Even if we had one graphic artist who could come up with a decent isometric tileset, it might be possibly to recycle that tileset between games like FreeCraft and FreeCiv.
There seem to be plenty of great graphics people in the OSS world. You only need to look at kde-look.org or themes.freshmeat.net. The default icons that come with kde are quite good and BeOS had some incredible isometric icons.
I think there are plenty of graphics people who want to participate in OSS but don't know really where to go or what to do. Nabbing some of them for FreeCiv would be a good idea, IMO.
This is true. I run slack on my notebook too and I *definately* use source installs for things like KDE and so on, mostly because I don't want to wait for the package to be created.
Mind you now, once I've compiled here it's a simple matter of creating the package for any of my other machines.:-)
As I said in another comment, slackware users don't want a packaging system for every day use. We like to compile things, and tweak them for our own uses.
How about not speaking for all us Slack users, eh?
I have been using slack since '95 and while I do like the fact that I can compile things from source and not fuck up the system since there is no sense of dependencies, I prefer to create my own packages using checkinstall; I maintain about a dozen or so firewalls and when a security problem is identified I remake the package and push it out to all the systems. That way I have no need for compilers on all the systems.
So to conclude: this Slackware user wants a packaging system for day-to-day use. I compile+tweak once and push the new package to all the production servers.
Psh! Try soldering a pci card. Ask me if I'll ever do that again..
PCI cards are dead simple compared to doing the fine-pitch ICs. I've done everything from dirt-simple SOIC and SOT and SOJ to the insane 204-pin PQFP and TQFP parts. About the only SMT part I haven't soldered is a BGA, but you need to pseudo-reflow them, which really isn't soldering with an iron.:-)
why is it that americans fail to see the value of standing together?
Well I'm Canadian to start but I suspect it's a North American thing. I see unions screw companies every day. I see unions screw government (which means they're screwing us, including themselves) every day. I'm sick to the teeth of the whole notion of huge industry unions. They are a constant source of whining and agony, and they are corrupt beyond all measure.
The idea of small unions (let's say under 1000 members) does have some appeal but unions like the teacher's union, CAW/UAW, OPSEU and the like are absolutely useless to anyone who wants to make a run and stand on their own merit. Like I said, within a union you don't get promoted by merit or by usefulness, but by seniority. While that's fine for someone who's 40 and has been in a union since they got out of high school, it is absolutely useless for the young people or those who end up getting dragged down to the average. Believe me, nothing kills your spirit like not having any control over your future.
Anywhere there is a large mass of skill there will be a bell curve of "goodness" -- those to the right will be anti-union because they know it'll only drag them down, while those to the left will push for unionization because it will raise their quality-of-employment. The large bump in the middle represents those who really don't care one way or the other or who can't make up their minds. This is an oversimplification, yes, but I would definately call this the first approximation of a unionphobic/unionphilic metric.
For someone like myself -- someone who is further ahead at 26 than most union lifers because of the chances I've taken, dumb luck I've fallen into and experience I've gained from not towing the line, paying my dues and waiting for my promotion -- unions offer absolutely nothing to me.
Yes, I'm young. However I'm also damned well skilled and if I can play my cards right, I will have no need for unions even at 40 or 50 or 60. You only get put out to pasture if you lose your desire to keep pushing or can be replaced by a wet-behind-the-ears 23 year old fresh out of college since you didn't keep current or better yourself during your tenure. I fully plan on keeping my skills honed through honest to goodness practise and excercise and I plan on having union shops (and others) hire me as a consultant to figure out their problems. You can't do that in a union.
Unions have their place. When you have a mid-to-large size workplace in need of unskilled to semi-skilled workers to perform various duties more or less the do the same thing, unions are great. Nobody likes doing the same thing day in and day out but it's a paycheque and if you're that type of person or that's the only type of work you can get, unions have their place. If you want to punch the clock and do the same shit day in and day out and not give a shit what the company is doing or how to make it more profitable, then unions are definately for you. If your workplace is hostile toward its workers and, in general, the employees don't have the in-demand skills, the stomach for risk or the option of moving elsewhere, then unions have their place.
However for skilled to highly skilled workers who should have the brains and common sense to stand up for themselves because they could find another job or even relocate, unions perform absolutely no useful function.
It isn't about sticking together. I prefer to choose my loyalties myself, and I prefer to make my own mind up about whether I want to work or leave (or strike). I am very loyal and will fight tooth and nail for a cause or a company I believe in, but that is my choice to do so, not some union leader who's pockets are getting greased by every special interest group out there and who would rather push for an 18% wage increase over job stability. (Yeah, whose interests are being served there? The employee who will be out of work in a year or the union leader who gets a percentage of every union member's wage?!) I can name at least a few companies off the top of my head who have been priced right out of the marketplace by their unions. I've seen it happen and I will have none of it.
You could at least get the quote right.:-) At the risk of committing paradiorthosis:
"The matrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even here in this very room. You can see it out your window, or on your television. You feel it when you go to work... When you go to church... When you pay your taxes.... It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."
Good idea, but your numbers are wrong. T1s btwn 25 buildings = 24 * (linecost of t1 between them). which is more then $3k already. Frame relay can get it a bit cheaper, but you're not gonna get it under the 1500 you need for profitability.
Why route a T1 to every building? If they're close enough you can do quick optical or even PTP wired links. If they're farther you could put unidirectional antennas on some 802.11 gear and do PTP links that way. You only need one T1 up to the bandwidth provider.
Hell for that matter you could run DSL or cable to each of the buildings and link them together over a VPN but that's increasing your problems (telco/cableco goes down, etc.)
No. You want a really spiffy switch. It needs to a) be able to do mac-port mapping, b) be able to remotely enable-disable ports, and c) support rmon/snmp. Maybe you dont need c) if you have netflow configured/running correctly, but a) and b) will save you tons of time (and therefore labor costs) longrun by doing these two things.
Um, no.
Nice 24-port unmanaged switches are best here. You will have a fat managed switch as the uplink for all of these floor-level switches, and you will have a decent router between that and your bandwidth provider. Use the managed switch to localize which floor the disturbance is coming from, then use the sniffer port to find out the IP. Finally, log in to the router and change the ACLs so that that user (or MAC addy) is simply not allowed to go anywhere. No need to blow enormous gobs of money on managed switches for every floor.
First, "use IPSec" is easy to say, but have you ever actually set it up? It's far easier said than done.
<cough>bullshit<cough>
I just went through it. Linux-Linux IPSec is literally a walk in the park. Linux-Win2k IPSec is proving more difficult but not by much. The trick is to use x.509 certificates and use Win2k/XP's built in IPSec. vpn.ebootis.de has a little package which wraps around Win2k/XP's MMC and makes setting up certificate-based IPSec a walk in the park. The best part is that your server doesn't change as you add clients; you just add their public keys to your ipsec.d directory and tell ipsec to reread the dir.
The people using PPTP would be slightly wrong [counterpane.com].
It would help you a lot if you understood the basic problem surrounding PPTP. It's not the protocol at all, it's Windows' allowing itself to be talked down to MSCHAPv1 encryption that causes the security problem.
There is absolutely no problem with security when running PoPToP and refusing MSCHAPv1 and enforcing MPPE stateless operation.
#2. Use IPSec
Pros: Damn secure.
Cons: CPU intensive, limited software support outside of the OSS crowd.
OSS only? Win2k has support for it in its default configuration. I use this procedure to get win2k to connect to my frees/wan gateway using x.509 certificates. Piece of cake (it looks convoluted but it really easy once you do it once or twice) to set up, and lets anybody (linux, windows, mac, anyone with IPSec and x.509) on in a secure fashion.
CPU intensive? Not that I'm aware of. I'm pushing about half a T1 to another frees/wan server using a P100 on one side and a P200 on the other. Now I imagine this scales less than linearly for each client that connects, but I've been pleased with the throughput of this little computer.
With most UNIX style operating systems you thankfully have the complete ability to configure every service that is listening and servicing through IP, allowing you to actually secure the system (again because securing against the Internet at large is false security, because that weak echo service would still be vulnerable internally): Turning the service off easily beats just masking packets going to it.
Agreed. Actually that is the very reason I try to put important servers inside a DMZ and restrict access from everywhere. Obviously this doesn't work as well with fileservers or things of that nature but being able to lock down a system in addition to keeping track of who is accessing it is a great thing.:-)
I used to work for a dialup ISP who had approximately 10,000 entries in/etc/passwd.
Um, why? Even 5 years ago it was possible to authenticate via RADIUS in a separate user database, use qmail with virtual users and give webspace via Apache and ProFTPd without having a single user in/etc/passwd. Unreal.
The point of my message is that a firewall is not, and has NEVER BEEN, a real "security" tool : A firewall is a short term solution when the security of your system is negligent, and to many it is a horrible crutch that they hobble around on, sure that any solution can be solved by putting up a firewall.
I disagree with you on this point, but I'll come back to it in a moment.
SQL Server, when configured properly, should be fully accessible to the net at large with zero ramifications or negative effects on security.
While this may be true, what of the rest of the operating system? This is where, IMO, firewalls are important. You can restrict access to the system running SQL Server by only allowing port 1433 accesses through. In the event of, say a remote exploit involving one of the "simple services" (echo, time, etc.), the box is still protected. Firewalls can also be used to limit connections or divert them based on whatever the business needs dictate. Using them as a crutch is one thing, and it's a bad thing, I agree. But completely writing them off as useless is a little extreme.
he reality when it comes to security, and it boggles me how many people fail to see this, is that firstly most "cracks" come from the inside anyways: Disgruntled employees, contractors, or even via a trojan on a user's home PC that VPNd in.
One word: Outlook. With shit like that running on the inside you're absolutely correct. Outside attacks instantly become inside attacks, and all the careful security you set up is bypassed. Virus scanners can only go so far.
I've seen solutions that put a "middle man" between SQL Server and the client application (usually a "web service", albiet minus conforming to SOAP or the other web RPC standards), and almost universally they add more faults than they solve
I agree 100%. Middleware has to be very carefully designed and debugged or all manner of unintended operation can occur.
The preferred route is that users VPN or IPSec in first, but for convenience reasons some situations stipulate that you can't do that, and SQL Server's low bandwidth usage client/server model works wonderfully for WAN or Internet deployed clients.
For convenience, sure, but then you shoudl also at least have accounts set up that can only add or view data, or fux with specific tables and/or databases. If you require more than that (DLL calls, SA powers, etc.) then simple common sense should overrule any remnants of "convenience" for the sake of security.
It's "convenient" to leave young kids at home without anyone to watch them while you go out for a nice romantic dinner, but you don't see many parents doing so. Common sense comes into play and they hire a babysitter.
I don't know about the rest of you but I think that ThinkGeek should start selling DMCA Circumvention Devices. e.g. a Sharpie with a custom label with a caution symbol and the text "This object may be used as a device for circumventing copyright protection methods as outlined in the DMCA."
I think they'd sell. Who wants an entire office toolbox filled with copyright protection circumvention devices? I do, I do!
I've seen a number of books on the kernel internals for Linux 2.2 but I was wondering if anyone's seen any specifically dealing with kernel 2.4. I don't mean "what's coming in 2.4" at the end of the chapter, but 2.4 as a core study.
I want to start some embedded Linux/uClinux hacking but I don't want to spend a lot of time learning the internals of 2.2 only to relearn core parts (vm, networking, vfs, etc.) for 2.4.
LCD (TFT) panels aren't really that different from normal VGA monitors, the R,G,B signals are n-bit digital rather than analog and you need to supply a pixel clock...
Depends entirely on the display. I have some Sharp TFT LCDs which came from NEC laptops and they all use LVDS signalling to get the data across so the circuit you present won't even come close to working. You need to take the analog out data, convert it to digital (quickly), send it over via LVDS and hope that everything comes up normally on the other side. Actually this sounds like a fun project, something to work on my analog skills with.:-)
The better thing to do would probably be just to use the DVI port on a Radeon VE or use the Feature Connector on most ATI cards; it would save a lot of work.:-)
It might be 28kbps, but it's low-latency and an always-on connection. That counts for a lot.
Exactly. I have DSL at my home (I'm in Canada, not using Bell or anyone, this is my own rollout) and my traffic for the last month has been... (checking graph) 439 BYTES per second up (to the 'net) and 992 BYTES per second out. With a max of 42kBps where I was transferring some ISO images between my computer at work and home.
My DSL line is used by myself and my wife, and we're both on the computer a fair amount. It just happens that we use it for the low latency, not for the huge amount of continuous bandwidth.
How is the C++ support now? I've been sticking with 2.95.x since 3.0 wasn't able to compile kde (i think it was the sound system it couldn't compile although I could be wrong).
I think you're very wrong -- I have compiled KDE3 from CVS with GCC3.0 many times without a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if we had one graphic artist who could come up with a decent isometric tileset, it might be possibly to recycle that tileset between games like FreeCraft and FreeCiv.
There seem to be plenty of great graphics people in the OSS world. You only need to look at kde-look.org or themes.freshmeat.net. The default icons that come with kde are quite good and BeOS had some incredible isometric icons.
I think there are plenty of graphics people who want to participate in OSS but don't know really where to go or what to do. Nabbing some of them for FreeCiv would be a good idea, IMO.
Your a sysadmin not a user here
This is true. I run slack on my notebook too and I *definately* use source installs for things like KDE and so on, mostly because I don't want to wait for the package to be created.
Mind you now, once I've compiled here it's a simple matter of creating the package for any of my other machines. :-)
As I said in another comment, slackware users don't want a packaging system for every day use. We like to compile things, and tweak them for our own uses.
How about not speaking for all us Slack users, eh?
I have been using slack since '95 and while I do like the fact that I can compile things from source and not fuck up the system since there is no sense of dependencies, I prefer to create my own packages using checkinstall; I maintain about a dozen or so firewalls and when a security problem is identified I remake the package and push it out to all the systems. That way I have no need for compilers on all the systems.
So to conclude: this Slackware user wants a packaging system for day-to-day use. I compile+tweak once and push the new package to all the production servers.
All colour photocopiers and laser printers on the US market encode the unit's serial number in a watermark in the colour dithering pattern.
I'd like to see some links on this.
the RIAA/IFPI's standards for DVD burner watermarks could contain other information (such as GPS coordinates, for example).
How would the DVD Player get it's GPS coords? It's in a metal housing, in a metal computer case, in a building.
Psh! Try soldering a pci card. Ask me if I'll ever do that again..
PCI cards are dead simple compared to doing the fine-pitch ICs. I've done everything from dirt-simple SOIC and SOT and SOJ to the insane 204-pin PQFP and TQFP parts. About the only SMT part I haven't soldered is a BGA, but you need to pseudo-reflow them, which really isn't soldering with an iron. :-)
why is it that americans fail to see the value of standing together?
Well I'm Canadian to start but I suspect it's a North American thing. I see unions screw companies every day. I see unions screw government (which means they're screwing us, including themselves) every day. I'm sick to the teeth of the whole notion of huge industry unions. They are a constant source of whining and agony, and they are corrupt beyond all measure.
The idea of small unions (let's say under 1000 members) does have some appeal but unions like the teacher's union, CAW/UAW, OPSEU and the like are absolutely useless to anyone who wants to make a run and stand on their own merit. Like I said, within a union you don't get promoted by merit or by usefulness, but by seniority. While that's fine for someone who's 40 and has been in a union since they got out of high school, it is absolutely useless for the young people or those who end up getting dragged down to the average. Believe me, nothing kills your spirit like not having any control over your future.
Anywhere there is a large mass of skill there will be a bell curve of "goodness" -- those to the right will be anti-union because they know it'll only drag them down, while those to the left will push for unionization because it will raise their quality-of-employment. The large bump in the middle represents those who really don't care one way or the other or who can't make up their minds. This is an oversimplification, yes, but I would definately call this the first approximation of a unionphobic/unionphilic metric.
For someone like myself -- someone who is further ahead at 26 than most union lifers because of the chances I've taken, dumb luck I've fallen into and experience I've gained from not towing the line, paying my dues and waiting for my promotion -- unions offer absolutely nothing to me.
Yes, I'm young. However I'm also damned well skilled and if I can play my cards right, I will have no need for unions even at 40 or 50 or 60. You only get put out to pasture if you lose your desire to keep pushing or can be replaced by a wet-behind-the-ears 23 year old fresh out of college since you didn't keep current or better yourself during your tenure. I fully plan on keeping my skills honed through honest to goodness practise and excercise and I plan on having union shops (and others) hire me as a consultant to figure out their problems. You can't do that in a union.
Unions have their place. When you have a mid-to-large size workplace in need of unskilled to semi-skilled workers to perform various duties more or less the do the same thing, unions are great. Nobody likes doing the same thing day in and day out but it's a paycheque and if you're that type of person or that's the only type of work you can get, unions have their place. If you want to punch the clock and do the same shit day in and day out and not give a shit what the company is doing or how to make it more profitable, then unions are definately for you. If your workplace is hostile toward its workers and, in general, the employees don't have the in-demand skills, the stomach for risk or the option of moving elsewhere, then unions have their place.
However for skilled to highly skilled workers who should have the brains and common sense to stand up for themselves because they could find another job or even relocate, unions perform absolutely no useful function.
It isn't about sticking together. I prefer to choose my loyalties myself, and I prefer to make my own mind up about whether I want to work or leave (or strike). I am very loyal and will fight tooth and nail for a cause or a company I believe in, but that is my choice to do so, not some union leader who's pockets are getting greased by every special interest group out there and who would rather push for an 18% wage increase over job stability. (Yeah, whose interests are being served there? The employee who will be out of work in a year or the union leader who gets a percentage of every union member's wage?!) I can name at least a few companies off the top of my head who have been priced right out of the marketplace by their unions. I've seen it happen and I will have none of it.
You could at least get the quote right. :-) At the risk of committing paradiorthosis:
"The matrix is everywhere. It's all around us, even here in this very room. You can see it out your window, or on your television. You feel it when you go to work... When you go to church... When you pay your taxes.... It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."
"Digital movies don't have that infamous pube running around the screen."
Good idea, but your numbers are wrong. T1s btwn 25 buildings = 24 * (linecost of t1 between them). which is more then $3k already. Frame relay can get it a bit cheaper, but you're not gonna get it under the 1500 you need for profitability.
Why route a T1 to every building? If they're close enough you can do quick optical or even PTP wired links. If they're farther you could put unidirectional antennas on some 802.11 gear and do PTP links that way. You only need one T1 up to the bandwidth provider.
Hell for that matter you could run DSL or cable to each of the buildings and link them together over a VPN but that's increasing your problems (telco/cableco goes down, etc.)
No. You want a really spiffy switch. It needs to a) be able to do mac-port mapping, b) be able to remotely enable-disable ports, and c) support rmon/snmp. Maybe you dont need c) if you have netflow configured/running correctly, but a) and b) will save you tons of time (and therefore labor costs) longrun by doing these two things.
Um, no.
Nice 24-port unmanaged switches are best here. You will have a fat managed switch as the uplink for all of these floor-level switches, and you will have a decent router between that and your bandwidth provider. Use the managed switch to localize which floor the disturbance is coming from, then use the sniffer port to find out the IP. Finally, log in to the router and change the ACLs so that that user (or MAC addy) is simply not allowed to go anywhere. No need to blow enormous gobs of money on managed switches for every floor.
First, "use IPSec" is easy to say, but have you ever actually set it up? It's far easier said than done.
<cough>bullshit<cough>
I just went through it. Linux-Linux IPSec is literally a walk in the park. Linux-Win2k IPSec is proving more difficult but not by much. The trick is to use x.509 certificates and use Win2k/XP's built in IPSec. vpn.ebootis.de has a little package which wraps around Win2k/XP's MMC and makes setting up certificate-based IPSec a walk in the park. The best part is that your server doesn't change as you add clients; you just add their public keys to your ipsec.d directory and tell ipsec to reread the dir.
A T1 is a great way to get a good 64 phone lines into a building.
Um, a DS1 provides 24 8-bit channels. These 8 bits can be totally clean but then they're not voice channels.
The people using PPTP would be slightly wrong [counterpane.com].
It would help you a lot if you understood the basic problem surrounding PPTP. It's not the protocol at all, it's Windows' allowing itself to be talked down to MSCHAPv1 encryption that causes the security problem.
There is absolutely no problem with security when running PoPToP and refusing MSCHAPv1 and enforcing MPPE stateless operation.
#2. Use IPSec
Pros: Damn secure.
Cons: CPU intensive, limited software support outside of the OSS crowd.
OSS only? Win2k has support for it in its default configuration. I use this procedure to get win2k to connect to my frees/wan gateway using x.509 certificates. Piece of cake (it looks convoluted but it really easy once you do it once or twice) to set up, and lets anybody (linux, windows, mac, anyone with IPSec and x.509) on in a secure fashion.
CPU intensive? Not that I'm aware of. I'm pushing about half a T1 to another frees/wan server using a P100 on one side and a P200 on the other. Now I imagine this scales less than linearly for each client that connects, but I've been pleased with the throughput of this little computer.
You're right, we're agreeing. :-)
With most UNIX style operating systems you thankfully have the complete ability to configure every service that is listening and servicing through IP, allowing you to actually secure the system (again because securing against the Internet at large is false security, because that weak echo service would still be vulnerable internally): Turning the service off easily beats just masking packets going to it.
Agreed. Actually that is the very reason I try to put important servers inside a DMZ and restrict access from everywhere. Obviously this doesn't work as well with fileservers or things of that nature but being able to lock down a system in addition to keeping track of who is accessing it is a great thing. :-)
I used to work for a dialup ISP who had approximately 10,000 entries in /etc/passwd.
Um, why? Even 5 years ago it was possible to authenticate via RADIUS in a separate user database, use qmail with virtual users and give webspace via Apache and ProFTPd without having a single user in /etc/passwd. Unreal.
The point of my message is that a firewall is not, and has NEVER BEEN, a real "security" tool : A firewall is a short term solution when the security of your system is negligent, and to many it is a horrible crutch that they hobble around on, sure that any solution can be solved by putting up a firewall.
I disagree with you on this point, but I'll come back to it in a moment.
SQL Server, when configured properly, should be fully accessible to the net at large with zero ramifications or negative effects on security.
While this may be true, what of the rest of the operating system? This is where, IMO, firewalls are important. You can restrict access to the system running SQL Server by only allowing port 1433 accesses through. In the event of, say a remote exploit involving one of the "simple services" (echo, time, etc.), the box is still protected. Firewalls can also be used to limit connections or divert them based on whatever the business needs dictate. Using them as a crutch is one thing, and it's a bad thing, I agree. But completely writing them off as useless is a little extreme.
he reality when it comes to security, and it boggles me how many people fail to see this, is that firstly most "cracks" come from the inside anyways: Disgruntled employees, contractors, or even via a trojan on a user's home PC that VPNd in.
One word: Outlook. With shit like that running on the inside you're absolutely correct. Outside attacks instantly become inside attacks, and all the careful security you set up is bypassed. Virus scanners can only go so far.
I've seen solutions that put a "middle man" between SQL Server and the client application (usually a "web service", albiet minus conforming to SOAP or the other web RPC standards), and almost universally they add more faults than they solve
I agree 100%. Middleware has to be very carefully designed and debugged or all manner of unintended operation can occur.
The preferred route is that users VPN or IPSec in first, but for convenience reasons some situations stipulate that you can't do that, and SQL Server's low bandwidth usage client/server model works wonderfully for WAN or Internet deployed clients.
For convenience, sure, but then you shoudl also at least have accounts set up that can only add or view data, or fux with specific tables and/or databases. If you require more than that (DLL calls, SA powers, etc.) then simple common sense should overrule any remnants of "convenience" for the sake of security.
It's "convenient" to leave young kids at home without anyone to watch them while you go out for a nice romantic dinner, but you don't see many parents doing so. Common sense comes into play and they hire a babysitter.
I don't know about the rest of you but I think that ThinkGeek should start selling DMCA Circumvention Devices. e.g. a Sharpie with a custom label with a caution symbol and the text "This object may be used as a device for circumventing copyright protection methods as outlined in the DMCA."
I think they'd sell. Who wants an entire office toolbox filled with copyright protection circumvention devices? I do, I do!
I've seen a number of books on the kernel internals for Linux 2.2 but I was wondering if anyone's seen any specifically dealing with kernel 2.4. I don't mean "what's coming in 2.4" at the end of the chapter, but 2.4 as a core study.
I want to start some embedded Linux/uClinux hacking but I don't want to spend a lot of time learning the internals of 2.2 only to relearn core parts (vm, networking, vfs, etc.) for 2.4.
LCD (TFT) panels aren't really that different from normal VGA monitors, the R,G,B signals are n-bit digital rather than analog and you need to supply a pixel clock...
Depends entirely on the display. I have some Sharp TFT LCDs which came from NEC laptops and they all use LVDS signalling to get the data across so the circuit you present won't even come close to working. You need to take the analog out data, convert it to digital (quickly), send it over via LVDS and hope that everything comes up normally on the other side. Actually this sounds like a fun project, something to work on my analog skills with. :-)
The better thing to do would probably be just to use the DVI port on a Radeon VE or use the Feature Connector on most ATI cards; it would save a lot of work. :-)
You guys have it shitty... I download close to 2gigs a day, and upload another 1.5gigs, daily.
Stop downloading movies, mp3s and pr0n and see what your stats are like.
It might be 28kbps, but it's low-latency and an always-on connection. That counts for a lot.
Exactly. I have DSL at my home (I'm in Canada, not using Bell or anyone, this is my own rollout) and my traffic for the last month has been... (checking graph) 439 BYTES per second up (to the 'net) and 992 BYTES per second out. With a max of 42kBps where I was transferring some ISO images between my computer at work and home.
My DSL line is used by myself and my wife, and we're both on the computer a fair amount. It just happens that we use it for the low latency, not for the huge amount of continuous bandwidth.
Does GCC 3.1 build the Linux kernel correctly now? I had problem with the GCC 3.0.x versions and some 2.4 kernel modules.
Which modules? I've been compiling 2.4.18 with ipsec and the bleeding edge ACPI stuff for quite a while now. Nothing weird yet...
How is the C++ support now? I've been sticking with 2.95.x since 3.0 wasn't able to compile kde (i think it was the sound system it couldn't compile although I could be wrong).
I think you're very wrong -- I have compiled KDE3 from CVS with GCC3.0 many times without a problem.