I also suffer from the "gotta carry 'em all" syndrome, even though I am usually cell-phone free and I have no PDA to speak of. However, I do walk around with my laptop a lot, and could really use a backpack that would be versatile enough to carry it, along with accessories (battery charger, network dongle, a few CD's...), plus books / notepads or whatever else I might need. I also sometimes take my camera (old fashioned, manual and clunky --- will definetly NOT fit in a small pocket away from sight) when I have to go out to some weirder place. Being able to carry it in the backpack as well would be great. And extra pockets are always welcome (to keep keys, wallet, and the like).
Is there any backpack out there that would fit the bill ? What do people use to carry laptops on their backs ?
I was eagerly waiting for Linux 2.4 from the day I heard somewhere it would support ipfilter. I run mostly BSD boxes, due to personal preference, while still keeping a few Linux systems up and running. All systems run perfectly well and cause me little grief, if any at all.
However, once again the Linux camp is "doing things their own way" and contributing even more to the separation between different Unix flavors (as well as making those sigs that go something like "Linux - the Unix defragmentation tool" even funnier). Don't get me wrong, iptables seems to have a few cool features that are not present in ipfilter, but just why was ipfilter not used instead ? It is present in a few platforms already (runs on all BSD's, as well as Solaris / SunOS and IRIX), it is tried and tested, and it does most of the stuff iptables does. And it can probably be extended to do everything iptables does as well, with some extra work. But the Linux folks, however talented and bright they undoubtedly are, and however good a kernel they have produced, have just taken a completely silly route this time. Not only have they duplicated effort towards the same (or at least, a very similar) end, they have also created another headache for busy sysadmins who maintain a few different systems. I had high hopes on ipfilter being "officially" supported under Linux (the ipfilter code mentions sketchy support for Linux, which I have admittedly not tested, but from the looks of it it has not been maintained for a long time --- the most recent kernel mentioned in the HISTORY file is 2.0.34, the last reference to Linux appears in 1998), but now I will be forced to get rid of the only Linux box I still maintain as a server (for various reasons, none of which related to the quality of the OS --- that little box has run great for ages, and causes me no grief at all) if I ever need firewalling for it. Yes, I could learn to work with iptables (and I probably will anyway, out of curiosity), but the Linux folks could probably learn to cooperate better with the rest of the world in certain aspects. It really is a shame, because I honestly think Linux is great --- the mindset of some of it's users (and by the looks of it, some developers as well) is however a different matter...
I'll begin by stating that Loki is doing extremely good work. I have run some of your demos, and they work flawlessly. Being a FreeBSD user myself however, I am a bit disappointed that all of the demos I tried wouldn't run "out of the box" under FreeBSD's binary emulation of Linux, especially because it would just be a matter of tweaking before they did.
A while ago I noticed that Heroes of Might and Magic III for Linux was out. So I grabbed the demo and tried to run it under FreeBSD --- it puked instantly. After a bit of fiddling, I found out the problem were missing syscalls in the Linux emulation layer. I spent an hour or so adding empty wrappers for the missing syscalls, and it eventually worked. Heroes 3 runs without a hiccup on my system now, but the idea I had of buying the game should it work under FreeBSD is far away now.
My question is, how hard would it be for you guys to test your games under FreeBSD's binary emulation and tweaking them until they work ? I heard rumours that the FreeBSD project had donated a box so you could do just that, is this true ? And how hard would it be to include native FreeBSD binaries on the cd's ?
(It should be mentioned that this post is FreeBSD-centric because that's the only BSD I have gained enough experience with, and it is the one I use daily. What I've said might be true of OpenBSD/NetBSD as well.)
Slashdot Mirror
I also suffer from the "gotta carry 'em all" syndrome, even though I am usually cell-phone free and I have no PDA to speak of. However, I do walk around with my laptop a lot, and could really use a backpack that would be versatile enough to carry it, along with accessories (battery charger, network dongle, a few CD's...), plus books / notepads or whatever else I might need. I also sometimes take my camera (old fashioned, manual and clunky --- will definetly NOT fit in a small pocket away from sight) when I have to go out to some weirder place. Being able to carry it in the backpack as well would be great. And extra pockets are always welcome (to keep keys, wallet, and the like).
Is there any backpack out there that would fit the bill ? What do people use to carry laptops on their backs ?
I was eagerly waiting for Linux 2.4 from the day I heard somewhere it would support ipfilter. I run mostly BSD boxes, due to personal preference, while still keeping a few Linux systems up and running. All systems run perfectly well and cause me little grief, if any at all.
However, once again the Linux camp is "doing things their own way" and contributing even more to the separation between different Unix flavors (as well as making those sigs that go something like "Linux - the Unix defragmentation tool" even funnier). Don't get me wrong, iptables seems to have a few cool features that are not present in ipfilter, but just why was ipfilter not used instead ? It is present in a few platforms already (runs on all BSD's, as well as Solaris / SunOS and IRIX), it is tried and tested, and it does most of the stuff iptables does. And it can probably be extended to do everything iptables does as well, with some extra work. But the Linux folks, however talented and bright they undoubtedly are, and however good a kernel they have produced, have just taken a completely silly route this time. Not only have they duplicated effort towards the same (or at least, a very similar) end, they have also created another headache for busy sysadmins who maintain a few different systems. I had high hopes on ipfilter being "officially" supported under Linux (the ipfilter code mentions sketchy support for Linux, which I have admittedly not tested, but from the looks of it it has not been maintained for a long time --- the most recent kernel mentioned in the HISTORY file is 2.0.34, the last reference to Linux appears in 1998), but now I will be forced to get rid of the only Linux box I still maintain as a server (for various reasons, none of which related to the quality of the OS --- that little box has run great for ages, and causes me no grief at all) if I ever need firewalling for it. Yes, I could learn to work with iptables (and I probably will anyway, out of curiosity), but the Linux folks could probably learn to cooperate better with the rest of the world in certain aspects. It really is a shame, because I honestly think Linux is great --- the mindset of some of it's users (and by the looks of it, some developers as well) is however a different matter...
I'll begin by stating that Loki is doing extremely good work. I have run some of your demos, and they work flawlessly. Being a FreeBSD user myself however, I am a bit disappointed that all of the demos I tried wouldn't run "out of the box" under FreeBSD's binary emulation of Linux, especially because it would just be a matter of tweaking before they did.
A while ago I noticed that Heroes of Might and Magic III for Linux was out. So I grabbed the demo and tried to run it under FreeBSD --- it puked instantly. After a bit of fiddling, I found out the problem were missing syscalls in the Linux emulation layer. I spent an hour or so adding empty wrappers for the missing syscalls, and it eventually worked. Heroes 3 runs without a hiccup on my system now, but the idea I had of buying the game should it work under FreeBSD is far away now.
My question is, how hard would it be for you guys to test your games under FreeBSD's binary emulation and tweaking them until they work ? I heard rumours that the FreeBSD project had donated a box so you could do just that, is this true ? And how hard would it be to include native FreeBSD binaries on the cd's ?
(It should be mentioned that this post is FreeBSD-centric because that's the only BSD I have gained enough experience with, and it is the one I use daily. What I've said might be true of OpenBSD/NetBSD as well.)