True, as well as "pass". That and your first two are all I got to try before being blocked earlier.
Now I seem to have gotten a second chance. It turns out that "bill", "billg", "unixsucks", "iisrules", and "bsd" don't work either. Man, with every/.er trying to find out their vnc password, we may as well distributedly bruteforce it;)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 50 Linux desktops connected to a single Windows box isn't exactly useful, unless you use 50 machines that you need to access the Windows machine from, in which case you've got other problems.
50 people on 50 Linux machines using 50 VNC clients connected to 1 Windows VNC server does not result in 50 people remotely running their own instance of Windows apps. Instead, they'll all be sharing the same mouse/kb cursor, and the same processes.
It would be nothing short of chaos... why does this need to be regulated again?
"No one on the Lunar team was, or is, interested in harming, or competing with the Sorcerer group or its' brilliant principle, Kyle Sallee.If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery (and it is!) we hope that Kyle is flattered by our existence and we wish him well."
That sure doesn't sound like a disgruntled user to me. Can anyone substantiate that claim?
First of all, I would recommend trying the preemptible kernel patch and even the low-latency patch. It seems like an obvious enough suggestion, but some will tell you that these patches should not be used in servers where throughput is important, and that is correct... in some cases. It has been shown, however, that in most cases the preemptible patch increases performance and throughput. I have not heard of any such testing on the low-latency patch, as I am new to it.
In my testing, these two patches have been a big help, especially on my P166 system with 48MB RAM.
Also, you say "faster drives" and repartitioning are not feasible ATM, but how about multiple small drives? As shown in this howto, the linux kernel has support for striping data to swap disks, just by specifying multiple swap entries in fstab.
Then again, if you're not on SCSI, trying to stripe to the swap drives won't be much help anyway, as RAID over IDE for _speed_ usually is just crap.
That last suggestion may not be for you, but definitely try the two patches. It should also be noted that preempt is a compile-time option, and there is also a compile-time option to control the low-latency patch through/proc/sys/kernel/lowlatency. An additional patch may be required to allow these two to work together, but I am unable to locate it currently.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure which version of XP you're talking about... Corporate has the firewall disabled by default.
Head over to #kde on irc.openprojects.net for the release party :)
amrit@VeeAte:~/temp$ file ls-ms
ls-ms: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (FreeBSD), statically linked, stripped
It's statically linked.
True, as well as "pass". That and your first two are all I got to try before being blocked earlier.
/.er trying to find out their vnc password, we may as well distributedly bruteforce it ;)
Now I seem to have gotten a second chance. It turns out that "bill", "billg", "unixsucks", "iisrules", and "bsd" don't work either. Man, with every
According to the article, these tasks were outsourced... not good, but hopefully the same policy isn't taken with more sensitive tasks.
Or perhaps you're just a dick who can't have fun.
Nothing is in the wrong section on April Fools' Day, fool.
YHBF. YHL. HANAFD.
I'm betting they were in on it :)
Timothy probably did know about it... after all, it's "from the better-not-be-an-AF dept."
What do you think AF stands for?
Your ideas intrigue me. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Holy goddamn fuck dude, you're one really goddamn motherfuckin profane motherfucker.
:)
Nice to meet you
Erm, shit, it might have helped if I included a link.. http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/.
BTW, this fucking 2 minute counter is incredibly fucking lame goddamnit I hate this fucking counter yadda yadda...
Or, since BlackBox hasn't been developed for so long, use FluxBox, which is based off BB0.61.1 and doesn't require the use of an external keygrabber.
I used to love BlackBox, now I love FluxBox.
Umm.. browse any /. articles where Klerck has posted, such as this one.
I hear it only affects IE users, and that it's supposedly fixed. I dunno.
I wonder if Dell will have anything to say.
"Duude, M$ shafted us!"
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but 50 Linux desktops connected to a single Windows box isn't exactly useful, unless you use 50 machines that you need to access the Windows machine from, in which case you've got other problems.
50 people on 50 Linux machines using 50 VNC clients connected to 1 Windows VNC server does not result in 50 people remotely running their own instance of Windows apps. Instead, they'll all be sharing the same mouse/kb cursor, and the same processes.
It would be nothing short of chaos... why does this need to be regulated again?
funny how so many articles on /. can be related to clusters...
Yeah, and how long unti all the ricers start putting huge 10" tachs with 3" shift-lights on their overclocked Celeron 300s?
"Oh no, redline! Better turn the fan up to high!"
You're right, the people became disgruntled AFTER the lunar-linux thing screwed SGL.
Quote:
"No one on the Lunar team was, or is, interested in harming, or competing with the Sorcerer group or its' brilliant principle, Kyle Sallee.If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery (and it is!) we hope that Kyle is flattered by our existence and we wish him well."
That sure doesn't sound like a disgruntled user to me. Can anyone substantiate that claim?
Or, somebody, please divx it and throw it on Gnutella.. I want to see this too, but no Sundance.
A beowulf cluster of linux chicks that look like Cindy Crawford? Wow!
Hmm, and all I got was the chance to duck a pencil and a bouncing ball the size of my fist, judging from the sound it made... damn cubicle walls.
First of all, I would recommend trying the preemptible kernel patch and even the low-latency patch. It seems like an obvious enough suggestion, but some will tell you that these patches should not be used in servers where throughput is important, and that is correct... in some cases. It has been shown, however, that in most cases the preemptible patch increases performance and throughput. I have not heard of any such testing on the low-latency patch, as I am new to it.
/proc/sys/kernel/lowlatency. An additional patch may be required to allow these two to work together, but I am unable to locate it currently.
In my testing, these two patches have been a big help, especially on my P166 system with 48MB RAM.
Also, you say "faster drives" and repartitioning are not feasible ATM, but how about multiple small drives? As shown in this howto, the linux kernel has support for striping data to swap disks, just by specifying multiple swap entries in fstab.
Then again, if you're not on SCSI, trying to stripe to the swap drives won't be much help anyway, as RAID over IDE for _speed_ usually is just crap.
That last suggestion may not be for you, but definitely try the two patches. It should also be noted that preempt is a compile-time option, and there is also a compile-time option to control the low-latency patch through
Yeah, I better get my Tin Foil Top out too..
You mean like secretOpenWindowButDontCrash(...