If you are permitting the download to go for free, would you ever consider permitting the source to go for free (as in Free Software)?
Doom went this route, and, well, it is runable on any os because volunteers have made it work on just about anything. Same could happen to your project!
Quite correct, I didn't mean free in the sense of freely downloadable.
However, this now presents a challenge to free software people. A very highly publicized pdf file about free software doesn't render properly so that details can be made out in any free pdf viewer today.
If anyone needed a `test case' where it fails, well, there ya go...
Funny, this is a free software project, right? So how come they can't produce a pdf that is readable in any free software project? Aka ghostscript (7.x), xpdf, kpdf, and gpdf all cannot render the names properly. I had to load acrobat reader (not free software!!!) to read the names.
I personally chose vonage for my solution, as the `unlimited long distance' is cheaper. If vonage happens to look good to you, find someone (perhaps me) that already uses it and you can get a free month of service with a referral;-)
For whatever it is worth, vonage also works through nat. But I've already asked about IPv6 support (not yet...)..
It would appear that you feel NAT gives you something that a firewall with real IP's does not.
You are mistaken.
A firewall with real IP's gives you something that NAT does not, the lack of the inherent need to provide proxies for services that embed the IP in the protocol. (realplayer, ftp active mode, etc).
You don't have to worry about extraplanetary networks using up IPv6 addresses. There is this thing called lag that tends to make standard IP (be it v4 or v6) somewhat unusable. Enter `IPN' (Inner Planetary Network), a networking mechanism for talking to intermittent, slow relay stations. There is even a viable reference implementation called SCCS (http://www.sccs.org).
Jupiter will get its own IPv6 network, is my understanding of how networking on a celestial scale is to work.
Guess what? NAT is not as friendly as a firewall with 'block all' 'pass out blah keep state'.. if you are able to deploy NAT, you are able to deploy a firewall. If you are concerned about security, just block everybody from everything and only allow outbound connections. Same as NAT, without the NAT headaches. IPv6 needs no NAT, having uniquely addressable devices (even if all they listen to are ipsec packets) is a bonus of IPv6, not a point of frivolty.
Interesting.. I thought the README explained that for you. After install, you can find this file at/usr/X11R6/README. Plus, you most likely were trying out a pre 4.x XFree distribution which could easily be as hard as you describe.
spamd will take very little load, it doesn't even fork!
spamassasin does regex rules against the data section of messages. Per message, there is a very _large_ difference between the two in terms of overhead.
spamassasin/ifile/bmf/tmda is when a spam gets through, for everything else, there's spamd:spews!
Someone please tell me where it says on the goals page
that SMP is a high priority?
When you do security as a priority, fancy features that support threaded (read complex and untrustable from a security perspective) applications just don't quite get a front seat.
I do wish those dudes the best of successes, perhaps it will get merged in after the posix realtime extensions from rtmx, in the best case.
I sympathize with many who think they want SMP, but when the choice is security, stability, SMP, pick two.. there can be no question as to the obvious reality for the official distribution in the forseeable future;-)
The one thing nobody really prepares you for is
all of the detailed care you must take afterwards. Baths allowed, no showers, until a week later, goggles at night for a week, goggles the day of for the whole day, eyes closed after the surgery for 1 hour, no contact sports for 6 months, no swimming pool for 8 months, etc...
It all makes sense, they literally are allowing the part of your eye they cut to heal.. and it
needs to heal without any jarring or bumping or infections (from the pool water)..
It's been over a year, and I have no regrets. I stare at a monitor more than my wife or my mother suggest is healthy, but I think it's one of those 'use the muscle, it works fine' things in terms of the fact that I don't get eyestrain, even after the surgery. I do not see any worse close up, and far awa things are still very clear.
Understand this is not going to avoid your need for bi-focals but nobody has come up with a way to keep the muscles working beyond the 35-50 yr
'inability to focus closeup' in all eyes (or thats the way I understand it).
One happy Lasik customer.
There's something wrong with Universal logins...
on
Passport vs. Plan 9
·
· Score: 1
They can only work on a planetary scale.
Nobody is going to wait for an
SCPS packet to
return an authentication token when visiting
Mars or perhaps something slightly more distant
in the 'Universe' such as the nearest star.
So long as the universe is bigger than a planet,
we have no worries about this 'Universal login' concept ever becoming 'truly universal'.
You cannot neglect either or the simulation would be hard to gauge.
Think of a huge flapping creature in our gravity. You wouldn't expect it to take off. Then try removing atmospheric pressure, and you wouldn't give it a chance.
My reactions and tone are indicative of the fact that no matter how much I say it, you guys keep stating over and over 'guess what? OpenSSH guys are lazy bums that didnt register openssh.org when they had the chance'....
Now consider the following:
... you register a.com domain because you checked everything out and you saw that all the registration authorities you bothered with told you it was already taken
... you find out months later they keep stating that you were lazy and really did have a choice.
Are you going to be calmly correcting everyone when you notice that everybody keeps clamoring the false information over and over?
Too focused on OpenBSD? OpenBSD follows standards.
It also has a reputation for secure code.
Secure code cannot be written and audited when cluttered with tons of cross platform crud.
OpenSSH as found in OpenBSD will remain small, ironically 1/5th the size of some of the bloated repackaged distributions containing the same name.
As to 'becoming too focused on OpenBSD', well, the program will be suppored by the develpers to work on OpenBSD. This is how it is, this is how it always has been, this is how it always will be. There is no change here, this is simply how it can easily be maintained. There are pleanty of people in the community who will take changes from the OpenBSD code (and are welcomed to do so) and prepare it for compiling on other operating systems. They already have, they will continue to do so, there is nothing stoping them from doing so, and btw, that's the way it should be!
I would hope to think that this is not about OpenBSD but the community of users that use OpenSSH... unfortunately not everyone is seeing it this way.
I cant understand your logic here. The phrase "We simply don't know" doesn't spell it out for you? Apparently there is a community out there that knows Mr. de Joode's motives alot better than he is explaining himself. That is good for you. The simple thing that is being sought is what the usefuless 'OpenSSH.org' is serving him, considering there is but one OpenSSH source, and a bunch of secondary bundles with secondary additions, all of which are pointed to from OpenSSH.com...
No problem, except there is but one OpenSSH source, and a bunch of repackaged, added onto distributions of the same for other os's. All are linked to from the OpenSSH.com site. Thus the OpenSSH.org site is a head-scratcher...
One group developing a single implementation? I'm quite confused. I thought 'THE' implementation originates with OpenBSD developers, and the other projects are simply packages of what OpenBSD has created. Call me crazy, but...
For the umteenth dozenth time, would you please look at whois.internic.net? Your comment would suggest that I mistakenly was told by the domain registrars that openssh.org was taken when I originally registered OpenSSH.com.. but this is far from the truth. It was indeed registered. Your 'favorite' domain registrar is once again shown to be quite thoroughly broken.
So to your point 'A)' above I hope you retract your accusation..
To your point 'B)' above, who is the official group behind OpenSSH ? I believe you will reply 'OpenSSH.com'.. ok, so isn't squatting holding a domain even though there is really another group or entity that would naturally be thought of when the url is mentioned? What real use has anyone but the developers of OpenSSH with this domain?
To your point 'C)' above, how exactly is this a replacement for the OpenSSH.com site?
I believe we all know who the real OpenSSH developers are. Why anyone would suggest this domain would better the community in the hands of another I will never understand, whatever his motivations.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, well, thanks for at least considering it.
I presume there is, according to your thoughts, NO viable model for an `open, un-hackable' protocol and/or client/server interaction for MMOG's?
Just curious.
If you are permitting the download to go for free, would you ever consider permitting the source to go for free (as in Free Software)?
Doom went this route, and, well, it is runable on any os because volunteers have made it work on just about anything. Same could happen to your project!
todd@blue/ps 6$ xpdf -v
xpdf version 3.00
Copyright 1996-2004 Glyph & Cog, LLC
todd@blue/ps 7$
So you're telling me you can zoom in and read the names on the left page with this version? There is nothing more recent, btw.
Quite correct, I didn't mean free in the sense of freely downloadable.
However, this now presents a challenge to free software people. A very highly publicized pdf file about free software doesn't render properly so that details can be made out in any free pdf viewer today.
If anyone needed a `test case' where it fails, well, there ya go...
Funny, this is a free software project, right? So how come they can't produce a pdf that is readable in any free software project? Aka ghostscript (7.x), xpdf, kpdf, and gpdf all cannot render the names properly. I had to load acrobat reader (not free software!!!) to read the names.
You can have what you want today.
;-)
..
I've discovered two companies that do this, I expect there are others.
vonage.com
packet8.com
I personally chose vonage for my solution, as the `unlimited long distance' is cheaper. If vonage happens to look good to you, find someone (perhaps me) that already uses it and you can get a free month of service with a referral
For whatever it is worth, vonage also works through nat. But I've already asked about IPv6
support (not yet...)
It would appear that you feel NAT gives you something that a firewall with real IP's does not.
You are mistaken.
A firewall with real IP's gives you something that NAT does not, the lack of the inherent need to provide proxies for services that embed the IP in the protocol. (realplayer, ftp active mode, etc).
Think about it.
I'm available to help people upgrade.
Not nat. UUCP between two distinctly different networks.
IPN is more or less UUCP with security. It forwards
messages from one network to another.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and Jupiter will get 2100::/8
as a delegation. There certainly are enough IP's to do that.
I guess I need to do more reading on the fundamental details of IPN.
You don't have to worry about extraplanetary networks using up IPv6 addresses. There is this thing called lag that tends to make standard IP (be it v4 or v6) somewhat unusable. Enter `IPN' (Inner Planetary Network), a networking mechanism for talking to intermittent, slow relay stations. There
is even a viable reference implementation called SCCS (http://www.sccs.org).
Jupiter will get its own IPv6 network, is my understanding of how networking on a celestial scale is to work.
Guess what? NAT is not as friendly as a firewall with 'block all' 'pass out blah keep state' .. if
you are able to deploy NAT, you are able to deploy
a firewall. If you are concerned about security,
just block everybody from everything and only allow
outbound connections. Same as NAT, without the NAT
headaches. IPv6 needs no NAT, having uniquely
addressable devices (even if all they listen to are
ipsec packets) is a bonus of IPv6, not a point of
frivolty.
Interesting.. I thought the README explained that for you. After install, you can find this file at /usr/X11R6/README. Plus, you most likely were trying out a pre 4.x XFree distribution which could easily be as hard as you describe.
spamd will take very little load, it doesn't even fork!
spamassasin does regex rules against the data section of messages. Per message, there is a very _large_ difference between the two in terms of overhead.
spamassasin/ifile/bmf/tmda is when a spam gets through, for everything else, there's spamd:spews!
Someone please tell me where it says on the goals page that SMP is a high priority? .. there can be no question as to the obvious reality for the official distribution in the forseeable future;-)
When you do security as a priority, fancy features that support threaded (read complex and untrustable from a security perspective) applications just don't quite get a front seat.
I do wish those dudes the best of successes, perhaps it will get merged in after the posix realtime extensions from rtmx, in the best case.
I sympathize with many who think they want SMP, but when the choice is security, stability, SMP, pick two
... couldn't make it through the 'Lameness filter'.
Please go to http://deadly.org where they did make it through.
It all makes sense, they literally are allowing the part of your eye they cut to heal .. and it
needs to heal without any jarring or bumping or infections (from the pool water) ..
It's been over a year, and I have no regrets. I stare at a monitor more than my wife or my mother suggest is healthy, but I think it's one of those 'use the muscle, it works fine' things in terms of the fact that I don't get eyestrain, even after the surgery. I do not see any worse close up, and far awa things are still very clear.
Understand this is not going to avoid your need for bi-focals but nobody has come up with a way to keep the muscles working beyond the 35-50 yr 'inability to focus closeup' in all eyes (or thats the way I understand it).
One happy Lasik customer.
Nobody is going to wait for an SCPS packet to return an authentication token when visiting Mars or perhaps something slightly more distant in the 'Universe' such as the nearest star.
So long as the universe is bigger than a planet, we have no worries about this 'Universal login' concept ever becoming 'truly universal'.
Two conditions need to be simluated.
1. atmospheric pressure
2. gravity
You cannot neglect either or the simulation would be hard to gauge.
Think of a huge flapping creature in our gravity. You wouldn't
expect it to take off. Then try removing atmospheric pressure,
and you wouldn't give it a chance.
Could you post some references where I could back up your statements in a research paper?
handout.pdf Thanks!My reactions and tone are indicative of the ....
.com domain because you checked everything out and you saw that all the registration authorities you bothered with told you it was already taken
fact that no matter how much I say it, you guys
keep stating over and over 'guess what? OpenSSH guys are lazy bums that didnt register openssh.org when they had the chance'
Now consider the following:
... you register a
... you find out months later they keep stating that you were lazy and really did have a choice.
Are you going to be calmly correcting everyone
when you notice that everybody keeps clamoring
the false information over and over?
There are links from OpenSSH.com. Are there not?
... unfortunately not everyone is seeing
Too focused on OpenBSD? OpenBSD follows standards.
It also has a reputation for secure code.
Secure code cannot be written and audited when
cluttered with tons of cross platform crud.
OpenSSH as found in OpenBSD will remain small,
ironically 1/5th the size of some of the bloated
repackaged distributions containing the same name.
As to 'becoming too focused on OpenBSD', well, the
program will be suppored by the develpers to work
on OpenBSD. This is how it is, this is how it
always has been, this is how it always will be.
There is no change here, this is simply how it
can easily be maintained. There are pleanty of
people in the community who will take changes
from the OpenBSD code (and are welcomed to do so)
and prepare it for compiling on other operating
systems. They already have, they will continue
to do so, there is nothing stoping them from
doing so, and btw, that's the way it should be!
I would hope to think that this is not about
OpenBSD but the community of users that use
OpenSSH
it this way.
I cant understand your logic here. The phrase "We simply don't know" doesn't spell it out for you? Apparently there is a community out there that knows Mr. de Joode's motives alot better than he is explaining himself. That is good for you. The simple thing that is being sought is what the usefuless 'OpenSSH.org' is serving him, considering there is but one OpenSSH source, and a bunch of secondary bundles with secondary additions, all of which are pointed to from OpenSSH.com ...
No problem, except there is but one OpenSSH source, and a bunch of repackaged, added onto distributions of the same for other os's. All
are linked to from the OpenSSH.com site. Thus
the OpenSSH.org site is a head-scratcher...
One group developing a single implementation? I'm quite confused. I thought 'THE' implementation originates with OpenBSD developers, and the other projects are simply packages of what OpenBSD has created. Call me crazy, but...
For the umteenth dozenth time, would you please .. but this is
..
.. ok, so isn't squatting holding
look at whois.internic.net? Your comment would
suggest that I mistakenly was told by the domain
registrars that openssh.org was taken when I
originally registered OpenSSH.com
far from the truth. It was indeed registered. Your 'favorite' domain registrar is once again
shown to be quite thoroughly broken.
So to your point 'A)' above I hope you retract
your accusation
To your point 'B)' above, who is the official
group behind OpenSSH ? I believe you will reply
'OpenSSH.com'
a domain even though there is really another group
or entity that would naturally be thought of when
the url is mentioned? What real use has anyone
but the developers of OpenSSH with this domain?
To your point 'C)' above, how exactly is this a
replacement for the OpenSSH.com site?
I believe we all know who the real OpenSSH developers are. Why anyone would suggest this
domain would better the community in the hands of
another I will never understand, whatever his
motivations.