Is there anyone here who has used Apple's Remote Desktop as well as the windows RDP system and VNC? I've been very happy with Windows RDP, though there is the obvious bummer of it being served only on Windows AFAIK. It is incredibly fast, certainly replacing VNC on the windows machines I need to access remotely.
So, where does Apple's RD stand? Better than VNC but slower than Win rdesktop?
No, on a new and fast machine the CPU usage is quite negligable. On a slower machine it can be a signifigant hit, not so much affecting your browsing performance as the modem's performance being degraded, ending up in more errors or getting booted off more than with a hardware modem.
But on a really fast machine, a 56K modem is not going to do it any better than a hardware modem. If you have a 3 GHz P4, you're not going to magically hit 80K on account of it running on a faster CPU or something...
A similar product is the 3com LANmodem. Does the same thing. A client of mine has one, really easily shares the internet connection between the 5 computers in her little business. But would also solve this problem as well...:)
Indeed. The worst part of a Winmodem is that it uses CPU for DSP and such, where a hardware modem does not. I built a K6-2/350 mhz based system 5-6 years back and cheaped out and bought a winmodem, not even knowing such things existed then... I had been BBSing for years, and never had a problem with the modem not being on COMx: by default. Anyway, even on my fast system, it ate up some CPU whenever I was online. Blew chunks.
As for your suggestion, a lot of current spyware "asks" to be installed in the EULA, but people barely read it. Beside this, simply *asking* doesn't mean the software is required to respect your answer (which is at least one complaint people were having with the thing).
Precisely. Note I didn't say "make *people* read the EULA" I said that the fact that they are installing software and the nature of that software needs to be plainly stated and approved. Thre is a *huge* difference. And if you say no, the OS doesn't allow it to install.
So, for every Windows update on every computer I admin at work, I have to write a letter into Microsoft? Yeah, right.
How about this instead- when software wants to install, it has to *ask*. No need for written consent or anything silly like that. Just let the users know what they're getting into and what they're getting (if anything).
Funny thing is there is also a new Meat Loaf album as well for sale i told the clerk the store has lost a sale........do you think the clerk cares? Have you ever worked in a job like that? I mean, it's not like the clerk is going to go tell his boss. The only way this is going to matter is if people don't buy these CDs- and I'm glad you had the self-control not to. But most people don't, so this crap is probably here to stay.
Yeah, there was a DOS Word 5. I work at a library where some folks apparently dig it, at least, so they can use some fancy text-info-data indexing software... Magellan IIRC? Unlike the Mac version, it wasn't WYSIWYG.
Most people do not use html to make their documents. Certainly not a simple essay. Definetely not their letter to grandma....and there is a reason for this. Not because HTML is too hard, but because HTML blows for print. For my first couple papers in college, I wrote them in HTML in emacs. Guess what? I ended up doing a "print preview" about a zillion times to check my length, check how various figures or tables looked in print, etc etc. HTML sucks for word processing, and anyone who uses it for that does some seriously light writing. Maybe writing that letter to grandma, but anything more any it blows.
So I did myself a big favor and learned LaTeX. Mm mm good! No more annoying HTML shite and not that hard if you know HTML already.
Re: shift and @_ - indeed, that is just basic perl. Both things you should know if you intend to write a function. It's like whining about C because you don't know what int, void or the stuff after the "(" means. Like you should have to know what those things mean!
Last I looked at it, Io wasn't quite ready for the prime time. It looks like it has moved forward some since then, but in the way of being useful, libraries and the like, it still lags behind a lot of the medium- and big-languages.
Beyond Io, what would be the scripting language with a primarily prototype-based OOP system with the most usage and libraries? I know of a handful of similar languages, but not sure which one would make the most sense from the standpoint most potential scripters are coming from.
My favorite is Dialect. It is OSS/FS, but AFAIK, still only on Windows and WinCE. I use it mostly on WinCE, and it is great to use there. Completely source portable between desktop Windows OSes and PocketPC/WinCE. Compiles to an EXE, with everything you need in one file. Unlike some proto-OOP languages, you don't just have prototypes- you have both the structure of a class-based system and the flexibility and power of prototypes, cloning, changing/adding methods or data members on individual objects, etc etc.
Dialect kind of bills itself as a BASIC-like RAD language, but *do not* be scared away by that. It is a lot more like Python than Dialect in its syntax, and I like it a lot more than Python and especially VB myself. It has some really neet functions- one that comes to mind is like tie() in Perl, but even more powerful!- and is incredibly useful. Best way for writing GUI apps on WinCE hands down, and you can write, test, compile, run and deploy as EXE *everything* on the device itself, no need to use a desktop to write your app.
A shame no one has ported it to Linux, etc yet- the source is there. Having spoken with the devs some, it sounds like the Win32 GUI, ADO/ActiveX and other stuff will be bound to Windows, but the rest shouldn't be too hard to port. Would make a great VB-like language for Linux, though now with RealBasic, we finally have that.
Another language that is *really* overlooked is REBOL. It is often overlooked by the OSS community because it is closed source. A darn shame if you ask me, but as a pragmatic programmer (not one driven solely by ideology) I use REBOL and enjoy doing so. At first, it looked kind of gimmicky, a "network" scripting language. But after using it more, I am sometimes caught singing its praises. It is very poweful but the built-in libraries provide a lot of baseline power to programmers and even users. You can write web apps, text console apps or GUI apps- using its own cross-platform GUI toolkit. I have written apps on Mac OS 9 to distribute them to Linux, Windows and OS X and elsewhere to have them run perfectly. I think it is supported on 40-some platforms, though the GUI component- REBOL/View is on fewer, and still lacking on important platforms like WinCE/PPC and Mac OS X.
REBOL rules- it is a lot like Scheme/Lisp, but without parens- in other words, a great language. It has really nice network protocol support, writing an email client can take a handful of lines of script.
But... there is hope! A pretty new and slow going project, R-sharp (but nothing to do with.NET!) was released some time back, the start of an OSS REBOL implementation.
Indeed, the quote is misattributed to Gates. But even though he may not have said it, the idea is there, and 64 KB isn't it. No 286 ever had 64 KB of RAM in it besides.:P
Do those blockers really go and email someone? I interned at a place a few years back that had something like that setup, and it was sure sensitive- it would go off on a lot of Ruby sites, which largely were in japan. I guess every non-ruby.jp site must be porno or something, or at least it seemed to be thinking that way.
Like it says in the subject line: This is old news- the Newton did this. This is how it managed the analog to cut-n-paste. It worked quite well, a good setup. My only complaint was that there was no provision for having more than one item clip'd, but then again, sans extra software, it's the same deal on today's desktop OSes for the most part.
Of course I see the difference- but the fact is, I and many others download from places less reliable than mozilla.org. And it's not p2p. Any new project on sourceforge could contain some trojan, and new, glitzy SF projects show up here often enough. I'm really not that paranoid- I don't md5 check and have never been burned. [1] But then again, I don't usually download anything via P2P, other than maybe a Linux ISO via BT- and in that case, I do check the md5 so I know that it is complete. Anyway, all the web is not ftp.mozilla.org. Don't you understand that?
[1] the only virus I've had in 15 or so years of obsessive computing is a.COM virus in DOS that someone uploaded, though the virus was transmitted accidentally.
Obviously the point is, besides md5 checksums, do people really verify the integrity of (not pirated) binary files they download from p2p?
Do people really verify the integrity of *any binary file* they've downloaded, no matter how? Even with MD5? Most people do not, including slashdotters. p2p or otherwise.
Umm... even by really liberal estimates, very few animals can be classed as "sentient." Maybe you eat humans, but I don't.
I do not see what eclectus said as a troll. It is true. While there are many reasons not to eat the flesh of another animal, you still must come to terms that many organisms are giving their lives up so that you may live. A lot of vegetarians I've known can't seem to cope with this much either, and just blow up about it./me shrugs
No matter if it is an animal or not, I show respect to the life that is sacrificed to me. What is so hard about that?
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anyone here who has used Apple's Remote Desktop as well as the windows RDP system and VNC? I've been very happy with Windows RDP, though there is the obvious bummer of it being served only on Windows AFAIK. It is incredibly fast, certainly replacing VNC on the windows machines I need to access remotely.
So, where does Apple's RD stand? Better than VNC but slower than Win rdesktop?
Uhh...
No, on a new and fast machine the CPU usage is quite negligable. On a slower machine it can be a signifigant hit, not so much affecting your browsing performance as the modem's performance being degraded, ending up in more errors or getting booted off more than with a hardware modem.
But on a really fast machine, a 56K modem is not going to do it any better than a hardware modem. If you have a 3 GHz P4, you're not going to magically hit 80K on account of it running on a faster CPU or something...
A similar product is the 3com LANmodem. Does the same thing. A client of mine has one, really easily shares the internet connection between the 5 computers in her little business. But would also solve this problem as well... :)
Indeed. The worst part of a Winmodem is that it uses CPU for DSP and such, where a hardware modem does not. I built a K6-2/350 mhz based system 5-6 years back and cheaped out and bought a winmodem, not even knowing such things existed then... I had been BBSing for years, and never had a problem with the modem not being on COMx: by default. Anyway, even on my fast system, it ate up some CPU whenever I was online. Blew chunks.
As for your suggestion, a lot of current spyware "asks" to be installed in the EULA, but people barely read it. Beside this, simply *asking* doesn't mean the software is required to respect your answer (which is at least one complaint people were having with the thing).
Precisely. Note I didn't say "make *people* read the EULA" I said that the fact that they are installing software and the nature of that software needs to be plainly stated and approved. Thre is a *huge* difference. And if you say no, the OS doesn't allow it to install.
They had FTL travel, but not FTL communication. The lack of FTL comm is a big reason for the problems they have in the book containing the problem.
you too have a nice day!
So, for every Windows update on every computer I admin at work, I have to write a letter into Microsoft? Yeah, right.
How about this instead- when software wants to install, it has to *ask*. No need for written consent or anything silly like that. Just let the users know what they're getting into and what they're getting (if anything).
Funny thing is there is also a new Meat Loaf album as well for sale i told the clerk the store has lost a sale..... ...do you think the clerk cares? Have you ever worked in a job like that? I mean, it's not like the clerk is going to go tell his boss. The only way this is going to matter is if people don't buy these CDs- and I'm glad you had the self-control not to. But most people don't, so this crap is probably here to stay.
Read "The Night's Dawn Trilogy" by Peter F. Hamilton to find out! Includes the Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium Alchemist, and The Naked God.
Yeah, there was a DOS Word 5. I work at a library where some folks apparently dig it, at least, so they can use some fancy text-info-data indexing software ... Magellan IIRC? Unlike the Mac version, it wasn't WYSIWYG.
Most people do not use html to make their documents. Certainly not a simple essay. Definetely not their letter to grandma. ...and there is a reason for this. Not because HTML is too hard, but because HTML blows for print. For my first couple papers in college, I wrote them in HTML in emacs. Guess what? I ended up doing a "print preview" about a zillion times to check my length, check how various figures or tables looked in print, etc etc. HTML sucks for word processing, and anyone who uses it for that does some seriously light writing. Maybe writing that letter to grandma, but anything more any it blows.
So I did myself a big favor and learned LaTeX. Mm mm good! No more annoying HTML shite and not that hard if you know HTML already.
I don't know of a homebrew setup, but I imagine there's a lot of work involved.
:)
but to see what a commercial solution is like, check out the "web watch" on MY busline.
Re: shift and @_ - indeed, that is just basic perl. Both things you should know if you intend to write a function. It's like whining about C because you don't know what int, void or the stuff after the "(" means. Like you should have to know what those things mean!
Last I looked at it, Io wasn't quite ready for the prime time. It looks like it has moved forward some since then, but in the way of being useful, libraries and the like, it still lags behind a lot of the medium- and big-languages.
.NET!) was released some time back, the start of an OSS REBOL implementation.
Beyond Io, what would be the scripting language with a primarily prototype-based OOP system with the most usage and libraries? I know of a handful of similar languages, but not sure which one would make the most sense from the standpoint most potential scripters are coming from.
My favorite is Dialect. It is OSS/FS, but AFAIK, still only on Windows and WinCE. I use it mostly on WinCE, and it is great to use there. Completely source portable between desktop Windows OSes and PocketPC/WinCE. Compiles to an EXE, with everything you need in one file. Unlike some proto-OOP languages, you don't just have prototypes- you have both the structure of a class-based system and the flexibility and power of prototypes, cloning, changing/adding methods or data members on individual objects, etc etc.
Dialect kind of bills itself as a BASIC-like RAD language, but *do not* be scared away by that. It is a lot more like Python than Dialect in its syntax, and I like it a lot more than Python and especially VB myself. It has some really neet functions- one that comes to mind is like tie() in Perl, but even more powerful!- and is incredibly useful. Best way for writing GUI apps on WinCE hands down, and you can write, test, compile, run and deploy as EXE *everything* on the device itself, no need to use a desktop to write your app.
A shame no one has ported it to Linux, etc yet- the source is there. Having spoken with the devs some, it sounds like the Win32 GUI, ADO/ActiveX and other stuff will be bound to Windows, but the rest shouldn't be too hard to port. Would make a great VB-like language for Linux, though now with RealBasic, we finally have that.
Another language that is *really* overlooked is REBOL. It is often overlooked by the OSS community because it is closed source. A darn shame if you ask me, but as a pragmatic programmer (not one driven solely by ideology) I use REBOL and enjoy doing so. At first, it looked kind of gimmicky, a "network" scripting language. But after using it more, I am sometimes caught singing its praises. It is very poweful but the built-in libraries provide a lot of baseline power to programmers and even users. You can write web apps, text console apps or GUI apps- using its own cross-platform GUI toolkit. I have written apps on Mac OS 9 to distribute them to Linux, Windows and OS X and elsewhere to have them run perfectly. I think it is supported on 40-some platforms, though the GUI component- REBOL/View is on fewer, and still lacking on important platforms like WinCE/PPC and Mac OS X.
REBOL rules- it is a lot like Scheme/Lisp, but without parens- in other words, a great language. It has really nice network protocol support, writing an email client can take a handful of lines of script.
But... there is hope! A pretty new and slow going project, R-sharp (but nothing to do with
Indeed, the quote is misattributed to Gates. But even though he may not have said it, the idea is there, and 64 KB isn't it. No 286 ever had 64 KB of RAM in it besides. :P
Not sure when either came out, but I never had a problem running Warcarft 2 on a 486 SX/25 with 8 MB of RAM.
It was 640KB of RAM, not 64.
And his post itself was a joke. Perhaps something you cannot understand if you take things too seriously though. :P
Do those blockers really go and email someone? I interned at a place a few years back that had something like that setup, and it was sure sensitive- it would go off on a lot of Ruby sites, which largely were in japan. I guess every non-ruby .jp site must be porno or something, or at least it seemed to be thinking that way.
Like it says in the subject line:
This is old news- the Newton did this. This is how it managed the analog to cut-n-paste. It worked quite well, a good setup. My only complaint was that there was no provision for having more than one item clip'd, but then again, sans extra software, it's the same deal on today's desktop OSes for the most part.
I'd rather not have my CPU's superconduct, thanks.
Pussy. Go back to using your Amiga or something.
Of course I see the difference- but the fact is, I and many others download from places less reliable than mozilla.org. And it's not p2p. Any new project on sourceforge could contain some trojan, and new, glitzy SF projects show up here often enough. I'm really not that paranoid- I don't md5 check and have never been burned. [1] But then again, I don't usually download anything via P2P, other than maybe a Linux ISO via BT- and in that case, I do check the md5 so I know that it is complete. Anyway, all the web is not ftp.mozilla.org. Don't you understand that?
.COM virus in DOS that someone uploaded, though the virus was transmitted accidentally.
[1] the only virus I've had in 15 or so years of obsessive computing is a
Obviously the point is, besides md5 checksums, do people really verify the integrity of (not pirated) binary files they download from p2p?
Do people really verify the integrity of *any binary file* they've downloaded, no matter how? Even with MD5? Most people do not, including slashdotters. p2p or otherwise.
Check a freshman or high school biology textbook- there is a little more than just being multicellular that makes an animal.
(I will be a nice guy and avoid all the obvious pointers to a freshman english textbook.)
and are not sentient creatures.
/me shrugs
Umm... even by really liberal estimates, very few animals can be classed as "sentient." Maybe you eat humans, but I don't.
I do not see what eclectus said as a troll. It is true. While there are many reasons not to eat the flesh of another animal, you still must come to terms that many organisms are giving their lives up so that you may live. A lot of vegetarians I've known can't seem to cope with this much either, and just blow up about it.
No matter if it is an animal or not, I show respect to the life that is sacrificed to me. What is so hard about that?