occasional crash.

      Probably just a fluke though - the windows installers tickling the RAM in a particular way.

    6. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Windows is still much more tolerant of flakey RAM. I've got an old PC that needs to have the external cache disabled (due to flakey cache RAM) to even boot Linux, but it can run for days in Windows. I've seem similar problems with flakey RAM sticks.

    7. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't just folklore. I worked in a computer store in November of 1992 when I started using Linux, and most of the pieces of junk we sold wouldn't run Linux, but they'd run DOS and the DOS application called Windows just fine. I was the one that would have to install SLS on the systems to test them before we sold them to Comp Sci students that were going to install some sort of UNIX.

      > the code was correct and problems external to the code

      It wasn't that at all. It was that Linux stressed the hardware much more than DOS or Windows. For example, the system I put together for my brother and the other I did for my sister ran Windows 3.0 in real mode just fine for years, but when I later installed Windows 95 Preview, it wouldn't run on either just as Linux wouldn't run on either.

    8. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by wrecked · · Score: 2, Informative
      That is exactly how I got started with Linux. My Duron / Abit-KT7 / Matrox G450 box was chugging along fine from 1999 to 2002 under Windows 98se. Then one day in the summer of 2002, it "black screened" ie. "your registry is corrupt, press any key to restart system". Thereafter, it refused to load Windows except in Safe mode, and it crashed everytime I tried to increase the video mode beyond 640x480x16.

      I swapped out all the cards, and isolated the problem to the Matrox G450. However, when I booted with a Knoppix CD, everything was fine at 1024x768, so I knew that the videocard was functional.

      After spending the weekend downloading, installing and reinstalling the Windows drivers for both the VIA chipset and the Matrox videocard to no avail, my wife got pissed off at me. She asked me, "What's wrong with it?" and I said, "Well, the card works because Knoppix runs fine, but Windows seems to have a problem with it." So she told me, "Then get rid of Windows, and put Linux on it!" (bless her!). So since that day, we've been Linux only...

      In case anyone is interested, this last summer, I installed Windows 2000 briefly for a specific application. Still encountered the same problem with the videocard. However, this time after much, much googling and experimenting, I came across a suggestion to lower the AGP Aperture to 4MB, and it worked. Apparently, the problem is the combination of the Matrox videocard and the Abit motherboard. Sorry, don't have the URL of the solution handy. But at this point, we're pretty used to Linux, and we're never going back (I removed the Windows 2k install after I was done with it).

    9. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 1

      Very true. I used to have a Windows XP partition, but it was completely useless because it would freeze after about 10 minutes of use. My linux setup will freeze about twice a month if I leave it on 24/7.

    10. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeezus christ you are a moron.

      You wouldn't think to lower the AGP arpeture to it's sanest setting FIRST?

      I love you "Linux experts". You're like the IT version of Reno 911.

    11. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by runderwo · · Score: 1

      Um, how is a 4MB aperture the "sanest" setting? A tiny aperture will utterly cripple AGP performance.

    12. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by runderwo · · Score: 1

      The system software on IA-32 has no control over what is stored in the cache aside from invalidating it. The fact that one OS would run on cache that another wouldn't is pure coincidence, not a metric of tolerance of bad hardware. Flakey peripheral hardware on the other hand you will find consistently more useful in open source systems because users send in their custom workarounds to be included in the drivers. Also, you can use bad RAM in Linux by telling the kernel not to use the defective regions.

    13. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by runderwo · · Score: 1

      STOPCLK? Don't you mean HLT? STOPCLK is a bus signal, not an instruction.

    14. Re:So useful for Windows OC'ers by wrecked · · Score: 1

      Wow, a Windows user telling me to "RTFM"... classic. But you're absolutely right; Windows is too difficult and requires too much googling for a dummy like me to use, so I'll stick with Knoppix and the opensource Matrox drivers.

  14. You know Slashdot has gone downhill when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making a Windows ME joke gets you modded as troll.

    1. Re:You know Slashdot has gone downhill when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in this case its +4 funny

  15. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by 10000000000000000000 · · Score: 1

    well, when I need to destroy the bad guy's PC it's likely he will have guards outside the door.

    And it would have been a total waste of my time to buy this ninja outfit and grappling hook if I was just going to give away my position with a shotgun blast...of course, I suppose I could just carry a microwave gun, but have you priced those things lately?

    I'm a ninja, man. Not bill gates!

  16. Is this useful for testing computer stability? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Is this program useful to test system stability? I like to use cpuburn to see if my system can handle it like cooling.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Is this useful for testing computer stability? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's useful because it's a live cd.

      no possibility of fucking up the filesystems.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  17. Re:YALDISOAP by PornMaster · · Score: 1

    Want to try making up a nice acronym expansion for Yggdrasil, which was one of the early distributions?

  18. Re:YALDISOAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Gotta Get Da Really Awesome Super Intelligent Linux

  19. Burn-In by mboverload · · Score: 3, Informative
    Some people are sure to mention this, but I want to put out the fire before it starts.

    "Burn-In", aka running new components at their max to get them to run faster, is complete hemp. There is no evidence to support this, and you are just decreasing your machine's life. However, burning-in can show a faulty components.

    1. Re:Burn-In by mcc · · Score: 1

      However, burning-in can show a faulty components.

      I just kind of assumed from the name that this was the point... since after you overclock the machine, you're likely to have faulty components you didn't before...

    2. Re:Burn-In by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      The general theory is that if a component is going to fail, it'll do so within the first few months. I have drives and mobos that date back to the 486 days that still run without any problems at all.

      The point is that you want to take a brand new part and stress it as much as possible. If it fails under a week of testing at full utilization, then it would probably have failed after a few months in your production system.

      Better for both you and the vendor that you find problems early.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    3. Re:Burn-In by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Informative

      I used to work at AMD's Austin fab. Your processor is already burned-in at the factory. Actually, we used the term to mean taking the processors and BAKING THEM IN OVENS for several days, and then returning them to our facility and testing them, where the defective ones were sorted out. I think "burning in" is just a word used by people who don't understand it properly, like "big iron" means anything larger than a Sun 220R these days.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Burn-In by HolyCoitus · · Score: 1

      I always thought the reason for burning in components was to test for them being faulty and (in the case of overclockers) to get the thermal paste to completely set and change state. This allows you to begin doing the highest level of overclocking right away. I could be wrong though.

      I know for a fact that thermal pads are only effective after you have burned them in. Does anyone know details about the way thermal grease reacts to the heat? Does it change state as well?

      --
      That's scary.
    5. Re:Burn-In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have two sets of burned out motherboard power plugs. It seems that I have added too many cards, and on a dual processor box, that was too much. Had to take out the USB and Sound cards, and add a big fan on the memory bank. External, really big.
      Now, the machine can run ok, and I can cook up a Knoppix remaster just fine. Sorry about that sound card, however. Good thing I can solder and splice new plugs into the system, and yes, I did add a second power supply to share the load. Some HDD's are on one, and the MB and primary HDD on the other. When you think about it, a lot of cards on the MB slots is a lot of transistors to have to power up. I don't use ATX, so my little power plugs are just too small. Next time, I'll have to try and wire the power in directly, no plugs, but that will be a bear, I'm sure.

  20. Re:YALDISOAP by bluequartz · · Score: 1

    I will pass thanks :D

  21. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Zorilla · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't you just blast the thing with a shotgun?

    Compy 386 for sale!
    Like used
    Slightly Shotgunned

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  22. the 2.6.7 was indeed a good vintage by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Although I share your appreciation for the finer points of the 2.6.7 vintage, I feel that there are other vintages of similar quality that are underappreciated. For example, after a rough taste of 2.6.0 and its immediate successors---which apparently didn't much care for my USB bus---I settled on a lovely compile of 2.6.4 which I cherished for several months with nary a complaint.

    1. Re:the 2.6.7 was indeed a good vintage by Rufus211 · · Score: 1

      I must say my good sir, you truely are mad.

  23. Distributed Computing projects. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    last time I tried overclockix, the distributed computing projects were pre set up to give some other guy 'arkayne' credit.

    Skip that.

    1. Re:Distributed Computing projects. by AntiNazi · · Score: 1

      Arkaine, and thats the main dev afaik. I think he has the fah config outside of the knoppix image (still on the .iso (not sure how this knoppix thing actually works)) so that you can change the config without remastering. Atleast thats what he told me, i've never actually done it.

  24. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice troll, but no it doesn't need one standard distro. I use FC3 as my webserver because it is stable and is easy to set up even without GUI, I use Slackware for my firewall because the installer can run on a system with only 16 megs of RAM, I use LFS as my desktop system because I like to know how stuff works under the hood.

    It wouldn't be possible to combine these, they each serve their own purpose. If you want something that is easy to use and tries to appeal to people who don't like diversity then use Linspire.

    Damn 503's.

  25. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by mboverload · · Score: 1
    *Holds fist up*

    I feel ya my brother!

  26. eyecandy by reynaert · · Score: 0, Redundant
    cutting out what they consider unnecessary eye candy, but leaving in the tools essential for effective GUI. 'Some new package highlights such as [...] superkaramba

    /me wonders what is considered unnecessary eye candy...

    1. Re:eyecandy by Tarcastil · · Score: 1

      obviously not Enlightenment :)

  27. can u say "owned in 60-seconds" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can u say "owned in 60-seconds" ? i yhowt ro. never run a live os booted from someone's cd.

  28. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by X-wes · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those of us who don't get the joke, this was the text of a fictional advertisement from HomestarRunner.com. It ran on Bubs' Concession Stand for Strong Bad's damaged computer after Bubs used his shotgun as an antivirus device.

    Linky

  29. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1
    is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

    I haven't thought about this in a while, and I know more about software and hardware. Maybe it's possible to constantly write data to a critical cluster of a hard drive so that the cluster goes bad prematurely and renders the drive useless? If the computer's fan is software-controlled then maybe you can shut it off and burn the system out? I remember somebody telling me a story about it being possible to blow out an old SoundBlaster card with proper instructions but that was a long time ago. And this is all assuming you want to actually kill the hardware. If you just mean wreaking havoc in general then I suppose you can just hook up another line printer and launch paper in the air still. And I am a person who feels the same about my hardware that people feel about their pets so this whole topic is somewhat disturbing to me.

    In my high school robotics class, the robotic arms were controlled by big boxes which connected to ports on the back of the computers. You'd send data and receive status with functions like out(port, value) and in(port). If all else fails, you can hook one of these to the computer and program it to swing hard into the monitor. This is just sickening.

  30. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by HermanAB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why? Why whould having one distro be better? Would you like to run my cell-phone version of embedded Linux on your desktop? Would you like to run a mainframe version of Linux on your PDA? Would you prefer to run a Linksys SOHO firewall version on your Notebook? Do you really need to edit documents on your MP3 player?

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  31. hence the name by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Funny

    That is indeed something of a tortuous name.

  32. Apparently... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    The server's hardware is being tortured right now. It's totally slashdotted.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  33. Apparently yes, but I haven't tested it by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    A while a ago I went looking for a video ram testing utility. The only one I was able to find was on this page created by this Russian guy at this website. (It's mostly in Russian though, which I speak).

    There I looked around and found this story about this utility called S2KCt used to supposedly cool some athlon processors by using the S2K bus disconnect instruction.

    The guy writes how he simultaneously ran his utility that does a cpu burn-in and S2KCt and ended up with a burnt motherboard. He says his "converter" burnt. And he wasn't overclocking the machine at the time. He seems to know enough about heat management since he develops similar programs (see below on that). Then later, he says,using similar hardware he tried to test a later version of S2KCt and his motherboard died again.

    So that is what I have recently heard about hardware being damaged by software. Also take note, since the author himself writes utilities that cool and stress the CPU he is not a totally unbiased source.

    Any computer engineers who can validate the story ?

  34. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by 12421 · · Score: 1

    Distro stands for "distribution". I would hardly call "Linksys SOHO firewall version" a distro (or even "version"). This is a customized OS designed for a specific purpose/device. However, there should only be one disro for desktops and one for servers. On desktops, lack of standardization is the main obstacle to Linux adoption.

  35. Floppy drives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading, years and years ago, about the possibility of damaging a floppy drive by sending it an instruction to access a non-existent sector, which would be beyond the reach of the drive's "arm" (?). I would think that the floppy controller would just return an error but, in any case, that's what the text said.

    The same text also mentioned changing the display settings (frequency I guess would be the factor here) quickly and continuously.

    I guess you could also wear out some things, like the hard drive or floppy drive, but that would require a long time (but who knows, maybe an attacker could do it over a weekend when the target computer isn't being supervised); I also assume you could damage the speakers, at the very least if its physical volume control is turned all the way up.

    tmegapscm

  36. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    I remember doing that (accidentally) a few times. Quite embarassing. But the really cool trick with some printers was to make themr actually "walk" across the room with a series of carefully timed carriage returns. Also you could get some printers to play music (of a sort).

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  37. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by ak_hepcat · · Score: 1

    Meh.

    You keep your single choice to yourself and let those who want and enjoy the freedom to create their own distributions do it. That's how innovations come about, you know.

    Wait a sec... you're bill gates, aren't you? It was the no friends in the world that gave it away. Sorry, Bill, this ain't gonna be like Windows where it's your way or the hiway.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
  38. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha yeah, use linspire you fucking monotone faggo

  39. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by noidentity · · Score: 1

    anyhow, the point of my story is a question. is it still possible to wreak havoc on modern PC's via non-bios software instructions? theoretically? without any physical hardware modification?

    Sure! Just e-mail the (l)user of the computer that his computer has a nasty virus that can only be eradicated by doing <damaging action> to computer. You don't even need to write any machine code!

  40. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by ihavnoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, what's 'non-bios'? There seems to be nothing that only the 'bios' can do. If the BIOS can do something, the OS (or kernel drivers) can do it too, without any code from the BIOS. What's the difference?
    What I remember is, years ago, there was a virus that re-flashed the BIOS with garbage, so it would fail to boot. (I think it's the CIH virus. Somewhere around 1999.) A lot of people had gone crazy, and had to call the customer support to replace the BIOS flash.

    Well, if a 'user application' could wreck your (maybe modern) PC, then that's not a feature, that's a critical security threat. (A DOS attack, I guess.)

  41. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by tim_mathews · · Score: 1

    Well, some older CRT monitors could be damaged by giving them resolutions and refresh rates that they couldn't handle. There's a warning in one of the X man pages. The XF86Config one I suppose.

    I had a KDS monitor that didn't come with instructions (that is I borrowed it from school) and one day I went to the library and when I came home it had stopped working. Anyway I took it apart and a little daughter board soldered on near where the horizontal refresh line came in (it had BNC connectors) had blackened itself. I would have fixed the board but the 8 pin chip that seemed to be the center of the board had been burned beyond recognition as had several small capacitors and the traces on the board. So I salvaged the flyback transformer, some power supply caps and left it for the trash men. I suppose that could have been caused by running it beyond spec, but I really don't know.

  42. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am fed up of seeing this stupid comment on every other story posted in slashdot, and equally stupid replies by zealots who value "choice". There IS a standard distro. It is called Linux Standard Base. It is adhered to by Redhat and Novell and that means 99% of SUPPORTED workstations out there adhere to the standards. All the other distros, be it debian, gentoo, overclockix or whatever are either irrelevant (a distro to stress your hardware? Please...) or serve for a specific purpose (hobbyists, GPL freaks etc.). Just accept it and move on,

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by UncleScrooge · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, ATiTool kills video cards. I know form first hand experience. ggrrmmble. 500% video card fried....

    --
    Slashdot 1|0 Productivity
  45. KDE? by eno2001 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Leaving out the unnecessary eye-candy? Wouldn't that be just about all of KDE? If they want to be truly thin, they can use twm. I don't get this contradiction though. KDE is anything but lightweight. Hell, even GNOME is lighter than KDE and it's still a beast.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:KDE? by m50d · · Score: 1

      KDE is mostly about functionality, really. Sure it looks good, but it's also easier to use than any other DE I've seen, at least for newbies.

      --
      I am trolling
  46. My faith in a benevolent higher power is gone... by bazmonkey · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They're cutting out unnecessary eye-candy and throwing in superkaramba.

    For the love of God, tell me what the unnecessary ones were.

  47. Unnecessary eye candy... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Is what I'd consider including every GUI known to man! Drives me nuts.

    Superkaramba is one of the most underutilized pieces of functional eye candy around (and so is the theme packaging format in 3.3! You can download single file *complete* themes now!).

    Anyhow, I think more really is sometimes less.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  48. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by 12421 · · Score: 0

    That is the kind of mentality that prevents Linux from being adopted, especially on desktops. 99.9% users don't care about choice. They just want their computers to work and perform certain tasks.

    Having many distributions creates these problems:
    - Software that works on one distro might not work on another distro
    - Task which is performed on one distro in one way is performed differently on anther distro. Therefore user can't accumulate Linux expertise.
    - Different look and feel. Therefore user who has experience working with one distro feels uncomfortable with different distro.

  49. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by L.Bob.Rife · · Score: 1

    Users dont care about choice? Are you for real?

    I've used at least 10 different distros in the 8 years I've been running various linux boxes, be it server or desktop.

    Would I still be using linux if I had been stuck with only 1 distro? No way.

    Have you ever considered that sometimes parallel research and design can come up with better results? Sure, there is some duplicated effort, and some dev work gets overlooked and lost, but you get a stronger product in the end.

    If everyone focused on one way of doing things, it doesn't mean that the end result is twice as good than if people focused on two ways of doing things.

  50. Re:YALDISOAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your Grandpa's Git Daughter Raised A Stupid Idiot Loser

  51. Paper throw! .... by taniwha · · Score: 2, Informative
    Of course I remember the "good old days" when line printers were men and a chain break could embed it in the wall across the room ...

    Seriously though what you describe was called a 'paper throw' and probably ment the operators had set the thing up wrong ... basicly those old line printers had a control tape - a short length of paper tape with a bunch of holes in it, each time the page advanced a line the tape did too - the tape was the same length as a page (every time the printer had moved to a new page the tape had gone around once) - when the printer got a line to print it looked at the first character on the line (think fortran CC) and if it was a number N look at the Nth column in the tape and skip forward until it finds a hole in the tape in that column. So for example when you print labels you throw on a special tape with holes that match where the labels start etc etc and by convention '1' skips to the start of the next page because column 1 always has exactly one hole punched in it that lines up with the start of the page - you get the idea.

    So what's a 'paper throw'? well if the operators ever put on a tape that has a column M that has no holes punched in it anywhere and someone prints a line that sais 'skip to column M' the tape spins forever without printing anything and paper streams (horizontally) out of the printer missing the basket that's supposed to catch it ....

  52. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by 12421 · · Score: 0

    Yes, most users don't care abut choice. Average shashdotter is not an average user.

    Have you ever considered that sometimes parallel research and design can come up with better results?

    Yes. There are advantages to having several approaches to the same problem and developing them in parallel. However, disadvantages far outweigh advantages. Having one single standard design is more important than having best design. Moreover, open source projects have very limited resources and it is better not to spread them among projects solving the same task. If projects working in parallel join, they are usually able to achieve more than each of them separately.

  53. [OT] Sig by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Given the fact that a pyramid scheme is guaranteed to leave the vast majority of the people who get sucked into it with absolutely nothing, do you actually expect you have a good chance to get your free stuff? What makes you luckier than the next guy?

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  54. WHERE ART THOU MINIMAC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU GIBBED ME D00D!!

  55. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporate workstations, sure. Home workstations, hell no - no way in hell that RedHat and SuSE have 99% coverage.

    Hell, I doubt they even have 99% in the 'real world', I've known Slackware nuts who would leave bodies on the floor if anyone approached their sacred boxxen while wearing a goofy crimson hat. ;)

    At any rate, even RH and SuSE differ in where they're tossing stuff, what stuff they include, what they don't.

    Like the spoon, there is no 'standard' distribution.

  56. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Frankablu · · Score: 1

    You fail to see is that some of the "non standard - unsupported" linux distro's are a lot better then commercial distro's and infact some have better support. Where is the Linux Standard Base to claim a standard btw?

  57. Firmware updates may wreak non-physical havoc by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

    A lot of attached devices have replaceble firmware. Modems, routers, graphics cards, DVD burners, cameras etc. Sometimes the firmware download functionality is built into the firmware, meaning that a failed firmware update may prevent a new update attempt. I know one such example were a camera went tits up after a failed firmware update. It had to be sent in for repair which turned out to be quite expensive. Also I have heard of graphics cards which was rendered useless by a firmware update. Another not so scary example is some SpeedStream routers which will have to be reset on a physical button after a failed firmware update.

  58. knoppix with "readahead" and "bootchart" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    knoppix with "readahead" and "bootchart" makes quick boot from CD and visualize the result.

    http://unit.aist.go.jp/itri/knoppix/readahead/inde x-en.html

    "readahead" is a tool to populate the page cache with data from files so that subsequent reads from these files will not block on disk I/O.
    "bootchart" is a tool for performance analysis and visualization of the GNU/Linux boot process.

  59. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Face it, >99% of supported workstations run Windows or some proprietary Unix. The Linux Standard Base means zip. I use Debian, and think Debian should not necessarily follow LSB unless everyone truly thinks it is the best thing to do from a technical/engineering viewpoint.

    Debian is the mothership. Within 20 years, almost all computers will run Debian or a derivative, because the "gravitational" gradient points toward Debian. Economic forces ultimately cannot be resisted, and the existence of Free software will make it impossible for similar proprietary software to generate revenue. The financial impetus to use Free software will become increasingly compelling in the next few years, and the obvious choice will be Debian.

  60. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    The newer processors have thermal detection - if it gets too toasty, it'l overheat (although you might beable to change the critical point)

  61. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by novakyu · · Score: 1
    Having one single standard design is more important than having best design. Moreover, open source projects have very limited resources and it is better not to spread them among projects solving the same task. If projects working in parallel join, they are usually able to achieve more than each of them separately.

    'Completely agree with your point---that is, as long as the "distro" (i.e. LFS) I use becomes the standard distro. Anyone who says otherwise is a dim-wit.

    It's like trying to choose a standard language---it's not going to work, just as Esperanto didn't.

    PS. Gosh, we can't even choose a standard unit system (one thing that might have the most benefit from having a uniform standard)! And I'm not talking about U.S. using "feet" and "miles"---even in scientific fields, SI isn't as standard as some would have the laypeople believe. However, in different specialized fields (spectroscopy, electrodynamics, etc.) there are "dominant" unit system (because that particular way of writing things out turns out to be convenient)---in the end, the best thing to do is let things be; and may the best distro/project win!

  62. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

    Well, no corporation would consider anything but Novell and Redhat, let's say, for the sake of being complete, Xandros and Sun JDS.

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  63. Ultimate stress test by hairykrishna · · Score: 3, Funny

    1) Create interesting bootable linux distribution

    2) Get posted on front page of /.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    1. Re:Ultimate stress test by TLouden · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      The slashdot effect is actually beneficial to BitTorrent. More people = better speeds for all. Maybe using the BitTorrent idea for websites wouldn't be such a bad idea. Wouldn't work for banking sites but hey, they aren't likely to be /.ed.

      --
      -Tim Louden
  64. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by grumbel · · Score: 1

    ### Why whould having one distro be better?

    It would mean that one Linux would finally be compatible to another one, as it stands now you have a very hard time getting a binary build on distro X to run on distro Y.

    ### Would you like to run my cell-phone version of embedded Linux on your desktop?

    Nope, but thats not the point. For different purposes, different Linux distros might make sense, however today we have multiple dozens of distros that serve *exactly* the same purpose.

  65. Superkaramba is useful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you plan to use it with several sensors it is a wonderful application.

  66. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by m50d · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure it's the chernobyl virus, and a very nasty fellow it was. Whilst it technically doesn't "damage" anything, when the bios is soldered on it can cost more to reflash it than to get a new motherboard. It's still knocking around, and still works, but widespread antivirus and the lack of floppy-trading since the rise of the internet have made it pretty uncommon.

    --
    I am trolling
  67. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I had an old Centronix line printer that was like that. except much smaller but if you even touched the FF button it would shoot a stream of greenbar wide carrage paper 6 feet in the air before it arced back to the ground.

    I wasted many a case of paper aiming that printer and cart at the doorway at work and holding down the FF button just as a co-worker walked through it.

    I really miss the ability to print a 600 line bash script and not be fast enough to get to the printer that is behind you fast enough before it stopped printing.

    Those were REAL printers. and yes, IBM still makes something like them... and they do look like washing machines.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  68. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by kherrick · · Score: 0

    Does anyone consider Mandrake main stream anymore? I thought it was cool and considered going back since I don't really want to reinstall Fedora ever 6 months... seeing how each new Fedora version takes a month to install and get used to...

  69. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah. I can beat that. Back in the 1970s, there was a high-speed printer at my college that had the characters on a chain that would run by the paper horizontally. A hammer in each column would hammer the paper against an ink ribbon that ran between the chain and the paper, thus leaving an imprint on the paper. The series of characters was repeated twice on the chain, so by studying a printout of all of the characters very carefully, I was able to determine their sequence on the chain. I wrote a program that would print out a line such that all the hammers would be activated at the same time. When the printer tried to print that line, it made a big "KA-THUNK!" noise, and jammed the paper in the printer, with the result being somewhat opposite the arcing effect that you have described i.e., the bottom feeder continued to feed paper into the printer, but nothing came out of the printer. When the printer was deactivated and the door openned, the paper resembled an abstract orgami sculpture. After a couple of such incidents, they modified the printer driver to specifically detect character sequences that would have this effect.

    Yes, I was a bad boy in college.

  70. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "99.9% users don't care about choice."

    Fine. Those 99.9% can use RedHat (or Beanie, or Derby, or whatever it's called these days). The rest of us can pick and choose.

  71. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Esperanto failed because it's loaded with biases. For example, it places too much emphasis on gender. Also, some of the consonants are difficult to pronounce for some people (e.g., rolling Rs for native English speakers, the R/L difficulties for native Japanese speakers, etc.). In addition, many of the words are derived from those in existing languages. For a language to be successful, it will have to be designed totally from scratch, have logical and consistant semantics, and be easy for people to pronounce, no matter what their native language is.

    --
    By modding this post down, you certify under penalty of perjury that you lick public urinals.

  72. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a fairly short period in computer history where we were foolish enough to have BIOS chips that were both soldered on and flashable. I can't think of a modern board that doesn't have a socketed BIOS.

    Personally, I don't know why we don't go back to non-flash BIOS, or enable a locking mechanism on the chip. There's nothing in there I would want to be able to rewrite from the operating system on a regular basis.

  73. woozel wozzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya see, the best thing to do is get 40 gmail accounts and set them all to fowarding to your mums email address, then use them to get mailing listz

  74. Re:ofverclokcisn by dzarn · · Score: 1

    Wow....drunk much?

  75. Wow slashdotted! by arkaine23 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyways to answer a few things that have been mentioned... DC apps are preconfigured but the configs are in the ramdisk so its not all that hard to change them. I generally include scripts which reconfigure them and restart them using atyhe newly-generated config. I try stick some instructions about this stuff on KDE's desktop in a folder aptly named Info. Also, I've been putting the default configs outside the clooped filesystem so ppl can edit the iso before burning to change the default DC application configurations for their own use. P.S It's pretty clearly stated that the distro has these apps included and runs folding@home automatically. Its also as easy as "foldoff" to kill the process. WM's- Overclockix has fluxbox and icewm and xfce. The older 3.4 version even have Gnome. You enter a code when booting to use these instead of KDE. Also there's an app in the menu to switch even when running live from the CD. KDE was the logical default choice since its the most popular and most widely-used desktop environment, and my target users are tend to be new to linux. Eye-candy: Lately for eye-candy I use just a single added icon theme and the inclus (not running by default mind you). There are some added KDE service menus for ease of use, and transperancy-configured terminals, backgrounds set for icewm and fluxbox... but not much else. To counter-balance, I disable a lot of services I think most ppl won't be interested in on a live CD. When you come right down to it, Overclockix is Knoppix with a little face-lift, some extra tools for stress-testing and distributed computing nuts, and slighttly different package selection whuich includes some popular user-reqit's more up-to-date on the whole than Knoppix is, being upgraded to Debian unstable packages.

  76. Overclockix 3.7 by arkaine23 · · Score: 1

    And yes, I'm a hobbyist. An inital release like 3.7 is almost guarunteed to have a coule of broken features. Which reminds me an update release for Overclockix 3.7 will probably hit the net in a few weeks.

  77. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by HybridJeff · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing tables full of really cheap high end motherboards (like $5-$10) at a computer hsow I went too back around '99. The catch was they all had stickers on them saying somthign to the effect of "this motherboard may be infected with the CIH virus"

  78. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by m50d · · Score: 1

    Not on a regular basis, but I've been pretty glad I could reflash my bios when I've upgraded to a bigger hard drive and not had it all recognised. Maybe a bios protection jumper that you had to remove before being able to reflash would be a good idea though.

    --
    I am trolling
  79. Unnecessary Eye Candy? by verbatim_verbose · · Score: 1

    They removed unnecessary eye candy... ok, cool. But the package highlights list includes Superkaramba?

    Hmm.. ok... from the Superkaramba website:
    "SuperKaramba is, in simple terms, a tool that allows you to easily create interactive eye-candy on your KDE desktop."

    I guess that makes it necessary eye-candy? These guys seem to have a pretty confused goal...

  80. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by dickrichardv8 · · Score: 1

    Ha! You sound like the BOFH who did this to a "user" at least once an episode.

  81. Re:YALDISOAP by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

    Assuming YGGDRASIL ~= Overclockix... YGGDRASIL Gormly Groks Daunting Recursive Applications Stressing Integrated-circuit Logic

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  82. Re:Linux doesn't need any more distros by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

    Linux Standard Base is a standard, not a distro, as far as I can tell. There is a reference implementation, but that's all.

  83. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by danielrose · · Score: 1

    I had the same problem with a 15" KDS monitor which I too didn't have a manual for (similar to your appropriation of said device!)

    It showed pretty patterns for a few seconds at higher resolutions in X, then promptly fizzled out to nothing.

    --
    i hate pansy republicans
  84. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    Welll I did in 1989 threaten to reprogram a Alpha/Delta 3000 (what a P.O.S )

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  85. Re:Overclocking damage via software, Possible on P by OglinTatas · · Score: 1

    Also you could get some printers to play music (of a sort).

    I have a CD from the experimental surf group "Man or Astroman" called "A Spectrum of Infinite Scale."
    There is a tune on it called "A Simple Text File" which is a dot matrix printer producing music.