You forget: this is not a review of Samba, it's a review of SuSE. The thing that distinguishes SuSE from other distros is that it tries to wire all system configuration into a bunch of GUI tools. It's always tempting to bypass SuSE's configuration tools and fiddle with the text config files the old fashioned way. But that probably defeats the reason you chose SuSE over other distros in the first place. And if you're evaluating SuSE as it's meant to be used, particularly if you're evaluating it as a Windows alternative, you shouldn't do this.
Short answer: the problems reported with Samba configuration don't reflect on Samba itself, but on the SuSE tools used to configure Samba.
Yeah, I've always been grateful to Watterson. Not only for terminating the strip before it got stale, but for resisting the temptation to turn it into a franchise. I wouldn't have minded a Hobbes coffee cup or Calvin balloons (for filling with water, of course). But thank God there was never a C&H XMas Special!
But for every Calvin and Hobbes or Far Side, there's a hundred artistic endeavors that have gone over to the dark side. Just in the area of comic strips, I can't count the ones that I used to think were funny and creative, and are now just going through the motions. And don't you wish The Simpsons had called it quits after 10 years? I actually think they're still funny, but the basic concept has simply gotten old.
I do wish Watterson had done something else after he ended his strip. Does anybody know where he's been?
Thanks for clearing up some important details. I remain skeptical of the whole 3G thing. It's not that I see no demand for the apps -- imagine all the CNN wannabes out there! Nor does it bother me that the networks are overtaxed -- you can always expand a network. But if everybody starts using high-bandwidth applications on any kind of wireless network, where is the spectrum going to come from? Even without 3G, we're beginning to run short.
You're right, 58kbs is plenty fast for a simple network application. That's about the speed of the modem I'm using right now. Some time in the near future, I'm gonna get a GPRS/Bluetooth phone and never be offline again.
When Arthur Conan Doyle got sick of Sherlock Holmes, he had him fall off Reichenbach Falls. When Gene Roddenberry (or maybe it was Leonard Nimoy) got sick of Spock, they had that corny scene in the reactor room. I could go on and on. It never works. Face it, it's not about the story, it's about making a living!
OK, I guess I agree with you. C is obsolete except for the specific kinds of programming in your list. I just stick at saying that C is not a "high-level language". Probably doesn't matter, but I pick semantic nits for a living, and even on Slashdot I can't help myself.
So a language that allows you to do low-level things is low level, even if it has lots of high-level features? That's not a definition most people would accept.
I don't think you can have a meaningful definition of "high-level" that doesn't include everything more advanced that assembly language. And once you're past that point, I don't think you can go around insisting that Language X is or is not "more high level" than Language Y. If you try, you just end up with a simplistic assertion that isn't very useful and is only accepted by a few people.
Perhaps it's my asocial lifestyle, but I find your basic assumption -- that you need to be among friends in order to have fun -- very strange. There are lots of things you don't need company to do: visit museums, go to major league games (or even minor league -- some people think that's actually more fun) go on a hike, attend a religious observance, do a bar crawl, go to a flea market, go whale watching, or just walk/drive around exploring the place you're at.
And of course, if you're socially inclined (unlike me), some or all of these are likely to lead to you making new friends. Just don't tell them that they're a temporary expedient!
And if you absolutely have to have familiar company, bring a cell with an all-you-can-eat long distance plan. Try not to drive your friends crazy, though.
Yeah, I've actually played WMV files that did the "phone home" bit. Back in the heady dotcom days, there was a company peddling an online movie technology that was meant to work with file sharing. They didn't care who copied the file, because in order to play the file on a new computer, you had to pay a license fee. Also, you couldn't start playback unless the system was online long enough to verify that you had paid for it. Don't know how it verified that it was on an "authorized" computer, though. Perhaps that was the fatal flaw in the system.
The interesting thing is that this all worked with Media Player without any plugins. The downside of this is that if you had thumbnails or previews turned on, it would try to verify the license every time Explorer thumbnailed or previewed the file! If your machine wasn't online, Explorer would hang.
Actually, C, or any language that talks in expressions rather than a symbolic representation of machine code, counts as "high level". The problems you mention really have more to do with the design philosophy of C than any lack of sophistication in the language.
Consider C++: you can screw up in all the ways you can screw up with C, and many more besides. I don't think anybody would consider C++ a low-level language.
I actually agree with your point. I'd just express it differently: C supports the kind of low-level tweaking most programmers shouldn't bother with any more. You should avoid C unless you really need to do this stuff. Otherwise, use a language/library combination that does the low level stuff for you, and probably does it better than you could.
Fine, you're a bigot, who doesn't care about the needs of any computer user except yourself. This a really fascinating topic of conversation, but I have to go trim my toenails now.
I'm reminded of a scene in one of Donald Westlakes weirder caper novels. Two guys are travelling through a really flat section of Oklahoma. One is a stone killer with no sense of humor or irony. They reach a place where the land is so flat and featureless, you can't even see the horizon. The killer turns to the other guy and says, "You know, before the white man came, there was absolutely nothing here!"
Not everything is a facist government conspiracy to rob you of your freedom.
God, I hope you're wrong about that. Imagine the boredom!
Re:Terminate the Terminal
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure if you look hard enough on usenet, you'll find a thread where the consensus is that Elvis has changed his name to George W something and gone into politics.
The FAQ page is missing. Does each commode have it's own IP address? A private network would make more sense in oh, so many ways!
Re:Terminate the Terminal
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
We use X to access *nix systems from Windows. But there's no reason that a Windows app can't be implemented as an X client just as some Mac apps are.
Hey, what X terminal software do you use? I've used several X servers for windows, but there always seem to be nasty technical issues.
I think you underestimate the difficulty of adding X functionality to an app that was written for a non-X windowing system. I actually have some X applications running on my PC via Cygwin, but they're all ports of Linux applications. It's my understanding (I have little Mac experience) that all the X applications for Mac are similar. Providing X support on MacOS X is no big deal, since that OS is basically BSD Unix. MacOS 9 is, AFAIK, quite a different deal.
Now it sounds like you're arguing my side. Yeah, thin client often does suck up a lot of bandwitdh, not to mention cpu cycles for encoding/decoding. X will often use much less bandwidth/CPU.
We're choosing sides now? I'm just nitpicking your claim that X allows you access to a lot of "heterogeneous" systems. I suppose that's true if you ignore the need to access MS Windows from X Windows, and if all your X systems run a standard set of X software. But that doesn't strike me as very heterogeneous, but then I've never been much on the Alpha-versus-MIPS-versus-SPARC controversies.
When I was at SGI, we had these Compaq CITRIX servers that were supposed to allow us to run Windows apps from out IRIX workstations. They were basically unusable, and everybody who really needed to run Windows had their own Wintel box. Probably things would have worked better if we'd had a faster network. But given a choice, I will always choose to run Windows apps on a local box. I also prefer a local box for X apps, though that having to do such things remotely is not quite as painful.
Re:Terminate the Terminal
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
X can't possibly help you access a Windows system. Windows applications just don't know how to talk to an X server. If you're doing remote access to Windows boxes, you're using a dumb graphics terminal emulator, Citrix or something similar. The terminal itself must be an X application, but it doesn't use X to talk to the windows box.
This solution sucks up a lot of network bandwidth, but I guess modern networks have a lot to spare.
Re:Terminate the Terminal
on
Qt On DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the NCD link. This product feeds into my time-sharing theory of X terminals:
Cost Effective ? Since all applications are loaded on the host server, the NC900 has a much lower cost of administration and a far greater life expectancy than other desktop solutions.
Time sharing, in other words. All the application deployment occurs on the server. Which means all the technological obsolescence occurs on the server as well. That's why the terminals "last longer": most PCs don't "wear out", they get replaced because they're not powerful enough to run apps that need a gazillion GHZ Pentium Infinity.
But almost all new software development assumes that everybody should have their own computer. Maybe it's a flawed model, but it's the one in place.
When I go into a bank or a business or any other place that uses computers, I always check out the technology. I see all kinds of stuff. Circuit City still does POS on quaint little ASCII terminals. The guys who fixed my brakes own a Sun Workstation with a Wintel card (there's some kind of tire software that only runs on Solaris). Independent Video stores still have their old QNX-based embedded POS systems. But the overwhelming favorite is the Wintel PC. I've seen an X Terminal precisely once, and that was 8 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Short answer: the problems reported with Samba configuration don't reflect on Samba itself, but on the SuSE tools used to configure Samba.
But for every Calvin and Hobbes or Far Side, there's a hundred artistic endeavors that have gone over to the dark side. Just in the area of comic strips, I can't count the ones that I used to think were funny and creative, and are now just going through the motions. And don't you wish The Simpsons had called it quits after 10 years? I actually think they're still funny, but the basic concept has simply gotten old.
I do wish Watterson had done something else after he ended his strip. Does anybody know where he's been?
You're right, 58kbs is plenty fast for a simple network application. That's about the speed of the modem I'm using right now. Some time in the near future, I'm gonna get a GPRS/Bluetooth phone and never be offline again.
When Arthur Conan Doyle got sick of Sherlock Holmes, he had him fall off Reichenbach Falls. When Gene Roddenberry (or maybe it was Leonard Nimoy) got sick of Spock, they had that corny scene in the reactor room. I could go on and on. It never works. Face it, it's not about the story, it's about making a living!
OK, I guess I agree with you. C is obsolete except for the specific kinds of programming in your list. I just stick at saying that C is not a "high-level language". Probably doesn't matter, but I pick semantic nits for a living, and even on Slashdot I can't help myself.
I don't think you can have a meaningful definition of "high-level" that doesn't include everything more advanced that assembly language. And once you're past that point, I don't think you can go around insisting that Language X is or is not "more high level" than Language Y. If you try, you just end up with a simplistic assertion that isn't very useful and is only accepted by a few people.
My own Amtrac. Make that two things: I want somebody to explain why we had to use them to invade them to invade a desert country???!!!
And of course, if you're socially inclined (unlike me), some or all of these are likely to lead to you making new friends. Just don't tell them that they're a temporary expedient!
And if you absolutely have to have familiar company, bring a cell with an all-you-can-eat long distance plan. Try not to drive your friends crazy, though.
Have you heard of digital certificates? It's not that easy to forge them.
The interesting thing is that this all worked with Media Player without any plugins. The downside of this is that if you had thumbnails or previews turned on, it would try to verify the license every time Explorer thumbnailed or previewed the file! If your machine wasn't online, Explorer would hang.
Consider C++: you can screw up in all the ways you can screw up with C, and many more besides. I don't think anybody would consider C++ a low-level language.
I actually agree with your point. I'd just express it differently: C supports the kind of low-level tweaking most programmers shouldn't bother with any more. You should avoid C unless you really need to do this stuff. Otherwise, use a language/library combination that does the low level stuff for you, and probably does it better than you could.
That used to work. Doesn't on the latest version.
Fine, you're a bigot, who doesn't care about the needs of any computer user except yourself. This a really fascinating topic of conversation, but I have to go trim my toenails now.
Then what happened?
Even if you could type, that wouldn't be very funny or interesting. You do know we're talking about a WYSIWYG editor here, right?
I said a simple way. Having to stop and do a menu item every time I start a new paragraph is not my idea of "simple".
tag!
I'm reminded of a scene in one of Donald Westlakes weirder caper novels. Two guys are travelling through a really flat section of Oklahoma. One is a stone killer with no sense of humor or irony. They reach a place where the land is so flat and featureless, you can't even see the horizon. The killer turns to the other guy and says, "You know, before the white man came, there was absolutely nothing here!"
I'm sure if you look hard enough on usenet, you'll find a thread where the consensus is that Elvis has changed his name to George W something and gone into politics.
Tongue Cancer is just a barrel of laughs!
The FAQ page is missing. Does each commode have it's own IP address? A private network would make more sense in oh, so many ways!
I think you underestimate the difficulty of adding X functionality to an app that was written for a non-X windowing system. I actually have some X applications running on my PC via Cygwin, but they're all ports of Linux applications. It's my understanding (I have little Mac experience) that all the X applications for Mac are similar. Providing X support on MacOS X is no big deal, since that OS is basically BSD Unix. MacOS 9 is, AFAIK, quite a different deal.
We're choosing sides now? I'm just nitpicking your claim that X allows you access to a lot of "heterogeneous" systems. I suppose that's true if you ignore the need to access MS Windows from X Windows, and if all your X systems run a standard set of X software. But that doesn't strike me as very heterogeneous, but then I've never been much on the Alpha-versus-MIPS-versus-SPARC controversies.When I was at SGI, we had these Compaq CITRIX servers that were supposed to allow us to run Windows apps from out IRIX workstations. They were basically unusable, and everybody who really needed to run Windows had their own Wintel box. Probably things would have worked better if we'd had a faster network. But given a choice, I will always choose to run Windows apps on a local box. I also prefer a local box for X apps, though that having to do such things remotely is not quite as painful.
This solution sucks up a lot of network bandwidth, but I guess modern networks have a lot to spare.
But almost all new software development assumes that everybody should have their own computer. Maybe it's a flawed model, but it's the one in place.
When I go into a bank or a business or any other place that uses computers, I always check out the technology. I see all kinds of stuff. Circuit City still does POS on quaint little ASCII terminals. The guys who fixed my brakes own a Sun Workstation with a Wintel card (there's some kind of tire software that only runs on Solaris). Independent Video stores still have their old QNX-based embedded POS systems. But the overwhelming favorite is the Wintel PC. I've seen an X Terminal precisely once, and that was 8 years ago.