I don't see a problem in logging to a remote syslog server. It's the first logical thought anyway.
The firewall will be halted so we can't double duty and use it as a central syslog server as well
Therefore we must point it to our central syslog, if not another syslog
If we're not using central logging, why the hell not?!?
If you aren't using central logging, your shop isn't running as effecient as at could be. Also, if you're not using central logging at large, it doesn't mean you can't use it for special cases. Unless you're just not sure how to set it up.
I just read the dead tree version of this about a week ago while sipping some coffee. It's an interesting idea to say the least, but I don't think the practice of turning the machine off and still expecting it to work will be widely accepted by any large production environment.
Essentially, I don't see why any process that runs entirely in kernel space couldn't be handled the same way. It has sparked my interest enough to build a test machine to try out this kind of thing. The site is already/.'d so I can't check my facts, but I thought it mentioned it was possible with a 2.4 kernel as well.
Also, that was the most interesting article of the issue. It slightly miffs me that I can read it online for free, but their magazine just cost me ~5$.
It will be interesting to find out exactly when it took place.
IIRC, it takes about 7 minutes for the light from the sun to reach the Earth. This supernova is no doubt a long ways away (or else we would be fearing for our lives?), so it stands to reason it actually took place days, weeks, or even months ago.
using it for about 3 months and it's been rock solid so far.
Activestate's Komodo is buit on a Mozilla framework, so the stability of Komodo is in large part dependant on that. For Linux users, relying on Mozilla is pretty much a non-issue since most of us have it installed anyway. But installing it under Windows means you also have to download the Mozilla part, and already having Netscape doesn't count. Interestingly, their sight will tell you it's built on Mozilla, but doesn't actually let you know the entire browser is installed along with Komodo. If you're a Windows user with Komodo installed try browsing to it's install directory and double click on the mozilla.exe file. Surfs up.
To be more ontopic, I agree that Komodo is nifty as an IDE. Activestate is more known for their Perl distributions for Windows, but Komodo does a fine job and dealing with languages besides Perl. The only thing that keeps me from using it is it's interface. I can't think of anything specificaly wrong with it, it just doesn't sit right with me.
Having said that, I always go back to KDE's Advanced Editor. I set the syntax highlighting to HTML and it will still make your PHP easy to read (there's also PHP highlighting if that's all you're doing).
Trolling? Karma Whoring? Whatever it is, it seems you've spent to much energy trying to be creative and not enough realy thinking this through.
Chapter 1: "Tom, Dick and AC"
Why is this an interesting story? Because a lot of us are interested, and would like others to be interested in the.ogg format. So what better way to introduce.ogg to a wider audience then to have BBC radio stream in.ogg format? So in a major way it is hoped that every "Tom, Dick and AC" jumps on this.
Chapter 2: "handle the slashdot effect (very few have)"
As most of us know, this isn't the first time BBC radio has implemented a streaming radio service, more specifically not the first time on this project. They're aware that people are interested and I'm sure they're planning accordingly. If they're truly serious about this then I'm sure they've made provisions to scale hardware according to demand.
Chapter 3: "at the end of the day, BBC will think this is a bad idea"
When any service is initially introduced, you'll usually see disproportionately low or high traffic. Either way, the time immediately following the introduction is absolutely not when to judge your average traffic. This actually holds tru for many IT services. Anyone in the industry knows this, and I'm sure the BBC do as well.I'll assume this is not your line of work.
Chapter 4: "just my.02 euro"
While this could be considered creative, you've missed the mark. The BBC is a product of the United Kingdom. Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom are members of the European Union but are not currently participating in the single currency. Denmark, though, is a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II), which means that the Danish krone is linked to the euro, although the exchange rate is not fixed.
Everyone seems to be making some great points that have sparked a few questions:
What if I only have one computer but decide to put it behind a NAT box? Will a service tech have to come by my house to verify this?
What about the whole new wave of broadband capable consumer devices like component MP3\MPEG-4 players that can stream internet radio? Would I have to pay $N more for each device I purchase?
You can't argue against installing a firewall for security reasons. And it's much easier to drop a specially made hardware component in then configure your OP system to do it. My grandmother could install a Linksys router, but will never be able to truely configure a firewall. This would seem like they are disallowing easy\basic ways of safeguarding yourself.
I have six machines behind my NAT box. Each is configured to tripple-boot with Solaris, Windows or Linux so I can test different network environments and combinations. Thats a total of 18 static IPs assigned inside the LAN and potentially 18 different outgoing browser headers. I am a single guy in a one room appartment who actually downloads very little. I am also crazy and have vastly different browsing habbits durring different parts of the day. How do you suggest I be charged?
If they really want to do this right they're going to have to packet sniff. That means they'll be able to tell when (and what) you're IMing, FTPing, browsing, and they'll know any clear-text passwords you happen to use. I do not trust Comcast with this information.
Ok, new list with some other points:
Running a proxy to mask your traffic is fine, but only for applications that support a proxy.
When I picked up my home install kit the guy stated NAT boxes were fine.
I didn't sign up to have an "internet desk", I signed up to have an "internet house". As in, one day I will have that wireless webpad on my couch.
If I'm being pulled into an "oversubscription" model, it's not my fault. I.E. - I'm being given a ton of bandwidth, but they don't expect me to use it, and when I do I don't think I should be punished.
I've been a Comcast customer for some time and have had relatively no problems with them to date. I am a little concened that since my IP changed on the 22nd (our area's cutover) I'm unable to ping it from work. Something to do tonight I guess.
The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
Exactly what the heck is that supposed to mean? I have a feeling that this was supposed to say "AOL could be configured to run on Red Hat Linux". I'd like to know either what 'source' would actually make such a statement, or who at The Washington Post was stupid enough to make such a misquote.
Think about it logically: You can't simply trounce in and replace someones OS right under their nose without their permission. So what does this gain AOL\TW? It certainly doesn't mean they'll stop making clients for Windows, since that would mean certain death. It would mean that, yes, they'd own a Linux distro and it would be capable of getting on AOL, but it still doesn't force anyone to do anything different since the Windows users still have their clients.
If AOL\TW wants Linux to be able to connect to AOL why don't they just make a Linux client? I still don't see how buying the distro will help them.
Amelie was a fantasitic movie, and a great example of how best to use CGI. We're going through a period where movies treat CGI as a main focal point, simply for it's own selfish beauty. While this can be acceptable for films such as Final Fantasy, which was very much meant to break obvious boundries, most films abuse CGI only because they can.
There are many CGI scenes in movies that, while beautiful, really don't do it for me. When I see a camera sweep of a CGI generated landscape, I want to take in the scene, not the CGI. It most often comes across that the only reason the camera has moved a certain way is to show off the CGI, not what the CGI is representing.
Amelie is one of the first movies (in memory) that has treated CGI as it should be: a supporting effect, meant to add to a scene qualities that could not have otherwise been brought about. It doesn't linger on the screen yelling "Look at me! I'm CGI", and it's use is very subtle, but precise. Given, Amelie can get away with it a little easier since it is not a Fantasy or Sci-Fi based story, but it is films like Episode I and FotR that could stand to learn how to put effects on the back burner once in a while. Having said that I must also say that I have never been so absorbed into a movie as have with FotR. It was stunning.
I'm happy to hear that CG effects are being widely adopted, but it will take a few years for the industry to realize they can be well used in films not dealing with space, trolls, and superheros. I don't have anything against digital animators, but I will enjoy the day when CGI is truely treated on the same level as more tried and true film techniques like lighting, cinematography, and even general character placement. When CGI becomes that prevalent it will absolutely be a sight to (not) be seen.
From what i can tell, this doesn't have to be a Windows only hack. The piece of software that Xam states is only built for Win32 seems to be nothing more then an SNMP manager. Now, the Win32 tool might make it a bit easier, but you can hardly call it "requires a Windows box".
And I especially don't care for users who think they've got clout just because they have a low UID. Remember, if you win a race in the special olympics you may have first place, but you're still retarded.
..about a year ago. I've become infatuated with PHP over the past few months, and as a personal project I created a web based authentication system that required the user to click on certain images in order to enter a restricted area. The only snag was that there was no obvious "enter your password" page. When you hit the site, it looked like your average web page with standardish looking graphics. The user had to click on certain images on the main page (in a certain order) and they would be led to the private zone. Think of it as logging into/. by clicking on the graphics already supplied on the homepage.
The only flaw we found was that mouse clicks can be monitored remotely all to easily. Not necessarily through a network connection, but just by looking over someones shoulder, even if you're some distance away. It was like typeing in a password, but the stars don't come up to mask your characters.
Eventually it all seemed nifty, but not very useful. We have since started looking into biometrics, particularly fingerprint ID systems. Their cost is coming down quickly and they integrate well into Win2K. I'm now looking into how to get these things to work well with my Linux boxen.
You haven't done much (if any) research, have you? Actually, if you were half-way involved in a corporate environment that took linux seriously, you might have had a clue in the first place. So let's start building a reply:
The linux desktop is going nowhere fast, and for most of these projections to come true there would have to be a mass migration to the linux desktop which will not happen.
Debatable. But you are probably correct that there will not be a mass migration to a Linux desktop, at least in a short period of time. But you can't deny the efforts being made to push in that direction. With a few moves in the right direction I think Linux has a pretty good chance.
OEMS are stepping away from the linux desktop not towards it, so you will not be seeing "dual boots".
OEMs screwed it up all on their own. I recently ordered a Dell i8k laptop back when they were still "offerring" Linux preinstalled. If I chose Linux, Dell told me it would take 2-3 weeks to ship. However a Windows version could be shiped the next day. And do you seriously think Microsoft would let a OEM ship anything dual-booted with Windows?!?
I look back at the NT 4 domain model, and it wasn't great, but its better than anything in the linux camp.
You haven't played much with Samba, have you? Samba can completely replace NT4, Warp, and Netware services. That's the server side. On the client side there's Pam_Smb which can allow Linux to authenticate to NT/2000 domains. Red Hat 7.2 even gives you this option during install now.
And now with AD you have highly scalable enterprise ready directory services and no way to truly integrate linux.
We can argue about your definition of "truly", or I can go back to my Perl scripts that work with AD just fine.
Circuit City is moving in the same direction. They're headquartered here in Richmond, VA. An acquaintance of mine is a lead programmer on a team responsible for creating custom GTK apps for their POS systems. I don't know all the details, but I believe they're using Red Hat as their base distro (which, I guess, isn't that suprising).
I think it's fair to debate how well Linux fits certain needs, but so far there has been solid proof that it fits some very large needs for some vary large companies. By 2003, I think the outlook is nothing but positive. Shooting for world domination is a grand goal, and capturing the desktop world would seem to be a huge piece of completing that goal. As much as we talk about it, I think we all understand that our grandmothers won't be using Linux anytime soon. In the meantime I'll be perfectly happy knowing that Linux is being used for the high-scale, back-end systems, while Fischer Price My First Operating System hangs out on the desktop.
A quote from my own post to show that I was commenting on their uptime since I first got the service, not just since the fall of @Home. Sorry if that was unclear. And, yes, I'm aware of they're plans for a cutover, but thank you for updating me again. As for speed, the difference is almost nonexistant, only enough to be noticable.
I'm in Richmond, VA, and my cable access provider is Comcast@Home. Our network has not been purchased by AT&T, however my speed has dropped (only slightly) since @Home went down. Comcast has been rolling commercials like nothing happened around here: deals if you subscribe to digital cable and cable modem access together.
I must hand it to Comcast. They've kept the network up with no outages that I'm aware of. They're not as fast as other cable access companies (my avg. speed is ~400kbps), but they have had killer uptimes while I've been on.
I wouldn't get to worried about AT&T limiting your bandwidth anyway. You have to expect something in a time of adjustment. If this becomes prolonged practice, then I might start bitchin', but sometimes you just need to let the industry figure itself out.
Not fully supported. Remember, we've got ext3, jfs, reiserfs, and others with much better records then just read-only stable access with NTFS.
Oh, and I've been researching more since I posted and if anyone else is interested check here for for Linux-NTFS tools. They have two tools: ntfsfix attempts to repair any damage done when mounting NTFS partitions as r/w (couldn't they just merge the two projects?), and mkntfs allows you to create NTFS partitions. Their not new, but others may be interested in them. I happened to be there doing unrealated research.
{offtopic}
Can anyone provide insight as to where file permissions are stored on the drive? Are they stored as part of the header of the file(?) or is there a central location that holds that information? I.E. - if user omega9 has rwx on file.txt, where are the actuall bits that describe "omega9" and "rwx" in relation to "file.txt"? This has been imposibbly hard info to find.
{/offtopic}
Obviously, it must be interesting to work at NASA, even more so when working on a project like this. Reading Mr. Rayman's post about the end of the mission, comparing it to the death of his grandfather, and giving what came across as a eulogy, you can really tell they treat their projects as members of the family. It has a similarity to child birth as well: Creating and bringing a new explorer into the world, setting it free, watching it explore, feeling a sense of pride for it's accomplisments and then watching painfully as the end of it's life draws near. I wonder if NASA employees have a history of neglected or beaten children. "God damnit Bobby! Your brother is up there taking pictures of asteroids, and you can manage to ride a tricycle!"
Now all they need to do is make eight more probes to produce Deep Space 9. Hell, if it blows up on liftoff it'll still be more interesting then the series.
I noticed mention of an upgrade to NTFS in the changelogs. I realize it can be argued as a non issue, but is there any real effort to stablize NTFS read/write? At work we're locked in to using W2k domain controllers, and have W2k in a few other places as well. Samba bridges the gap through the network, but in some cases directly mounting an NTFS partition would prove extremely useful. Or is this a non issue?
Because it's part of the Windows OS. When grandma goes out to buy herself a nice Dell computer, it comes with Windows preinstalled, and hence has IE installed by default. She would have to take extra steps to download and install a different browser. But why, when IE seems perfectly fine, and it's integrated so nicely into the desktop? And it's hard to argue that. Think of the average home user that isn't as aware of these issues as we are.
A big part of the problem is that the clues aren't easy to spot for non-technical people. They can't see a problem in IE, as it seems to work just great. There are all these refined features to play with so it must be a solid product. And there are a whole heck of a lot of people who don't think IE is a browser, they think it is the browser. When they hear about holes like this they don't think that IE is broke, they think that someone has found out how to break into web browser (as in all web browsers). It would never cross their mind that IE is at fault. Try explaining how IE has issues with content type vs. file extensions to random people on the street. They just won't get it.
And this is where their monopoly comes into play again. They're such a huge, enormous company with a huge, enormous user base that they all turn into lemmings. If something happens to their IE, it will happen to their friends IE. Soon they start to see lots of people having trouble with IE. Then they stop relating the problem (if they ever did) to IE and start to think everyone is being affected by "the baddies who broke the internet". By the time Microsoft releases a patch user believe it to be a general problem that must be affecting everyone. Finally, since the issue has been disrelated with IE in their minds, why would they have any reason to look for a different browser?
Slashdot Mirror
If you aren't using central logging, your shop isn't running as effecient as at could be. Also, if you're not using central logging at large, it doesn't mean you can't use it for special cases. Unless you're just not sure how to set it up.
Look into syslog's -r option, IIRC.
I just read the dead tree version of this about a week ago while sipping some coffee. It's an interesting idea to say the least, but I don't think the practice of turning the machine off and still expecting it to work will be widely accepted by any large production environment.
/.'d so I can't check my facts, but I thought it mentioned it was possible with a 2.4 kernel as well.
Essentially, I don't see why any process that runs entirely in kernel space couldn't be handled the same way. It has sparked my interest enough to build a test machine to try out this kind of thing. The site is already
Also, that was the most interesting article of the issue. It slightly miffs me that I can read it online for free, but their magazine just cost me ~5$.
Your idea would be fantastic! Except, that's the exact model that Google is already based on.
Nice try. Next...
It will be interesting to find out exactly when it took place.
IIRC, it takes about 7 minutes for the light from the sun to reach the Earth. This supernova is no doubt a long ways away (or else we would be fearing for our lives?), so it stands to reason it actually took place days, weeks, or even months ago.
It's like looking into the past.
using it for about 3 months and it's been rock solid so far.
Activestate's Komodo is buit on a Mozilla framework, so the stability of Komodo is in large part dependant on that. For Linux users, relying on Mozilla is pretty much a non-issue since most of us have it installed anyway. But installing it under Windows means you also have to download the Mozilla part, and already having Netscape doesn't count. Interestingly, their sight will tell you it's built on Mozilla, but doesn't actually let you know the entire browser is installed along with Komodo. If you're a Windows user with Komodo installed try browsing to it's install directory and double click on the mozilla.exe file. Surfs up.
To be more ontopic, I agree that Komodo is nifty as an IDE. Activestate is more known for their Perl distributions for Windows, but Komodo does a fine job and dealing with languages besides Perl. The only thing that keeps me from using it is it's interface. I can't think of anything specificaly wrong with it, it just doesn't sit right with me.
Having said that, I always go back to KDE's Advanced Editor. I set the syntax highlighting to HTML and it will still make your PHP easy to read (there's also PHP highlighting if that's all you're doing).
Trolling? Karma Whoring? Whatever it is, it seems you've spent to much energy trying to be creative and not enough realy thinking this through.
.ogg format. So what better way to introduce .ogg to a wider audience then to have BBC radio stream in .ogg format? So in a major way it is hoped that every "Tom, Dick and AC" jumps on this.
.02 euro"
Chapter 1: "Tom, Dick and AC"
Why is this an interesting story? Because a lot of us are interested, and would like others to be interested in the
Chapter 2: "handle the slashdot effect (very few have)"
As most of us know, this isn't the first time BBC radio has implemented a streaming radio service, more specifically not the first time on this project. They're aware that people are interested and I'm sure they're planning accordingly. If they're truly serious about this then I'm sure they've made provisions to scale hardware according to demand.
Chapter 3: "at the end of the day, BBC will think this is a bad idea"
When any service is initially introduced, you'll usually see disproportionately low or high traffic. Either way, the time immediately following the introduction is absolutely not when to judge your average traffic. This actually holds tru for many IT services. Anyone in the industry knows this, and I'm sure the BBC do as well.I'll assume this is not your line of work.
Chapter 4: "just my
While this could be considered creative, you've missed the mark. The BBC is a product of the United Kingdom. Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom are members of the European Union but are not currently participating in the single currency. Denmark, though, is a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II), which means that the Danish krone is linked to the euro, although the exchange rate is not fixed.
Ok, new list with some other points:
I've been a Comcast customer for some time and have had relatively no problems with them to date. I am a little concened that since my IP changed on the 22nd (our area's cutover) I'm unable to ping it from work. Something to do tonight I guess.
From the article:
The AOL online software, which consumers can install for free from the Web or a compact disk, is now designed to run on Microsoft's Windows operating system. But the AOL software could be configured to override Windows and launch a version of Red Hat's Linux operating system, sources said.
Exactly what the heck is that supposed to mean? I have a feeling that this was supposed to say "AOL could be configured to run on Red Hat Linux". I'd like to know either what 'source' would actually make such a statement, or who at The Washington Post was stupid enough to make such a misquote.
Think about it logically: You can't simply trounce in and replace someones OS right under their nose without their permission. So what does this gain AOL\TW? It certainly doesn't mean they'll stop making clients for Windows, since that would mean certain death. It would mean that, yes, they'd own a Linux distro and it would be capable of getting on AOL, but it still doesn't force anyone to do anything different since the Windows users still have their clients.
If AOL\TW wants Linux to be able to connect to AOL why don't they just make a Linux client? I still don't see how buying the distro will help them.
Don't forget your Red Box! Be a shame to pay for that call.
/. readers dusted off their red boxes and gave this guy a ring.
My god. Think of it. If only a handfull of
You are so correct!
Amelie was a fantasitic movie, and a great example of how best to use CGI. We're going through a period where movies treat CGI as a main focal point, simply for it's own selfish beauty. While this can be acceptable for films such as Final Fantasy, which was very much meant to break obvious boundries, most films abuse CGI only because they can.
There are many CGI scenes in movies that, while beautiful, really don't do it for me. When I see a camera sweep of a CGI generated landscape, I want to take in the scene, not the CGI. It most often comes across that the only reason the camera has moved a certain way is to show off the CGI, not what the CGI is representing.
Amelie is one of the first movies (in memory) that has treated CGI as it should be: a supporting effect, meant to add to a scene qualities that could not have otherwise been brought about. It doesn't linger on the screen yelling "Look at me! I'm CGI", and it's use is very subtle, but precise. Given, Amelie can get away with it a little easier since it is not a Fantasy or Sci-Fi based story, but it is films like Episode I and FotR that could stand to learn how to put effects on the back burner once in a while. Having said that I must also say that I have never been so absorbed into a movie as have with FotR. It was stunning.
I'm happy to hear that CG effects are being widely adopted, but it will take a few years for the industry to realize they can be well used in films not dealing with space, trolls, and superheros. I don't have anything against digital animators, but I will enjoy the day when CGI is truely treated on the same level as more tried and true film techniques like lighting, cinematography, and even general character placement. When CGI becomes that prevalent it will absolutely be a sight to (not) be seen.
From what i can tell, this doesn't have to be a Windows only hack. The piece of software that Xam states is only built for Win32 seems to be nothing more then an SNMP manager. Now, the Win32 tool might make it a bit easier, but you can hardly call it "requires a Windows box".
Either post links, facts, or other references, or don't expect anyone to listen to you.
And I especially don't care for users who think they've got clout just because they have a low UID. Remember, if you win a race in the special olympics you may have first place, but you're still retarded.
..about a year ago. I've become infatuated with PHP over the past few months, and as a personal project I created a web based authentication system that required the user to click on certain images in order to enter a restricted area. The only snag was that there was no obvious "enter your password" page. When you hit the site, it looked like your average web page with standardish looking graphics. The user had to click on certain images on the main page (in a certain order) and they would be led to the private zone. Think of it as logging into /. by clicking on the graphics already supplied on the homepage.
The only flaw we found was that mouse clicks can be monitored remotely all to easily. Not necessarily through a network connection, but just by looking over someones shoulder, even if you're some distance away. It was like typeing in a password, but the stars don't come up to mask your characters.
Eventually it all seemed nifty, but not very useful. We have since started looking into biometrics, particularly fingerprint ID systems. Their cost is coming down quickly and they integrate well into Win2K. I'm now looking into how to get these things to work well with my Linux boxen.
You haven't done much (if any) research, have you? Actually, if you were half-way involved in a corporate environment that took linux seriously, you might have had a clue in the first place. So let's start building a reply:
The linux desktop is going nowhere fast, and for most of these projections to come true there would have to be a mass migration to the linux desktop which will not happen.
Debatable. But you are probably correct that there will not be a mass migration to a Linux desktop, at least in a short period of time. But you can't deny the efforts being made to push in that direction. With a few moves in the right direction I think Linux has a pretty good chance.
OEMS are stepping away from the linux desktop not towards it, so you will not be seeing "dual boots".
OEMs screwed it up all on their own. I recently ordered a Dell i8k laptop back when they were still "offerring" Linux preinstalled. If I chose Linux, Dell told me it would take 2-3 weeks to ship. However a Windows version could be shiped the next day. And do you seriously think Microsoft would let a OEM ship anything dual-booted with Windows?!?
I look back at the NT 4 domain model, and it wasn't great, but its better than anything in the linux camp.
You haven't played much with Samba, have you? Samba can completely replace NT4, Warp, and Netware services. That's the server side. On the client side there's Pam_Smb which can allow Linux to authenticate to NT/2000 domains. Red Hat 7.2 even gives you this option during install now.
And now with AD you have highly scalable enterprise ready directory services and no way to truly integrate linux.
We can argue about your definition of "truly", or I can go back to my Perl scripts that work with AD just fine.
Circuit City is moving in the same direction. They're headquartered here in Richmond, VA. An acquaintance of mine is a lead programmer on a team responsible for creating custom GTK apps for their POS systems. I don't know all the details, but I believe they're using Red Hat as their base distro (which, I guess, isn't that suprising).
Other people that are deploying Linux are Home Depot, Burlington Coat Factory, and The New York Stock Exchange. Of course there's also IBM, but they hardly need mentioning.
I think it's fair to debate how well Linux fits certain needs, but so far there has been solid proof that it fits some very large needs for some vary large companies. By 2003, I think the outlook is nothing but positive. Shooting for world domination is a grand goal, and capturing the desktop world would seem to be a huge piece of completing that goal. As much as we talk about it, I think we all understand that our grandmothers won't be using Linux anytime soon. In the meantime I'll be perfectly happy knowing that Linux is being used for the high-scale, back-end systems, while Fischer Price My First Operating System hangs out on the desktop.
Great. Now you now a troll is going to 'script-kiddie' the telescope to point to a photo of goats.cx for everyone to enjoy.
Actually, I live in the room over the garage.
..they've had killer uptimes while I've been on
A quote from my own post to show that I was commenting on their uptime since I first got the service, not just since the fall of @Home. Sorry if that was unclear. And, yes, I'm aware of they're plans for a cutover, but thank you for updating me again. As for speed, the difference is almost nonexistant, only enough to be noticable.
I'm in Richmond, VA, and my cable access provider is Comcast@Home. Our network has not been purchased by AT&T, however my speed has dropped (only slightly) since @Home went down. Comcast has been rolling commercials like nothing happened around here: deals if you subscribe to digital cable and cable modem access together.
I must hand it to Comcast. They've kept the network up with no outages that I'm aware of. They're not as fast as other cable access companies (my avg. speed is ~400kbps), but they have had killer uptimes while I've been on.
I wouldn't get to worried about AT&T limiting your bandwidth anyway. You have to expect something in a time of adjustment. If this becomes prolonged practice, then I might start bitchin', but sometimes you just need to let the industry figure itself out.
You almost got me with "chomosome". At first I thought this was about a religious artifact.
Yeah but a lot of the photos on Terraserver out very out of date. If i zoom in on my address our neighborhood hasn't even been built yet.
Not fully supported. Remember, we've got ext3, jfs, reiserfs, and others with much better records then just read-only stable access with NTFS.
Oh, and I've been researching more since I posted and if anyone else is interested check here for for Linux-NTFS tools. They have two tools: ntfsfix attempts to repair any damage done when mounting NTFS partitions as r/w (couldn't they just merge the two projects?), and mkntfs allows you to create NTFS partitions. Their not new, but others may be interested in them. I happened to be there doing unrealated research.
{offtopic}
Can anyone provide insight as to where file permissions are stored on the drive? Are they stored as part of the header of the file(?) or is there a central location that holds that information? I.E. - if user omega9 has rwx on file.txt, where are the actuall bits that describe "omega9" and "rwx" in relation to "file.txt"? This has been imposibbly hard info to find.
{/offtopic}
Obviously, it must be interesting to work at NASA, even more so when working on a project like this. Reading Mr. Rayman's post about the end of the mission, comparing it to the death of his grandfather, and giving what came across as a eulogy, you can really tell they treat their projects as members of the family. It has a similarity to child birth as well: Creating and bringing a new explorer into the world, setting it free, watching it explore, feeling a sense of pride for it's accomplisments and then watching painfully as the end of it's life draws near. I wonder if NASA employees have a history of neglected or beaten children. "God damnit Bobby! Your brother is up there taking pictures of asteroids, and you can manage to ride a tricycle!"
Now all they need to do is make eight more probes to produce Deep Space 9. Hell, if it blows up on liftoff it'll still be more interesting then the series.
I noticed mention of an upgrade to NTFS in the changelogs. I realize it can be argued as a non issue, but is there any real effort to stablize NTFS read/write? At work we're locked in to using W2k domain controllers, and have W2k in a few other places as well. Samba bridges the gap through the network, but in some cases directly mounting an NTFS partition would prove extremely useful. Or is this a non issue?
Because it's part of the Windows OS. When grandma goes out to buy herself a nice Dell computer, it comes with Windows preinstalled, and hence has IE installed by default. She would have to take extra steps to download and install a different browser. But why, when IE seems perfectly fine, and it's integrated so nicely into the desktop? And it's hard to argue that. Think of the average home user that isn't as aware of these issues as we are.
A big part of the problem is that the clues aren't easy to spot for non-technical people. They can't see a problem in IE, as it seems to work just great. There are all these refined features to play with so it must be a solid product. And there are a whole heck of a lot of people who don't think IE is a browser, they think it is the browser. When they hear about holes like this they don't think that IE is broke, they think that someone has found out how to break into web browser (as in all web browsers). It would never cross their mind that IE is at fault. Try explaining how IE has issues with content type vs. file extensions to random people on the street. They just won't get it.
And this is where their monopoly comes into play again. They're such a huge, enormous company with a huge, enormous user base that they all turn into lemmings. If something happens to their IE, it will happen to their friends IE. Soon they start to see lots of people having trouble with IE. Then they stop relating the problem (if they ever did) to IE and start to think everyone is being affected by "the baddies who broke the internet". By the time Microsoft releases a patch user believe it to be a general problem that must be affecting everyone. Finally, since the issue has been disrelated with IE in their minds, why would they have any reason to look for a different browser?