Huh? You make it sound like 1-exe no-registry is a bad thing. This kind of programs is actually better than the ones you bury deep into your system by installing them.
Programs with just one.exe and some data files in one directory and a config file in the same or the user's directory are perfect to keep on a Samba share for example. Multiple computers can access them and run them directly from the share. There's no need to reinstall and wonder where the goddamn thing spread all of its config bits.
Really, the perfect Windows program comes as a.zip so I can extract/virus-check it right on the file server and then run it from a read-only share with only the config file kept writable. That's much more control and transparency.
Of course, for the average Joe... never mind what I said.
Re:I did something similar as a workaround in NT 4
on
Microsoft Patents sudo
·
· Score: 1
Exposed an adhoc API that allowed a manager running an app on his workstation [...] implement an ugly kludge that could screw things up royal if used by morons.
But presumably you had to be admin to actually initiate the install of SP2 itself, so the Security Center setup could just be seen as simply being part of the (post-)install procedure itself.
You are doing what MS is doing: you assume too much. You think because you can't possibly know of any other workflow for a given problem (installing SP2) you can make assumptions about how the user will interact with your software.
The whole point of the firewall is so that bad applications (like the ones that would turn a firewall off) don't get installed in the first place.
Wrong. The point is that potentially unsecure services are protected from access by the world (which, in turn, could lead to code being run). What is a firewall to do against a trojan that gets automatically executed by previewing a mail in Outlook, for example? Right, it should at least prevent it from phoning home somewhere. The problem is that this firewall wouldn't even prevent this, since it allows everything from inside to connect to the world afaik.
Anyway, the real problem is uneducated users and the general crappiness surrounding the Windows environment. You just can't have non-admin user accounts and a default-deny-firewall in Windows. Programs won't install and J. Random Luser wouldn't know which rules he needed to configure to make web/mail/chat/etc. work.
It checks whether HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SlySoft\CloneCD exists in the registry. If you temporarily rename this key - maybe write a little script that renames the key prior to and after running Doom - then it will run.
Of course, I don't have a paid up BaseCamp membership since I think it's overpriced, but there you go:-) (This is one benefit of regular desktop software)
Moderate! Read comments (preferably at a low threshold) and when you see comments that are very insightful, or perhaps just plain off topic, select that option from the drop down list. When you are done, hit the 'Moderate' button. That's it!
Why you exclude ACs is beyond me. I guess you don't mod too often. It's not the person that matters, it's what that person is saying that matters with moderation.
"Bang" is not only raw speed. It's working chipsets, no PCI transfer issues (e.g. sound clicks when transferring via IDE), no lockups. I'm not so sure AMD is ahead in every aspect. Nothing compares to an Intel chipset + Intel CPU combo IMHO.
And your periods and commas belong inside the quotation marks.
Not necessarily. At least I can understand where this comes from. It it even described here:
Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if "Jim is going" is a phrase, and so are "Bill runs" and "Spock groks", then hackers generally prefer to write: "Jim is going", "Bill runs", and "Spock groks". This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them.
Having a catchall address is nice because it allows you to register at websites with sitename@domainname.com and still get the mail (and notice instantly if they sell on your details).
From the replies so far it looks like a catch-all is the only way to do this. But it's not. What is so hard about maintaining a list of those accounts in a database as opposed to opening the whole domain with a catch-all? Am I missing something here?
I just maintain a database with
1) a list of aliases 2) a separate Maildir for each alias where mail gets delivered to by Postfix 3) a comment describing the purpose of that alias if needed 4) date of addition 5) etc.
So unknown accounts still bounce and mail for the dozens of forums, shops, mailing lists, etc. gets delivered into the appropriate Maildir automatically.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? You make it sound like 1-exe no-registry is a bad thing. This kind of programs is actually better than the ones you bury deep into your system by installing them.
.exe and some data files in one directory and a config file in the same or the user's directory are perfect to keep on a Samba share for example. Multiple computers can access them and run them directly from the share. There's no need to reinstall and wonder where the goddamn thing spread all of its config bits.
.zip so I can extract/virus-check it right on the file server and then run it from a read-only share with only the config file kept writable. That's much more control and transparency.
Programs with just one
Really, the perfect Windows program comes as a
Of course, for the average Joe... never mind what I said.
Exposed an adhoc API that allowed a manager running an app on his workstation [...] implement an ugly kludge that could screw things up royal if used by morons.
So, how did you handle the royal screwup?
It varies so much from one signature to the next (even if I do them at the same time)
:)
Even if you use tracing paper (because of "at the same time")?
That's what Underrated is for once the post is Funny, I think.
But presumably you had to be admin to actually initiate the install of SP2 itself, so the Security Center setup could just be seen as simply being part of the (post-)install procedure itself.
You are doing what MS is doing: you assume too much. You think because you can't possibly know of any other workflow for a given problem (installing SP2) you can make assumptions about how the user will interact with your software.
The whole point of the firewall is so that bad applications (like the ones that would turn a firewall off) don't get installed in the first place.
Wrong. The point is that potentially unsecure services are protected from access by the world (which, in turn, could lead to code being run). What is a firewall to do against a trojan that gets automatically executed by previewing a mail in Outlook, for example? Right, it should at least prevent it from phoning home somewhere. The problem is that this firewall wouldn't even prevent this, since it allows everything from inside to connect to the world afaik.
Anyway, the real problem is uneducated users and the general crappiness surrounding the Windows environment. You just can't have non-admin user accounts and a default-deny-firewall in Windows. Programs won't install and J. Random Luser wouldn't know which rules he needed to configure to make web/mail/chat/etc. work.
We're all doomed.
It checks whether HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\SlySoft\CloneCD exists in the registry. If you temporarily rename this key - maybe write a little script that renames the key prior to and after running Doom - then it will run.
"Funny" doesn't give karma.
Of course, I don't have a paid up BaseCamp membership since I think it's overpriced, but there you go :-) (This is one benefit of regular desktop software)
It can be warez'd.
A post on /. noting "Its Usenet not google groups." being marked +5, Informative.
Sheesh to that!
p.s. Karma is not given out on "funny" posts.
That, fellow moderators, is why you should moderate funny posts underrated once they are +1, Funny.
If the feature is so useful, why can't the standards bodies and the Open Source world take a look at it and adopt it?
No shit, Sherlock. That's if they can look at it and implement it like MS could. But uh-oh, MS doesn't provide source? You don't say!
I'm sure those lazy-ass programmers just don't want to implement NTFS or SMB correctly. Oh wait..
Try reading the FAQ entry on moderation:
I just got moderator access. What do I do?
Moderate! Read comments (preferably at a low threshold) and when you see comments that are very insightful, or perhaps just plain off topic, select that option from the drop down list. When you are done, hit the 'Moderate' button. That's it!
Why you exclude ACs is beyond me. I guess you don't mod too often. It's not the person that matters, it's what that person is saying that matters with moderation.
I also switched over to a much more powerful machine to handle the load.
Pardon the ignorance but what load do you get from serving static files? Network should be saturated much earlier than even a lowly powered server.
I'm seeing torrents for several diff file sizes (266 and 271mb) ....whats the difference?
5mb! duh!
ps: whatever mb is
"Bang" is not only raw speed. It's working chipsets, no PCI transfer issues (e.g. sound clicks when transferring via IDE), no lockups. I'm not so sure AMD is ahead in every aspect. Nothing compares to an Intel chipset + Intel CPU combo IMHO.
And your periods and commas belong inside the quotation marks.
Not necessarily. At least I can understand where this comes from. It it even described here:
Hackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses, much to the dismay of American editors. Thus, if "Jim is going" is a phrase, and so are "Bill runs" and "Spock groks", then hackers generally prefer to write: "Jim is going", "Bill runs", and "Spock groks". This is incorrect according to standard American usage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period inside the string quotes); however, it is counter-intuitive to hackers to mutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them.
Having a catchall address is nice because it allows you to register at websites with sitename@domainname.com and still get the mail (and notice instantly if they sell on your details).
From the replies so far it looks like a catch-all is the only way to do this. But it's not. What is so hard about maintaining a list of those accounts in a database as opposed to opening the whole domain with a catch-all? Am I missing something here?
I just maintain a database with
1) a list of aliases
2) a separate Maildir for each alias where mail gets delivered to by Postfix
3) a comment describing the purpose of that alias if needed
4) date of addition
5) etc.
So unknown accounts still bounce and mail for the dozens of forums, shops, mailing lists, etc. gets delivered into the appropriate Maildir automatically.
Where can I find a demonstration or a Howto-Repeat?
me
Wow, the Finnish bank solution is way overkill.
It's the same in Germany, by the way. Why do you call it overkill just because it's not common in the neanderthal you live in?
Just a login/password for my _real_ cash? I'd call that way underkill if there's such a word.
Thankfully, that part of the site is down now, although I think not intentionally *lol*.
http://dozomo.24hdc.com/engines.html:
Site Error
An error was encountered while publishing this resource.
Error Type: IndexError
Error Value: list index out of range
[...]
Hilarious...
What? Some kid sent "malicious" packets with the source address of your dns servers/some other vital host?
Automatic blacklisting, Mr DoS. Mr DoS, meet automatic blacklisting.
ip access-list N allow 10.42.101.0 0.0.0.255
/24 is 255.255.255.0. And the address spaces you posted are RFC1918 ones which must be disallowed to leak outside.
ip access-list N allow 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
The mask corresponding to a
find it impossible to work on a desktop that doesn't have room to rest my entire arm
Really your entire arm? How do you work, chin on table?