That doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I assume that the ftpd does a chroot() to the top-level ftp directory. This, by itself, does not explain how someone got root on the machine.
Yes, it'd be nice if it was explained how the hack worked, like the PC Week hack was documented.
I think I'll not *waste* time reporting bugs on this one.
I looked on the site and didn't even *see* a place to report bugs. I would be surprised if it was even possible to report bugs.
Even if Opera wants to make money, (nothing wrong with that, of course), they could still be more open. How about using a SCSL which is not free, but certainly allows more flexibility.
Yeah, which brings an obvious question to mind: why aren't more companies (or any, for that matter) taking advantage of libwine to port their products to Linux?
If all you are using is Windows programs, then why not jsut use Windows. It is a catch-22. You can make Windows programs to run under Linux, but then why use Linux? That's where OS/2 lost. OS/2 could run Windows programs, but why use OS/2 to run Windows programs if you can jsut use Windows.
We need Native ports that take advantage of the OS. Wine is Fine. And it'd even be nice if Opera would be wine compatible. But certainly not what we want to see for a browser on Linux.
Nonsense. There's nothing forcing us to use Linux till the end of days. It's like the early American settlers. They explored new areas, and as others followed them and it got crowded, they moved on. We to will move on as the purpose of Linux changes.
FreeBSD is starting to look nice... And there is always the Hurd. Or maybe there'll even be a new kernel to hack with. Never look back.
If Linux is ever going to be accepted by the masses as an alternative to Windows, it must have a graphical installer, and must, on the surface, appear to be as user friendly as a Mac.
Woah!! Wasn't Windows 95 accepted by the masses before it had a graphical installer?Isn't it true that W2K still doesn't have a fully graphical installer?
However, a graphical installer is something that's beneficial to Linux, no denying that. But that claim that Linux *needs* a graphical install to be "accepted" is largely without merit.
I want to learn more about Linux, but I'm not sure what I need hardware-wise.
As you already know, just about anything you'd probably have will suit. It just won't suit for everything:)
It depends on what you want to do. Compile Mozilla? Pentium !!! 500, 256 meg ram, 10 gig HD. Run StarOffice? Celeron 300, 128 meg ram, 6.4gig HD. Run an apache server over your DSL line? Pentium 133, 32 meg ram, 4 gig HD.
I'd generally pick something up in the AMD K6-3 400, 128meg ram 10gig HD range. But what am I saying. I run Linux on a Pentium 233, with 128meg ram, and 20 gig HD space. And I still compile Mozilla and run StarOffice. And Enlightenment.
While I have never used a graphical installer for linux (still have Mandrake 6.1) I have installed windows 95 & 98 a gazillion times on a multitude of systems, and never once has their installer had problems as far as graphics/video are concerned. Why not? If they can do it using the same stupid hardware before they've even picked out a specific video driver, it seems to me the Linux people could do it too.
Installers use base configurations. Linux has no more problem in this area then Windows does. I don't think anyone is claiming that the installer is failing to load in graphics mode. Okay, there are a few bugs. But the problem is not that it "can't" be done.
There are 2 problems people point to with graphical installs right now. One, they are mostly new development projects, so aren't really that stable yet. More time, and usage should take care of that. And second, there are times that graphical installers are useless. Can't use a graphical install on a headless box.
Am I the only person who doesn't like them? Obviously, they are prettier than the standard text / ncurses based installer. But do they really offer any additional functionality?
Actually, yes they can. Pop-up windows, better text layout, organization of the screen. You have much more flexibility with graphical, then with an 80x25 text screen.
I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
A graphical layout does improve the process. As a mentioned above, you can do a lot more on-screen with a graphical interface, then a text interface. In doing so, it makes it easier to install. Consider for instance having help in a window along side the options, whereas you have to hit to see the help in a text interface because there's not room to have both.
The install fails, not only do to things like trying to run X on a monochrome screen, but regular failures that happen with a text-based interface. ie user-error. But hopefully a graphical interface will provide the extra hand-holding to help prevent some of these errors.
If they waited for Mozilla to be finished, you wouldn't have a new version of Mandrake for another year or two.
Oh, come on. The development cycle of Mozilla is open. You can go to mozilla.org and see how the project is progress. Certainly it won't be another year even to have a distributable copy of Mozilla.
I think we may even see Mozilla bundled in distributions early next year. Before July-like.
but despite my impatience I wish they would wait until after Xfree 4, KDE 2, the new linux kernel, mozilla, and other things are released. This would give them plenty of time to test things like the new partitioners and installer.
Development will never "stablize". There'll always be a new and improved version coming up. It has been the tradition (I think) for distributions to be updated every 6 months. This gives you a reasonably up to date distribution. Distributions are supposed to be collections of the last 6 months progress, not the next six months.
In 6 months if the newest versions of the software are out, and have been fully tested, then they will be included, else there'll soon be a new version. If distributions wait for a fully developed Linux suite, we'll be waiting for Linux, just like we've waited 4 years for W2K. And no one wants that.
Usually, as a product becomes more widely used, the cost goes down. The quality also goes up:) Anyways, I think that in a reasonable time we'll see these things being used for practical purposes and being sold inexpensively in Walmart.
Actually, many high-end x86-based servers, such as those from Compaq or HP, have proprietary hardware for which there are no Linux drivers. I suppose if someone discovered that their $20K ProLiant only half-ass works under Linux, they might want to put NT back on it.
Or they may just spend 20K on a server that *does* have Linux supported devices. Like from VA Linux. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to need a Linux server, yet just go and buy one that is marketed for NT.
I guess you can say that, but the problem is that they call linux partitions incompatible with Windows for starters.
That's absolutely, 100% true. Linux partitions are incompatible with Windows. The problem is that Microsoft makes it seems like that is the fault of Linux, rather then the fault of Windows.
This passage is a joke. fdisk will not start until you give it a disk name. It responds with a usage message that explains you have to type something like "fdisk/dev/hda" or "fdisk/dev/sda" to go to the first drive.
Not really, it's only sort-of incorrect. If you only have one drive, it will run fine. Only if you have more then one drive do you need to specify a device.
Slashdot Mirror
How about to download that video to your PC? Or are you content to download 120 minutes over a slow serial connection?
-BrentNot anymore. Check this out.
-BrentHehe... It's Winders with "themes". cool
-BrentWaah!!! The links to the graphics are broken. I can't see it.... :)
-BrentWindows isn't really easy enough for the non-tech tye to install themselves. It's just preloaded.
Think about it...
-BrentMan, this is impossible. I just got everyone calmed down about a Y2K problem, and now some freak starts a new hoax.
They must not have sold all their snake oil kits yet. I guess they figure 1000 years will be enough to pawn off their surplus inventory.
:)
-BrentYes, it'd be nice if it was explained how the hack worked, like the PC Week hack was documented.
-BrentI looked on the site and didn't even *see* a place to report bugs. I would be surprised if it was even possible to report bugs.
Even if Opera wants to make money, (nothing wrong with that, of course), they could still be more open. How about using a SCSL which is not free, but certainly allows more flexibility.
-BrentIf all you are using is Windows programs, then why not jsut use Windows. It is a catch-22. You can make Windows programs to run under Linux, but then why use Linux? That's where OS/2 lost. OS/2 could run Windows programs, but why use OS/2 to run Windows programs if you can jsut use Windows.
We need Native ports that take advantage of the OS. Wine is Fine. And it'd even be nice if Opera would be wine compatible. But certainly not what we want to see for a browser on Linux.
-BrentAnother aspect most people ignore. Especially a certain journalist on USA Today.
-BrentNonsense. There's nothing forcing us to use Linux till the end of days. It's like the early American settlers. They explored new areas, and as others followed them and it got crowded, they moved on. We to will move on as the purpose of Linux changes.
FreeBSD is starting to look nice... And there is always the Hurd. Or maybe there'll even be a new kernel to hack with. Never look back.
-BrentIf Linux is ever going to be accepted by the masses as an alternative to Windows, it must have a graphical installer, and must, on the surface, appear to be as user friendly as a Mac.
Woah!! Wasn't Windows 95 accepted by the masses before it had a graphical installer?Isn't it true that W2K still doesn't have a fully graphical installer?
However, a graphical installer is something that's beneficial to Linux, no denying that. But that claim that Linux *needs* a graphical install to be "accepted" is largely without merit.
-BrentAs you already know, just about anything you'd probably have will suit. It just won't suit for everything :)
It depends on what you want to do. Compile Mozilla? Pentium !!! 500, 256 meg ram, 10 gig HD. Run StarOffice? Celeron 300, 128 meg ram, 6.4gig HD. Run an apache server over your DSL line? Pentium 133, 32 meg ram, 4 gig HD.
I'd generally pick something up in the AMD K6-3 400, 128meg ram 10gig HD range. But what am I saying. I run Linux on a Pentium 233, with 128meg ram, and 20 gig HD space. And I still compile Mozilla and run StarOffice. And Enlightenment.
-BrentInstallers use base configurations. Linux has no more problem in this area then Windows does. I don't think anyone is claiming that the installer is failing to load in graphics mode. Okay, there are a few bugs. But the problem is not that it "can't" be done.
There are 2 problems people point to with graphical installs right now. One, they are mostly new development projects, so aren't really that stable yet. More time, and usage should take care of that. And second, there are times that graphical installers are useless. Can't use a graphical install on a headless box.
-BrentWhich ones don't?
-BrentActually, yes they can. Pop-up windows, better text layout, organization of the screen. You have much more flexibility with graphical, then with an 80x25 text screen.
I'm the first to admit that I have never extensively used a GUI installer - but for those of you who have - what did you think? Does moving to (g)tk really improve the installation experience? Does it make it easier to install? Does the install ever fail? Or am I just paranoid?Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
A graphical layout does improve the process. As a mentioned above, you can do a lot more on-screen with a graphical interface, then a text interface. In doing so, it makes it easier to install. Consider for instance having help in a window along side the options, whereas you have to hit to see the help in a text interface because there's not room to have both.
The install fails, not only do to things like trying to run X on a monochrome screen, but regular failures that happen with a text-based interface. ie user-error. But hopefully a graphical interface will provide the extra hand-holding to help prevent some of these errors.
-BrentOh, come on. The development cycle of Mozilla is open. You can go to mozilla.org and see how the project is progress. Certainly it won't be another year even to have a distributable copy of Mozilla.
I think we may even see Mozilla bundled in distributions early next year. Before July-like.
-BrentDevelopment will never "stablize". There'll always be a new and improved version coming up. It has been the tradition (I think) for distributions to be updated every 6 months. This gives you a reasonably up to date distribution. Distributions are supposed to be collections of the last 6 months progress, not the next six months.
In 6 months if the newest versions of the software are out, and have been fully tested, then they will be included, else there'll soon be a new version. If distributions wait for a fully developed Linux suite, we'll be waiting for Linux, just like we've waited 4 years for W2K. And no one wants that.
-BrentHey, you're in luck. Check out the store (page). It comes in dozens of different color combinations. Yes, even black.
-BrentIt has a wagon. Therefore I'm guessing that it can carry stuff for you.
-BrentR&D
Usually, as a product becomes more widely used, the cost goes down. The quality also goes up :) Anyways, I think that in a reasonable time we'll see these things being used for practical purposes and being sold inexpensively in Walmart.
Whee!!
-BrentOr they may just spend 20K on a server that *does* have Linux supported devices. Like from VA Linux. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to need a Linux server, yet just go and buy one that is marketed for NT.
-BrentThat's absolutely, 100% true. Linux partitions are incompatible with Windows. The problem is that Microsoft makes it seems like that is the fault of Linux, rather then the fault of Windows.
This passage is a joke. fdisk will not start until you give it a disk name. It responds with a usage message that explains you have to type something like "fdiskNot really, it's only sort-of incorrect. If you only have one drive, it will run fine. Only if you have more then one drive do you need to specify a device.
-BrentWe don't jeer at "humor".
-BrentWAAAHH!!!!! I just bought this great Mac application and it doesn't work on my PC. How do I get Windows off?
-Brent