Did some googling and the "page pool" in WinMo is reserved for executing ROM files since they cannot be executed directly. This seems to have some good info:
With all of the complaints I see and hear and after spending a couple hours troubleshooting an ActiveSync issue with one(the issue was with the server config, not the phone, but the phone did crash and need rebooting several times), I don't think I would ever consider getting a phone with WinMo on it.
How many people fitting the description of "has to ask the sales person how many pictures will fit in a 500 GB drive" do you know that regularly backup their PC without intervention from you or someone else with higher level of tech knowledge?
So after cleaning it up, it was still using at least 39 MB of RAM after initial bootup? That seems high to me for a phone OS. According to specs, the minimum required for Android is 32 MB of RAM, I would take that to mean it runs and can have at least 1 app within those constraints. Although, it could be that WinMo does not have a pagefile, while Android allows for swap space. Anyone phone devs out there with some insights?
I just wasted a number of hours trying to help a friend figure out how to deal with an incomprehensible Vista error message that makes logins totally fail. There are several thousand questions about the specific message online, and it appears that several hundred people have managed to fix it. But so far, none of the discussions we've found actually say what they did to fix it. So we've apparently hit a brick wall, despite all the bandwidth taken up by discussions of this particular problem. This illustrates how the MS community is learning to hobble those who can read, and ensure that there is nothing useful online on the topic.
Hah, I just ran into this with an issue on one of our servers here. One of the folders decided to make itself not accessible to even the domain administrator (and it was the domain administrator account's Home folder...). Right-click and properties has no "security tab", so can't take ownership that way. Searching for that issue finds thousands of articles about turning off "Simple File Sharing" in XP, even when adding "server" or "server 2003" to the query. Definitely not the issue, I even get "Access denied" when using the "takeown" command(at least that has fewer false leads when searching though). Next step Ill be working on today are CACL, XCACL, subinacl, or fileacl and cross my fingers.
Should probably tell the OpenDNS people about the NetworkManager issue, since what you were trying to do is pretty much the only way to use OpenDNS without a router between you and the DSL modem(without changing network management tools or doing some config file editing, which is above most users that would need a desktop that is simple to configure). Maybe they can help you complain about that. Even freaking Windows lets you configure custom DNS settings while using DHCP for addressing.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but:
1) I'm pretty sure Mac OSX has a far larger desktop usage, and the statistics here seem to agree. However, I would bet linux server usage beats Mac OSX Server, and all other *NIX combined, if anyone has a good source I would like to see.
2) No disagreement, but I'd like to see a comparison kernel to kernel for linux vs OpenBSD. The biggest problem with "linux" security is usually because of userland and distros making configuration mistakes (remember the Debian OpenSSL fuckup?).
For your final point, a lot of GNU userland tools are clones of or borrowed UNIX tools, especially the older ones. Since the GPL prevents the improved versions from being re-licensed as BSD or MIT, many *NIX distros now seem to use GNU tools. Then again, I see that as a problem with BSD license, not with GPL. If you do not want your code taken and improved on without you getting anything in return, you should've used the GPL or another license that protects you from that, the point of the BSD license is to give away your code. Thats not to discount the actual contributions made by RMS and GNU, just to say that a lot of basically the same tools would be around without them.
Its inherently abusive because the creator(s) of the original source code released it under that license, and EDU4 must abide by it. Granted if the code was released under a different license, like the BSD license, there would have been no abuse. But, because the creator chose the GPL over the BSD license (or another), it should be assumed that they did so because of these protections. If your arguement was that what if there were no GPL license, then depending on the mindset of the creator(s) of VNC, they may have chose to not release the code under any open source license.
While I agree with the fact that the BSD license is far easier to read than the GPL (and I don't think there are 2 competing version of BSD license out there to muddy it up further), the two licenses have very different goals. BSD license strives mainly to free code so that anyone can do pretty much whatever they want with it and to release yourself of some liability. GPL aims to enforce an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" policy in that anyone redistributing the code must release their changes under the same license. If someone could make a concise license like the BSD license but that grants this protection, I feel it would cover the best of both worlds. Creative Commons comes close by having an easy to read description of whats allowed with a link to the legalese for further details, but I would prefer it if the legalese didn't need to be there. Not to mention that Creative Commons isn't really designed to be used for code as far as I can tell.
If you are talking about the case I am thinking of, wasn't it the Russian government that initiated the investigation and then tried and convicted the teacher, with MS stating they did not wish to sue the individual? Please correct me if I am wrong or thinking of a different case.
My understanding of v2 is that just a link is not sufficient, you need to provide other means, including offer to ship a CD.
I believe that was fixed in v3, though.
Not that either seems to be a heavy burden considering the wealth of free, stable code you get in exchange. I think the biggest fear is the FUD spread by closed-software corporations that make it seem like you would lose competitive edge or company secrets in order to facilitate the license requirements.
I think it might depend on GPL 2 vs 3, and I am unsure which one VNC is distributed under. Its my understanding that with GPL v2, you have two choices:
1)Distribute the modified source code with the binaries (i.e. on the CD or in a folder in the tar), ending your obligations.
2)Provide a written offer to distribute the modified source upon request. This needs to be on a physical medium such as a CD-ROM, but you can collect payment for shipping and materials. You cannot just post a link to your FTP site, but you can offer that for those that do not wish to wait for a CD to ship.
With the GPL3, I believe you can just have users download the software from FTP, HTTP, or git or whatever. I'm not sure how long you need to maintain this though. Also, remember that the GPL2 was written in 1991, when downloading source code over the net was far less of an option for most.
My understanding of the GPL is that if they made a patch, changed some code, or added some new code, they would own the copyright to those changes only, the rest is owned by the original creator(s) of that code. The GPL is not a copyright assignment, but a distribution license. This is why some of organizations require copyright assignment to them from community contributors, so that they can sell versions of the software under a different license without having to track down the contributors and make licensing arrangements.
I could very well be wrong, anyone have a link to the FSF explaining this?
Sounds like you are talking about hothouse vegetables and fruits grown out of season or ones from another region that are picked well before ripening to increase shelf life. As stated in another reply these are not GM crops.
when "APPLEIPODXXXX"(or whatever the USB-ID looks like) connects, the software knows its an iPod and how to sync, what features it has, etc. When "PALMPREXXXX" connects, and a plugin is installed that knows how to handle that hardware, it can sync with that using the plugin. However, if the device claims to be "APPLEIPODXXXX" and is not actually an iPod, any issues with the syncing will appear to be Apple's fault.
That's not really how it works. USB devices have a device ID and a vendor ID. They are separate. You can have a device that claims to be an iPod but says it's made by Palm. That's perfectly okay... it doesn't violate the USB-IF rules.
The reasonable approach would be to say, "Okay, you say you're an iPod made by Palm... as long as you act like an iPod we can talk, but if you start acting weird, it's not my fault, because I'm really designed to talk to iPods made by Apple." That's what iTunes originally did, and the Palm synced fine. Then they made it check the vendor ID, and that broke the sync.
According to the summary, Palm is accused of using Apple's vendor ID. Your description seems to make a lot more sense.
Also, if iTunes does the firmware updates automatically (this is how my Zune operates, not sure about iPods), the iTunes software might attempt a firmware update and either crash, error out, or brick the Pre. And again, who will users blame for breaking their phone? My bet is they would blame Apple.
The Pre should be designed so as to refuse or ignore attempts to update it with iPod firmware. If iTunes crashes when the Pre says "no, don't update me", I blame iTunes for not error-handling properly. However, if it bricks the Pre, I'm completely going to blame Palm.
I probably should have thought about that a little longer before posting.
I apologize for never having written a firmware updater, I should have known that was a required qualification to post here. Also, I would think me owning or using exactly zero Apple products would not qualify me as a fanboy. But thanks for trying to justify your belief that Palm can just ignore a standard they subscribed to (by being members of the USB IF). Like I said, they could have either made their own software that reads the iTunes library file (a documented XML file if I recall correctly) or by making a plugin for iTunes. Instead they cheaped out with a weak hack to spoof the USB ID.
Then Palm can create a plugin for iTunes to sync with Palm devices. They are just being lazy and/or cheap by spoofing the USB ID. Even freaking Archos (granted they only made a Mac version)made one, and they HATE Apple.
At worst, they might be sued for violating the "membership agreement", they didn't exactly commit a crime. Whats more likely is that they will be fined some arbitrary amount or be dropped as members. Even more likely is that the accusation will lead to an update by Pre to conform to the standards and some bad publicity. IANAL, etc.
I see nothing wrong with end-users modifying the hardware to fake the USB ID. In that case the user would know that what they are doing is not supported and might have some issues.
iTunes has a plugin interface and toolkit available for other manufacturers to allow sync with iTunes. This way when "APPLEIPODXXXX"(or whatever the USB-ID looks like) connects, the software knows its an iPod and how to sync, what features it has, etc. When "PALMPREXXXX" connects, and a plugin is installed that knows how to handle that hardware, it can sync with that using the plugin. However, if the device claims to be "APPLEIPODXXXX" and is not actually an iPod, any issues with the syncing will appear to be Apple's fault. This is a case of Palm pre-configuring the devices to lie to your computer about what it is because they do not want to deal with making their own software or a plugin for iTunes. Also, if iTunes does the firmware updates automatically (this is how my Zune operates, not sure about iPods), the iTunes software might attempt a firmware update and either crash, error out, or brick the Pre. And again, who will users blame for breaking their phone? My bet is they would blame Apple.
Even assuming this was a sane ruling (its not like he modified the existing code to create the holes, just exploited them, why is it his responsibility to fix the software?), and that he actually discovered the holes himself (and didn't just use known exploits or figure out a password), he would have to be given access to the source code, which may not be open or belong to the people he "hacked". Without access to the source, I believe most holes are found by using fuzzing, which would not give the "hacker" much insight into how to fix it, other than recommending better input sanitation.
Yes, it is possible some viable mutants will result. However, would the chances be any higher of producing a strain of E. coli that are deadlier to humans? I doubt it.
Back on topic, is the uranium-phosphate that is produced still radioactive, or does this just make it easier to extract and remove from the environment?
Slashdot Mirror
Did some googling and the "page pool" in WinMo is reserved for executing ROM files since they cannot be executed directly. This seems to have some good info:
http://www.etenblog.com/2008/01/14/change-your-page-pool-size/
With all of the complaints I see and hear and after spending a couple hours troubleshooting an ActiveSync issue with one(the issue was with the server config, not the phone, but the phone did crash and need rebooting several times), I don't think I would ever consider getting a phone with WinMo on it.
clandestine: conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods; "clandestine intelligence operations"; "cloak-and-dagger activities behind enemy ...
Via wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Looks like they were working "undercover" to me. They were posing as someone looking to purchase a computer.
How many people fitting the description of "has to ask the sales person how many pictures will fit in a 500 GB drive" do you know that regularly backup their PC without intervention from you or someone else with higher level of tech knowledge?
So after cleaning it up, it was still using at least 39 MB of RAM after initial bootup? That seems high to me for a phone OS. According to specs, the minimum required for Android is 32 MB of RAM, I would take that to mean it runs and can have at least 1 app within those constraints. Although, it could be that WinMo does not have a pagefile, while Android allows for swap space. Anyone phone devs out there with some insights?
I just wasted a number of hours trying to help a friend figure out how to deal with an incomprehensible Vista error message that makes logins totally fail. There are several thousand questions about the specific message online, and it appears that several hundred people have managed to fix it. But so far, none of the discussions we've found actually say what they did to fix it. So we've apparently hit a brick wall, despite all the bandwidth taken up by discussions of this particular problem. This illustrates how the MS community is learning to hobble those who can read, and ensure that there is nothing useful online on the topic.
Hah, I just ran into this with an issue on one of our servers here. One of the folders decided to make itself not accessible to even the domain administrator (and it was the domain administrator account's Home folder...). Right-click and properties has no "security tab", so can't take ownership that way. Searching for that issue finds thousands of articles about turning off "Simple File Sharing" in XP, even when adding "server" or "server 2003" to the query. Definitely not the issue, I even get "Access denied" when using the "takeown" command(at least that has fewer false leads when searching though). Next step Ill be working on today are CACL, XCACL, subinacl, or fileacl and cross my fingers.
Should probably tell the OpenDNS people about the NetworkManager issue, since what you were trying to do is pretty much the only way to use OpenDNS without a router between you and the DSL modem(without changing network management tools or doing some config file editing, which is above most users that would need a desktop that is simple to configure). Maybe they can help you complain about that. Even freaking Windows lets you configure custom DNS settings while using DHCP for addressing.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but:
1) I'm pretty sure Mac OSX has a far larger desktop usage, and the statistics here seem to agree. However, I would bet linux server usage beats Mac OSX Server, and all other *NIX combined, if anyone has a good source I would like to see.
2) No disagreement, but I'd like to see a comparison kernel to kernel for linux vs OpenBSD. The biggest problem with "linux" security is usually because of userland and distros making configuration mistakes (remember the Debian OpenSSL fuckup?).
For your final point, a lot of GNU userland tools are clones of or borrowed UNIX tools, especially the older ones. Since the GPL prevents the improved versions from being re-licensed as BSD or MIT, many *NIX distros now seem to use GNU tools. Then again, I see that as a problem with BSD license, not with GPL. If you do not want your code taken and improved on without you getting anything in return, you should've used the GPL or another license that protects you from that, the point of the BSD license is to give away your code. Thats not to discount the actual contributions made by RMS and GNU, just to say that a lot of basically the same tools would be around without them.
Exactly, its like saying that Windows NT is based on BSD, because of the BSD TCP/IP stack (at least pre-vista, which I believe has a new stack).
Its inherently abusive because the creator(s) of the original source code released it under that license, and EDU4 must abide by it. Granted if the code was released under a different license, like the BSD license, there would have been no abuse. But, because the creator chose the GPL over the BSD license (or another), it should be assumed that they did so because of these protections. If your arguement was that what if there were no GPL license, then depending on the mindset of the creator(s) of VNC, they may have chose to not release the code under any open source license.
While I agree with the fact that the BSD license is far easier to read than the GPL (and I don't think there are 2 competing version of BSD license out there to muddy it up further), the two licenses have very different goals. BSD license strives mainly to free code so that anyone can do pretty much whatever they want with it and to release yourself of some liability. GPL aims to enforce an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" policy in that anyone redistributing the code must release their changes under the same license. If someone could make a concise license like the BSD license but that grants this protection, I feel it would cover the best of both worlds. Creative Commons comes close by having an easy to read description of whats allowed with a link to the legalese for further details, but I would prefer it if the legalese didn't need to be there. Not to mention that Creative Commons isn't really designed to be used for code as far as I can tell.
If you are talking about the case I am thinking of, wasn't it the Russian government that initiated the investigation and then tried and convicted the teacher, with MS stating they did not wish to sue the individual? Please correct me if I am wrong or thinking of a different case.
My understanding of v2 is that just a link is not sufficient, you need to provide other means, including offer to ship a CD.
I believe that was fixed in v3, though.
Not that either seems to be a heavy burden considering the wealth of free, stable code you get in exchange. I think the biggest fear is the FUD spread by closed-software corporations that make it seem like you would lose competitive edge or company secrets in order to facilitate the license requirements.
I think it might depend on GPL 2 vs 3, and I am unsure which one VNC is distributed under. Its my understanding that with GPL v2, you have two choices:
1)Distribute the modified source code with the binaries (i.e. on the CD or in a folder in the tar), ending your obligations.
2)Provide a written offer to distribute the modified source upon request. This needs to be on a physical medium such as a CD-ROM, but you can collect payment for shipping and materials. You cannot just post a link to your FTP site, but you can offer that for those that do not wish to wait for a CD to ship.
With the GPL3, I believe you can just have users download the software from FTP, HTTP, or git or whatever. I'm not sure how long you need to maintain this though. Also, remember that the GPL2 was written in 1991, when downloading source code over the net was far less of an option for most.
My understanding of the GPL is that if they made a patch, changed some code, or added some new code, they would own the copyright to those changes only, the rest is owned by the original creator(s) of that code. The GPL is not a copyright assignment, but a distribution license. This is why some of organizations require copyright assignment to them from community contributors, so that they can sell versions of the software under a different license without having to track down the contributors and make licensing arrangements.
I could very well be wrong, anyone have a link to the FSF explaining this?
Sounds like you are talking about hothouse vegetables and fruits grown out of season or ones from another region that are picked well before ripening to increase shelf life. As stated in another reply these are not GM crops.
when "APPLEIPODXXXX"(or whatever the USB-ID looks like) connects, the software knows its an iPod and how to sync, what features it has, etc. When "PALMPREXXXX" connects, and a plugin is installed that knows how to handle that hardware, it can sync with that using the plugin. However, if the device claims to be "APPLEIPODXXXX" and is not actually an iPod, any issues with the syncing will appear to be Apple's fault.
That's not really how it works. USB devices have a device ID and a vendor ID. They are separate. You can have a device that claims to be an iPod but says it's made by Palm. That's perfectly okay... it doesn't violate the USB-IF rules.
The reasonable approach would be to say, "Okay, you say you're an iPod made by Palm... as long as you act like an iPod we can talk, but if you start acting weird, it's not my fault, because I'm really designed to talk to iPods made by Apple." That's what iTunes originally did, and the Palm synced fine. Then they made it check the vendor ID, and that broke the sync.
According to the summary, Palm is accused of using Apple's vendor ID. Your description seems to make a lot more sense.
Also, if iTunes does the firmware updates automatically (this is how my Zune operates, not sure about iPods), the iTunes software might attempt a firmware update and either crash, error out, or brick the Pre. And again, who will users blame for breaking their phone? My bet is they would blame Apple.
The Pre should be designed so as to refuse or ignore attempts to update it with iPod firmware. If iTunes crashes when the Pre says "no, don't update me", I blame iTunes for not error-handling properly. However, if it bricks the Pre, I'm completely going to blame Palm.
I probably should have thought about that a little longer before posting.
Sorry, when I think "illegal", I usually associate that with criminal law. After looking it up, that appears to be an incorrect assumption on my part.
I apologize for never having written a firmware updater, I should have known that was a required qualification to post here. Also, I would think me owning or using exactly zero Apple products would not qualify me as a fanboy. But thanks for trying to justify your belief that Palm can just ignore a standard they subscribed to (by being members of the USB IF). Like I said, they could have either made their own software that reads the iTunes library file (a documented XML file if I recall correctly) or by making a plugin for iTunes. Instead they cheaped out with a weak hack to spoof the USB ID.
Then Palm can create a plugin for iTunes to sync with Palm devices. They are just being lazy and/or cheap by spoofing the USB ID. Even freaking Archos (granted they only made a Mac version)made one, and they HATE Apple.
At worst, they might be sued for violating the "membership agreement", they didn't exactly commit a crime. Whats more likely is that they will be fined some arbitrary amount or be dropped as members. Even more likely is that the accusation will lead to an update by Pre to conform to the standards and some bad publicity. IANAL, etc.
Touché, Slashdot handles uncommon characters just fine!
I see nothing wrong with end-users modifying the hardware to fake the USB ID. In that case the user would know that what they are doing is not supported and might have some issues.
iTunes has a plugin interface and toolkit available for other manufacturers to allow sync with iTunes. This way when "APPLEIPODXXXX"(or whatever the USB-ID looks like) connects, the software knows its an iPod and how to sync, what features it has, etc. When "PALMPREXXXX" connects, and a plugin is installed that knows how to handle that hardware, it can sync with that using the plugin. However, if the device claims to be "APPLEIPODXXXX" and is not actually an iPod, any issues with the syncing will appear to be Apple's fault. This is a case of Palm pre-configuring the devices to lie to your computer about what it is because they do not want to deal with making their own software or a plugin for iTunes. Also, if iTunes does the firmware updates automatically (this is how my Zune operates, not sure about iPods), the iTunes software might attempt a firmware update and either crash, error out, or brick the Pre. And again, who will users blame for breaking their phone? My bet is they would blame Apple.
Even assuming this was a sane ruling (its not like he modified the existing code to create the holes, just exploited them, why is it his responsibility to fix the software?), and that he actually discovered the holes himself (and didn't just use known exploits or figure out a password), he would have to be given access to the source code, which may not be open or belong to the people he "hacked". Without access to the source, I believe most holes are found by using fuzzing, which would not give the "hacker" much insight into how to fix it, other than recommending better input sanitation.
At least their Hard Drive works, mine wont turn on anymore after I spilled a little coffee in the cup-holder. Stupid foreign electronics.
Anyway, can't they just have the Geek Squad put in more Gigabytes?
Yes, it is possible some viable mutants will result. However, would the chances be any higher of producing a strain of E. coli that are deadlier to humans? I doubt it.
Back on topic, is the uranium-phosphate that is produced still radioactive, or does this just make it easier to extract and remove from the environment?