Obtain a 68HC11 microcontroller (they are available for around $30, quantity 1). You will need an RS232 adaptor (figure another 10 bucks).
Attach a small disk to the valve. Put aluminum foil on one side, and earth the foil. Cut a series of holes around the disk (before attaching the foil, and the disc should be a non-conductive material). Put a sensing whisker so that the whisker is in contact with the foil, or disc. Now when the valve turns, the microcontroller will get pulses.
Of course, this doesn't tell you which way the valve is turning. Use a second circle of holes, offset, and another whisker, not offset (or the other way around). The phase between whisker activation will tell you which way the disk is turning.
===H===H===H===
=====W
==H===H===H===H
=====W
Where H is a hole, and W is a whisker pickup. If the lower pickup activates first (from a state of no pickups active), the disc is being rotated counter-clockwise. If the upper pickup activates first, the disc is being rotated clockwise.
The amount of rotation is determined by counting the activations on a single whisker. The speed of rotation is determined by activations/time.
So, the pickup shouldn't cost more than an evening to build, and two bucks in parts.
You can dispose of the microcontroller and directly (I would use a 7404 for buffering and some isolation) drive a PC parallel port.
I would challenge it with LISP implementations (back to the 50's). Except that breakpoints would be done by replacing the eval function for single step, or the function itself for a specific breakpoint. (debug myfunc) and (undebug myfunc), in a nutshell.
Of course, if it EVER got to a Court, all is lost, because trying to explain the implementation of LISP to a jury would be... impossible. Or, for that matter, to most judges.
Actually, that is PowerShells biggest weakness as a integration shell.
The idea benind the Unix toolset and shell is that everything is reduced to a common lingo -- a character stream. Each tool can then be "used as designed", or "misused". The classic example is the original Unix spell implementation. The tool designer promises to accept as wide an input range as possible, to output consistent streams, and not be verbose.
The actual use (misuse) to the tool is left to the shell and user.
The Object philosophy means that input to a tool MUST have certain methods available. If the correct methods are not implemented over the object, an adaptor tool must be used. Microsoft ensures that all PowerShell tools work together IN NORMAL USE. Obvious "misuse" is not (necessarily) supported.
This makes common usage cases easy, but makes "outrageous" cases almost impossible (unless you reach for VC++ and write your own adaptors).
As an example -- I do a lot of "performance analysis", which entails examination of log files, conversion to normalized scales, and running the results through GNU Plot to get images to paste into reports. There is almost always a need for custom shell scripting to do the log examination and reduction.
Now, this IS possible in PowerShell, but only by treating it as a "Unix (gasp, how horrible!)" type shell.
Since the exploration phase (and creative "misuse") is my primary area, PowerShell doesn't have much to offer me. But, for a developer living in the straight and narrow land of "how it should work", it is probably the next best thing to sliced bread.
As to the "PowerShell" equivalent of the non-Microsoft world: I find that I still (occasionally) cook up SNOBOL scripts. When writing compilers for an old course, it was the ONLY programming language specifically not allowed for assignments (it made lexing, parsing and generation much too simple).
"Ubuntu and OS X are not regularly attacked by self-propagating worms and widespread Web exploits."
Interesting -- and I will now refute that.
My front end linux box (external access, http, ftp, mail, ntp, and some more services) is REGULARLY attacked. vsftpd is being attacked almost 24/7 these days (looking for insecure passwords). sshd also almost 24/7. We are talking about THOUSANDS of attacks per day. My incoming mail services gets hit (looking for open relaying) but not as much. My htpd get trolled (mostly for IIS vulnerabilities).
Just a rough count: 500,000 attack attempts per day.
How is this not being regularly attacked?
The security mechanisms in Linux are certainly up to the task. My network was comprimised ONCE, back in 1999, due to an SSH exploit. Never since.
Why yes, it is the LGPL. Which is the "Lesser GPL". Specifically, the LGPL ALLOWS the linking of non-free programs to it.
Of course, the source of the library itself must be available, but it is not necessary to disclose the program itself (although that might be preferred for other reasons).
Saying "the latter usually has much simpler distribution terms" is also not true. Some of the restrictions on Microsoft redistribution have been: cannot be public domain, cannot be a general purpose word processor, cannot compete with Microsoft Access, must be updated within 90 days of an unspecified time (and be labeled "beta"). Enough to mke MY head spin, anyway. At least the LGPL doesn't try to limit what you distribute with the library!
And the LGPL specifically does not force an application to be GPL, or even LGPL.
It is perfectly possible for an application author to produce an application and link it statically.
It is also possible to link with -z origin -rpath '$ORIGIN/../lib' (or similar) allowing the bundling of the EXACT shared objects (dlls for you windows folk) locally into a single directory tree.
If this is done, the application can be put into any directory, and will run from there with no further configuration needed. If glibc is included, it will also run on a WIDE range of kernels.
Of course it isn't in the "packaging system" -- but that can also be done (especially to run pre and post scripts).
As to the GUI? Either include the widget set, or use GNOME. What's the problem?
And (ps.) this is what's generally done on Windows. DirectX is included by every application that needs it.
"Build from source" isn't required to cross x86 Linux boundaries -- it exists to cross processor families (Sparc, PowerPC, MIPS, ARM, etc.), and Operating Systems (Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc.).
Even there, tools exist (eg. QEMU) that allow running binaries on other archs.
Sounds like you could benefit from a Redhat admin course.
chkconfig --level 345 httpd on takes care of starting apache at boot time. service httpd start starts apache if it isn't going. Modules such as ssl and ldap are supplied.
I don't understand what subsversion has to do with apache. I use cvs, which has its server on a different port.
Of course games expect AT LEAST administrative access. This follows from the design of DirectX subsystems. When Microsoft asked game developers "What do you need to produce games for Windows", the developers responded with "driver support, and then GET OUT OF THE WAY".
Microsoft delivered. And this is NOW a problem. The answer was predicated by the hardware systems of the day. It may now be an issue. But, once more, the platform is closed, and compatibility is Microsofts issue (I won't repeat my previous argument). Microsoft should have provided "administrator minus" mode for these applications.
It is not the fault of the developers for writing applications that meet "best practices" of the day. If the systems were open, these could be updated. But if closed systems are used, other ways of continuing to run these applications is needed.
Personally, I sandbox Windows in VMware containers. I consider that "current best practice". But then, I don't run games. Current best practice for that is a separate machine.
But the thing that we are striving to be compatible with is CLOSED.
Which means?
That once an application works, it IS compatible. There is no other reference implementation to try it against.
If there are multiple implementations (in Windows case, 98, 2000, XP, Vista), once it works on the platforms that are feature compatible, the application works, and again it IS compatible. There is no reference authority OTHER THAN THE IMPLEMENTATION. (and look at the Microsoft Word submissions for additional hedges).
Because of this, it becomes Microsofts issue -- to either properly document the API, -or- to provide OS patches to keep applications operational. If the API were properly documented, clean-room implementations would be possible (more specifically, WINE would be done). So it is not in Microsofts platform interest to do this.
Which leaves OS patches to keep applications running. Which, in turn, further complicates the API description (hypothetical example: APIduJour(HANDLE aHandle,...) description: does this function. If called from an application named "FOOBAR" does this secondary processing as well. If called from "XYZZY" can fail with this result, else this other result.).
There is a direct benefit to Microsoft -- if a clean room implementation is attempted, either the OS needs reverse engineering (limited by the license) or a VAST number of test cases need to be run. Either is very difficult (and witness that WINE is NOT done yet).
At some point it becomes a nightmare to maintain for Microsoft, but my bet is that there will be upgrades supplied to Vista in increase its back-compatibility.
If all you want to do is browse the web -- you are right. But to actually EXPLOIT linux? Someone told me that Windows allowed bridging a wired and wireless network just by clicking. I can't confirm that, but I present here the command line incantation that I use to do the transparent layer 3 bridging:
And I really don't know how to do this from the GUI (I don't think there IS a way, but I could be wrong). For those "Linux gurus" who are probably a bit puzzled -- this is a 2.4 kernel, the box bridges wired to wireless, and provides dhcp to both sides. There are two additional machines on the wired side, and the main router (from this clusters perspective) is on the wireless side. Assigning the.50 address is done so that dhcpd will listen on both ports, because broadcast traffic is not bridged by parprouted.
But I don't expect Linux users to generally be able to do this kind of stuff. This generates a service industry, which, from my point of view, is a good thing. People can pay me a couple of bucks to sort this sort of thing out -- they're happy, and I am happy too.
I have felt that Windows was encroaching on my business, and so I welcome the new higher prices and demands that it is making on hardware. Every software "Wizard" makes me less needed; on the flip side, the job of attempting to match what the Wizard can do, and the users specified or perceived needs is becoming a serious issue. Especially since my copy of Retail XP didn't even come with usuable paper documentation -- and the help system is inadequate, meaning that the XP solution to the above problem is "clock around, and screw around until it works, or not".
Yes, I know that resources such as MSDN are available; ordinary users wouldn't use those.
The attack vector can be any diagnostic utility that has some hardware priviledge. The BIOS (or flash on another I/O card) can be updated to start the attack. (if an attack is desired). Finding a code path that allows direct writing to the hard disk would be another vector (not saying Vista HAS that hole).
But the main problem is not an external attack. This hack allows Vista DRM to be cracked. The supposed secure data paths in the OS that are designed to be "hands off" to even the administrator are now at risk. As a BENEFIT, this hack allows drivers to be written that don't need to be signed -- restoring sanity again.
I would welcome "Vista Preboot Kit". Microsoft will have to validate both up and down to combat this. And, I am sure, a patch is coming...:(
So I needed a new computer. Vista was not available, but I was interested. After all, Microsoft had said that this would be better than a Mac. With 3D and all. AND some machines had a sticker from Microsoft saying "Vista Capable". Kept me from buying a Mac, and made me spend a bit more money.
After all, Vista is the cool new thing, right?
No mention of anything else.
And now I find that I can't do the "Mac thing". Indeed, I can't even do the new "game thing". Possibly, Vista doesn't even work at all. (all of these are actual outcomes).
Linux (BSD etc) and its applications run on Intel, ARM, Sparc, PowerPC, IBM Mainframe, and more. GCC produces code for these targets, and more.
The OS and its applications are found in routers, media extenders, video chipsets, and only sometimes use the Intel ISA. Large applications are regularly moved from one platform to another.
We have millions of lines of portable code.
It IS feasible, but it isn't done. The reasons are elsewhere.
"Making quality content is expensive, it can costs tens of thousands of dollars to get a few snippets of a reporter out in the field."
Let us examine this more closely. The "reporter out in the field" has been paid. The program has been paid for. By the advertising placed on the original broadcast of the material.
Since there is little value on old newscasts (do you really want to watch last years news?) EXCEPT to people doing critical analysis (or, in some cases nostalgia), the money MUST have come "up front".
Which means that it DOESN'T matter what the cost WAS. If it couldn't be covered, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been aired. Anything else will lead to rapid bankruptcy.
Most other broadcast material is in the same boat. Of what value is last years "American Idol"?
Just saying -- the "it must be protected because it is valuable because it costs a lot" is a red herring.
This stuff is an outgrowth of the Sh work done at Waterloo U. Anyway, the idea is that the declarations in your code are replaced. The new types redefine standard operators to generate code for a parallel machine (say, an nVidia card, or a PS/3 cell).
The code so generated can be run immediately, or deferred (note -- its been a while since I've looked at Sh, so I am being vague).
I didn't think that this was a GENERAL multi-threading solution; more a way to easily generate code for the parallel machines that are coming available.
I use a D-Link DSM-320. Unlike the 520, it doesn't support HD output (just SD). It does stream movies, audio and stills.
I use it with MythTV, as a "media extender". It uses uPnP (standard) protocol, and it "just works". Can I use the Apple box the same way? I don't need a hard disk in the unit, all my media is stored on a NAS RAID device. Same with the Apple?
As far as I can see, the devices are not in the same market at all (and I don't really understand WHO would buy the Apple product, or WHY -- but that's probably just me).
"I use proprietary software both at home and work that will not run on Linux. Not being able to re-use Microsoft licenses eliminates the cost advantage of running Windows on homebuilt machines, when compared to more expensive Macs. Costs being equal, I dislike Microsoft more, so I will switch to Mac. It's pretty simple, but Microsoft continues to think that their Genuine Repudiation Tool is going to build their market, rather than lose it."
Interesting, but...
You can't reuse Windows OEM licenses. Macs are also proprietary. There is nothing that would indicate that a proprietary Windows application would be available on the Mac OS.
The ONLY way out of the "propretary" mess you have is by switching to a neutral platform.
In any case, I ALSO need to run applications that are "not available on Linux". Nor on Mac. ONLY Windows. I run VMware server (free) on Linux, and (currently) Windows XP under that. Microsoft has "seen through" my ploy -- VISTA can only be licensed to run this way if I buy the "ultimate" (whatever) edition. Fortunately, I don't need it (as yet).
"Beyond all the rethoritic that doesn't really do it, do you see the object that is traveling over half the speed of light directly away from you while you are doing the same away from it? A: No, Sight is light based.
Does this mean that object traveling less then the speed of light, that you do not see, doesn't exist? Of course not."
Actually, since you do not see it, and have no way of detecting it, or ever detecting it, is does NOT exist.
"Can future events be predicted with certainty? seems to be the real question here. But that is a schrodinger's cat thing, not a moving faster then light thing."
That "cat thing" had nothing to do with future events. The illustration was one of observation locking down an outcome. Of COURSE the outcome is/has been determined when observed. But not until its observed (in quantum physics).
But this doesn't have anything to do with the lottery. The numbers are determined when drawn, and NOT when you look at your ticket. Indeed, the numbers on your ticket are determined when it is purchased. Of course you can STILL miss a winner by not checking your ticket:)
- Ensure the library functions are flexible enough for the application, and do not consume too many resources. This can be an issue for smaller systems, and may be an issue for larger ones as well.
- Ensure that the XML implementation is usable on a security basis. Should not have buffer overruns - parsing problems etc.
- Ensure that the XML works with ANOTHER XML implementation. Adds testing (its not just "someone elses problem").
- Application data structures are influenced by XML (eg. XML does not represent bitfields/bitsets directly). Mappings must be reasonable.
- XML should be 'vetted so that the format doesn't look like it was laid out by 'noobs. Stuff like the Microsoft specification for XML WORD shouldn't be generated.
- Because the only reason that XML formats are being used is for interoperability, a separate set of interoperability documents must be maintained. At some point, someone will ask the question "You use XML, I want to stick the data into... That should be easy (because of XML). Help me."?
The thing I look for in a GUI is consistency. I run a mix of computers. Primary OSs are Linux and Solaris. The "GUI" should provide a consistent view of my "desktop". Fedora Core 5 with Gnome and Solaris 10 with Java Desktop provide this. ei. the desktop, trashcan, etc are the same. By "the same" I mean that they reflect the same contents. Trashing a file on Solaris is reflected in Linux.
Now, earlier versions of Gnome (say, the one with Redhat 9) used a different layout, and don't participate properly. But my "main squeeze" plaforms do. Windows XP? MAC OS X? Reflect a different view, and thus cause me pain (yes, I also export my home directory as an SMB share, but it still isn't transparent.
I don't know WHAT the "UIF" is (friction?) but I really want all of the computers to participate in a seamless LAN. With a seamless GUI. At least for application launching, and simple filing tasks.
As far as application launching is concerned, I want to be able to define simple shortcuts (icons) for common applications. It is nice to have simple monitoring and control functions on the desktop (wireless monitor, audio volume, switcher/multi-desktop control).
Adding in some simple file management (visual, not symbolic), and the "GUI" is pretty much complete. I don't use any more than that. What is this "friction" of which they speak?
Slashdot Mirror
Obtain a 68HC11 microcontroller (they are available for around $30, quantity 1). You will need an RS232 adaptor (figure another 10 bucks).
Attach a small disk to the valve. Put aluminum foil on one side, and earth the foil. Cut a series of holes around the disk (before attaching the foil, and the disc should be a non-conductive material). Put a sensing whisker so that the whisker is in contact with the foil, or disc. Now when the valve turns, the microcontroller will get pulses.
Of course, this doesn't tell you which way the valve is turning. Use a second circle of holes, offset, and another whisker, not offset (or the other way around). The phase between whisker activation will tell you which way the disk is turning.
===H===H===H===
=====W
==H===H===H===H
=====W
Where H is a hole, and W is a whisker pickup. If the lower pickup activates first (from a state of no pickups active), the disc is being rotated counter-clockwise. If the upper pickup activates first, the disc is being rotated clockwise.
The amount of rotation is determined by counting the activations on a single whisker. The speed of rotation is determined by activations/time.
So, the pickup shouldn't cost more than an evening to build, and two bucks in parts.
You can dispose of the microcontroller and directly (I would use a 7404 for buffering and some isolation) drive a PC parallel port.
I would challenge it with LISP implementations (back to the 50's). Except that breakpoints would be done by replacing the eval function for single step, or the function itself for a specific breakpoint. (debug myfunc) and (undebug myfunc), in a nutshell.
Of course, if it EVER got to a Court, all is lost, because trying to explain the implementation of LISP to a jury would be... impossible. Or, for that matter, to most judges.
What is needed is good peer review of patents.
Actually, that is PowerShells biggest weakness as a integration shell.
The idea benind the Unix toolset and shell is that everything is reduced to a common lingo -- a character stream. Each tool can then be "used as designed", or "misused". The classic example is the original Unix spell implementation. The tool designer promises to accept as wide an input range as possible, to output consistent streams, and not be verbose.
The actual use (misuse) to the tool is left to the shell and user.
The Object philosophy means that input to a tool MUST have certain methods available. If the correct methods are not implemented over the object, an adaptor tool must be used. Microsoft ensures that all PowerShell tools work together IN NORMAL USE. Obvious "misuse" is not (necessarily) supported.
This makes common usage cases easy, but makes "outrageous" cases almost impossible (unless you reach for VC++ and write your own adaptors).
As an example -- I do a lot of "performance analysis", which entails examination of log files, conversion to normalized scales, and running the results through GNU Plot to get images to paste into reports. There is almost always a need for custom shell scripting to do the log examination and reduction.
Now, this IS possible in PowerShell, but only by treating it as a "Unix (gasp, how horrible!)" type shell.
Since the exploration phase (and creative "misuse") is my primary area, PowerShell doesn't have much to offer me. But, for a developer living in the straight and narrow land of "how it should work", it is probably the next best thing to sliced bread.
As to the "PowerShell" equivalent of the non-Microsoft world: I find that I still (occasionally) cook up SNOBOL scripts. When writing compilers for an old course, it was the ONLY programming language specifically not allowed for assignments (it made lexing, parsing and generation much too simple).
"Ubuntu and OS X are not regularly attacked by self-propagating worms and widespread Web exploits."
Interesting -- and I will now refute that.
My front end linux box (external access, http, ftp, mail, ntp, and some more services) is REGULARLY attacked. vsftpd is being attacked almost 24/7 these days (looking for insecure passwords). sshd also almost 24/7. We are talking about THOUSANDS of attacks per day. My incoming mail services gets hit (looking for open relaying) but not as much. My htpd get trolled (mostly for IIS vulnerabilities).
Just a rough count: 500,000 attack attempts per day.
How is this not being regularly attacked?
The security mechanisms in Linux are certainly up to the task. My network was comprimised ONCE, back in 1999, due to an SSH exploit. Never since.
No flaming -- I don't have the time to research this, so I'll just post the questions!
1 - What happens to large databases? I am assuming a delta storage method, but that might slow down the database (specifically, I use mysql).
2 - Large files? Specifically, deletion (I store lots of videos)
3 - Usenet spools? (Lots of small files, deleted regularly).
I suspect that I would have to segregate my files...
So get RHEL, and use RHN for your updates. What's the big deal?
As for the rest, why does Windows need to fix itself? Does it actually BREAK itself? I seriously hope not!
Let me get this straight... Your main complaint is that Linux has too much software?
Well then; I think you should try Ubuntu. Install it (from the single CD), and remove the package manager (so you don't get tempted).
OpenOffice.org, Evolution, FireFox -- that's about all you seem to want or need.
The savings for you? Somewhere between 500 and 800 dollars a seat.
Why yes, it is the LGPL. Which is the "Lesser GPL". Specifically, the LGPL ALLOWS the linking of non-free programs to it.
Of course, the source of the library itself must be available, but it is not necessary to disclose the program itself (although that might be preferred for other reasons).
Saying "the latter usually has much simpler distribution terms" is also not true. Some of the restrictions on Microsoft redistribution have been: cannot be public domain, cannot be a general purpose word processor, cannot compete with Microsoft Access, must be updated within 90 days of an unspecified time (and be labeled "beta"). Enough to mke MY head spin, anyway. At least the LGPL doesn't try to limit what you distribute with the library!
And the LGPL specifically does not force an application to be GPL, or even LGPL.
On Fedora Core 5 - apache modules in /etc/httpd/modules
and ldap is included
On Redhat 9 - apache modules in same place, ldap is not included
Not sure about rhel at this point (don't have it loaded)
As to subversion -- I use cvs because that is "mainstream" supported (rh9 and above, for sure).
And this comes up again...
It is perfectly possible for an application author to produce an application and link it statically.
It is also possible to link with -z origin -rpath '$ORIGIN/../lib' (or similar) allowing the bundling of the EXACT shared objects (dlls for you windows folk) locally into a single directory tree.
If this is done, the application can be put into any directory, and will run from there with no further configuration needed. If glibc is included, it will also run on a WIDE range of kernels.
Of course it isn't in the "packaging system" -- but that can also be done (especially to run pre and post scripts).
As to the GUI? Either include the widget set, or use GNOME. What's the problem?
And (ps.) this is what's generally done on Windows. DirectX is included by every application that needs it.
"Build from source" isn't required to cross x86 Linux boundaries -- it exists to cross processor families (Sparc, PowerPC, MIPS, ARM, etc.), and Operating Systems (Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc.).
Even there, tools exist (eg. QEMU) that allow running binaries on other archs.
Sounds like you could benefit from a Redhat admin course.
chkconfig --level 345 httpd on takes care of starting apache at boot time. service httpd start starts apache if it isn't going. Modules such as ssl and ldap are supplied.
I don't understand what subsversion has to do with apache. I use cvs, which has its server on a different port.
Of course games expect AT LEAST administrative access. This follows from the design of DirectX subsystems. When Microsoft asked game developers "What do you need to produce games for Windows", the developers responded with "driver support, and then GET OUT OF THE WAY".
Microsoft delivered. And this is NOW a problem. The answer was predicated by the hardware systems of the day. It may now be an issue. But, once more, the platform is closed, and compatibility is Microsofts issue (I won't repeat my previous argument). Microsoft should have provided "administrator minus" mode for these applications.
It is not the fault of the developers for writing applications that meet "best practices" of the day. If the systems were open, these could be updated. But if closed systems are used, other ways of continuing to run these applications is needed.
Personally, I sandbox Windows in VMware containers. I consider that "current best practice". But then, I don't run games. Current best practice for that is a separate machine.
But the thing that we are striving to be compatible with is CLOSED.
Which means?
That once an application works, it IS compatible. There is no other reference implementation to try it against.
If there are multiple implementations (in Windows case, 98, 2000, XP, Vista), once it works on the platforms that are feature compatible, the application works, and again it IS compatible. There is no reference authority OTHER THAN THE IMPLEMENTATION. (and look at the Microsoft Word submissions for additional hedges).
Because of this, it becomes Microsofts issue -- to either properly document the API, -or- to provide OS patches to keep applications operational. If the API were properly documented, clean-room implementations would be possible (more specifically, WINE would be done). So it is not in Microsofts platform interest to do this.
Which leaves OS patches to keep applications running. Which, in turn, further complicates the API description (hypothetical example: APIduJour(HANDLE aHandle,...) description: does this function. If called from an application named "FOOBAR" does this secondary processing as well. If called from "XYZZY" can fail with this result, else this other result.).
There is a direct benefit to Microsoft -- if a clean room implementation is attempted, either the OS needs reverse engineering (limited by the license) or a VAST number of test cases need to be run. Either is very difficult (and witness that WINE is NOT done yet).
At some point it becomes a nightmare to maintain for Microsoft, but my bet is that there will be upgrades supplied to Vista in increase its back-compatibility.
Just sayin'
If all you want to do is browse the web -- you are right. But to actually EXPLOIT linux? Someone told me that Windows allowed bridging a wired and wireless network just by clicking. I can't confirm that, but I present here the command line incantation that I use to do the transparent layer 3 bridging:
/sbin/modprobe ath_pci /sbin/iwconfig ath0 mode managed /sbin/iwconfig ath0 essid weimo2 /sbin/iwconfig ath0 rate 54M /sbin/ifconfig eth0 down /sbin/ifconfig ath0 down /sbin/ifconfig ath0 192.168.1.2 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 /usr/local/sbin/parprouted ath0 eth0 /sbin/ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.50 /sbin/service dhcpd restart /sbin/route add default gw 192.168.1.1
.50 address is done so that dhcpd will listen on both ports, because broadcast traffic is not bridged by parprouted.
echo "1" >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
And I really don't know how to do this from the GUI (I don't think there IS a way, but I could be wrong). For those "Linux gurus" who are probably a bit puzzled -- this is a 2.4 kernel, the box bridges wired to wireless, and provides dhcp to both sides. There are two additional machines on the wired side, and the main router (from this clusters perspective) is on the wireless side. Assigning the
But I don't expect Linux users to generally be able to do this kind of stuff. This generates a service industry, which, from my point of view, is a good thing. People can pay me a couple of bucks to sort this sort of thing out -- they're happy, and I am happy too.
I have felt that Windows was encroaching on my business, and so I welcome the new higher prices and demands that it is making on hardware. Every software "Wizard" makes me less needed; on the flip side, the job of attempting to match what the Wizard can do, and the users specified or perceived needs is becoming a serious issue. Especially since my copy of Retail XP didn't even come with usuable paper documentation -- and the help system is inadequate, meaning that the XP solution to the above problem is "clock around, and screw around until it works, or not".
Yes, I know that resources such as MSDN are available; ordinary users wouldn't use those.
The attack vector can be any diagnostic utility that has some hardware priviledge. The BIOS (or flash on another I/O card) can be updated to start the attack. (if an attack is desired). Finding a code path that allows direct writing to the hard disk would be another vector (not saying Vista HAS that hole).
:(
But the main problem is not an external attack. This hack allows Vista DRM to be cracked. The supposed secure data paths in the OS that are designed to be "hands off" to even the administrator are now at risk. As a BENEFIT, this hack allows drivers to be written that don't need to be signed -- restoring sanity again.
I would welcome "Vista Preboot Kit". Microsoft will have to validate both up and down to combat this. And, I am sure, a patch is coming...
So I needed a new computer. Vista was not available, but I was interested. After all, Microsoft had said that this would be better than a Mac. With 3D and all. AND some machines had a sticker from Microsoft saying "Vista Capable". Kept me from buying a Mac, and made me spend a bit more money.
After all, Vista is the cool new thing, right?
No mention of anything else.
And now I find that I can't do the "Mac thing". Indeed, I can't even do the new "game thing". Possibly, Vista doesn't even work at all. (all of these are actual outcomes).
What do I do?
Linux (BSD etc) and its applications run on Intel, ARM, Sparc, PowerPC, IBM Mainframe, and more. GCC produces code for these targets, and more.
The OS and its applications are found in routers, media extenders, video chipsets, and only sometimes use the Intel ISA. Large applications are regularly moved from one platform to another.
We have millions of lines of portable code.
It IS feasible, but it isn't done. The reasons are elsewhere.
A few points.
In a server setting, ports must be open. OS X much-vaunted security (mostly, no ports open) is now at risk.
In a server setting, you would use a supported distribution of Linux. This includes security updates. Same as Apple.
In serving Windows clients, SMB would be provided by SAMBA. The web administration of SAMBA is the same.
OS X has always performed very badly in disk access (its architecture is bad for this).
Local service can provide setup and maintainance contracts. The small shop does not a full-time guru.
"Making quality content is expensive, it can costs tens of thousands of dollars to get a few snippets of a reporter out in the field."
Let us examine this more closely. The "reporter out in the field" has been paid. The program has been paid for. By the advertising placed on the original broadcast of the material.
Since there is little value on old newscasts (do you really want to watch last years news?) EXCEPT to people doing critical analysis (or, in some cases nostalgia), the money MUST have come "up front".
Which means that it DOESN'T matter what the cost WAS. If it couldn't be covered, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been aired. Anything else will lead to rapid bankruptcy.
Most other broadcast material is in the same boat. Of what value is last years "American Idol"?
Just saying -- the "it must be protected because it is valuable because it costs a lot" is a red herring.
This stuff is an outgrowth of the Sh work done at Waterloo U. Anyway, the idea is that the declarations in your code are replaced. The new types redefine standard operators to generate code for a parallel machine (say, an nVidia card, or a PS/3 cell).
The code so generated can be run immediately, or deferred (note -- its been a while since I've looked at Sh, so I am being vague).
I didn't think that this was a GENERAL multi-threading solution; more a way to easily generate code for the parallel machines that are coming available.
or the DSM-320...
I use a D-Link DSM-320. Unlike the 520, it doesn't support HD output (just SD). It does stream movies, audio and stills.
I use it with MythTV, as a "media extender". It uses uPnP (standard) protocol, and it "just works". Can I use the Apple box the same way? I don't need a hard disk in the unit, all my media is stored on a NAS RAID device. Same with the Apple?
As far as I can see, the devices are not in the same market at all (and I don't really understand WHO would buy the Apple product, or WHY -- but that's probably just me).
"I use proprietary software both at home and work that will not run on Linux. Not being able to re-use Microsoft licenses eliminates the cost advantage of running Windows on homebuilt machines, when compared to more expensive Macs. Costs being equal, I dislike Microsoft more, so I will switch to Mac. It's pretty simple, but Microsoft continues to think that their Genuine Repudiation Tool is going to build their market, rather than lose it."
Interesting, but...
You can't reuse Windows OEM licenses. Macs are also proprietary. There is nothing that would indicate that a proprietary Windows application would be available on the Mac OS.
The ONLY way out of the "propretary" mess you have is by switching to a neutral platform.
In any case, I ALSO need to run applications that are "not available on Linux". Nor on Mac. ONLY Windows. I run VMware server (free) on Linux, and (currently) Windows XP under that. Microsoft has "seen through" my ploy -- VISTA can only be licensed to run this way if I buy the "ultimate" (whatever) edition. Fortunately, I don't need it (as yet).
The Mac? Another trap...
"Beyond all the rethoritic that doesn't really do it, do you see the object that is traveling over half the speed of light directly away from you while you are doing the same away from it? A: No, Sight is light based.
:)
Does this mean that object traveling less then the speed of light, that you do not see, doesn't exist? Of course not."
Actually, since you do not see it, and have no way of detecting it, or ever detecting it, is does NOT exist.
"Can future events be predicted with certainty? seems to be the real question here.
But that is a schrodinger's cat thing, not a moving faster then light thing."
That "cat thing" had nothing to do with future events. The illustration was one of observation locking down an outcome. Of COURSE the outcome is/has been determined when observed. But not until its observed (in quantum physics).
But this doesn't have anything to do with the lottery. The numbers are determined when drawn, and NOT when you look at your ticket. Indeed, the numbers on your ticket are determined when it is purchased. Of course you can STILL miss a winner by not checking your ticket
From a greybeard
... That should be easy (because of XML). Help me."?
XML Problem Checklist:
- Ensure the library functions are flexible enough for the application, and do not consume too many resources. This can be an issue for smaller systems, and may be an issue for larger ones as well.
- Ensure that the XML implementation is usable on a security basis. Should not have buffer overruns - parsing problems etc.
- Ensure that the XML works with ANOTHER XML implementation. Adds testing (its not just "someone elses problem").
- Application data structures are influenced by XML (eg. XML does not represent bitfields/bitsets directly). Mappings must be reasonable.
- XML should be 'vetted so that the format doesn't look like it was laid out by 'noobs. Stuff like the Microsoft specification for XML WORD shouldn't be generated.
- Because the only reason that XML formats are being used is for interoperability, a separate set of interoperability documents must be maintained. At some point, someone will ask the question "You use XML, I want to stick the data into
Sod it...
The thing I look for in a GUI is consistency. I run a mix of computers. Primary OSs are Linux and Solaris. The "GUI" should provide a consistent view of my "desktop". Fedora Core 5 with Gnome and Solaris 10 with Java Desktop provide this. ei. the desktop, trashcan, etc are the same. By "the same" I mean that they reflect the same contents. Trashing a file on Solaris is reflected in Linux.
Now, earlier versions of Gnome (say, the one with Redhat 9) used a different layout, and don't participate properly. But my "main squeeze" plaforms do. Windows XP? MAC OS X? Reflect a different view, and thus cause me pain (yes, I also export my home directory as an SMB share, but it still isn't transparent.
I don't know WHAT the "UIF" is (friction?) but I really want all of the computers to participate in a seamless LAN. With a seamless GUI. At least for application launching, and simple filing tasks.
As far as application launching is concerned, I want to be able to define simple shortcuts (icons) for common applications. It is nice to have simple monitoring and control functions on the desktop (wireless monitor, audio volume, switcher/multi-desktop control).
Adding in some simple file management (visual, not symbolic), and the "GUI" is pretty much complete. I don't use any more than that. What is this "friction" of which they speak?