That feature is so poorly implemented - I don't know how anyone can use that well. If they implemented it as a 'second finger tap,' it would be viable, but as it is, you need three fingers to right click, and that's just awkward to do. (I tried it out, and found it pretty awkward to try and hit the button with my thumb while putting my index and middle finger on the pad. It's honestly quite a bit easier for me to just hit 'control' with my left pinky while clicking with my thumb or tapping with my index finger.) It should be that you hold one finger on the touchpad for positioning, and use the other finger to tap. I believe they use this chord to handle scrolling instead.:-/
Be careful - some network appliances actually use connectors that you'd never expect to do curious things. None of my PIXes (PIXen? PIXies?) have USB connectors...they have RJ-45 connectors, for which an adapter/cable exists that pins out to a DB9 connector. (I have made my own converter to allow for various configurations of this.) Dell switches have an SPF module that uses USB cables for stacking - USB A-A male cables to be precise. Those are most definitely/not/ for use with a computer. But really, I'd be quite surprised to find Cisco using USB - you'd practically have to have special drivers on the computer you connect with. Almost anything (save for a Mac) can run a serial console to DB9. Heck, I have a wonderful floppy - Serial Terminal Linux, which I can use to boot an old laptop right into minicom. Long live/dev/ttyS0 | COM1!!
I have- but what part of choose your hardware carefully do you people not understand? RS232 is a rather outdated protocol at this point. My two latest computer purchases do not speak RS232 natively- but they DO have multiple USB ports.
I believe it's the part where you expect me not to buy Cisco hardware because it uses that 'rather outdated protocol.' Any router that has USB on it is probably a toy! I'd just assume not have to connect via a USB -> DB9 dongle, but at some point, it's going to be harder to buy computers that way. I already know a group that uses those gizmos on client visits, because their company bought a fleet of Compaq laptops that are super-slim, and only have USB.
I get so very tired of people who only think of home computer applications, and can't see the big picture. I once made quite an argument about the stupidity of going DVD only with Knoppix. ("But everyone has DVD drives!") Kids just don't understand that a high majority of computers still do not have DVD drives - it's just not an essential for the average business PC. That's starting to change (this was probably 2 yrs ago), but the places that spend the most money don't see the need for toys, and understand the value of technology that *just works.*
Available for: Mac OS X v10.4.7, Mac OS X Server v10.4.7
Impact: Attackers on the wireless network may cause system crashes, privilege elevation, or arbitrary code execution
Description: A heap buffer overflow exists in the AirPort wireless driver's handling of scan cache updates. An attacker in local proximity may be able to trigger the overflow by injecting a maliciously-crafted frame into the wireless network. This could lead to a system crash, privilege elevation, or arbitrary code execution with system privileges. This issue affects Intel-based Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro computers equipped with wireless. Power Mac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve, and PowerPC-based Mac mini computers are not affected. This update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of wireless frames. There is no known exploit for this issue. This issue does not affect systems prior to Mac OS X v10.4.
It sure looks like it affects Intel-based Apple laptops to me. I don't buy the spin - I think it's quite likely the SecureWorks guys are right...and if they're wrong, well then these computers are just more secure. That sounds like a/really bad thing/ to me.
Ask Mozilla guys why they moved to MSI method on windows.
*sound of crickets in the night*
Hear that? That's the answer from the Mozilla guys about implementing MSIs, which they said they would do for 1.5. It's still not going into 2.0, and we'll be lucky if they do it in 3.0. You might be thinking of NSIS, which they redid the installer with - this is an open-source installer tool (written by Nullsoft as the original Winamp installer).
I may not be a big fan of Windows, but I'll certainly say that having an MSI would be rather convenient for deploying Firefox in environments where Windows is currently in full force. More so, not having that MSI will prevent certain IT departments from/ever/ considering it. (Yes, unofficial MSIs exist, but this defeats the trust matter addressed in many posts in this thread.)
This post was written on a Mac...without making use of Installer...:P
Too expensive if they're paying you for support? I think it seems like a great idea...sure I could work the magic myself, but it's so cheap that I definitely plan on using it someday. Have you ever tried to tell some people how to make quirky settings on their computer, or find an invaluable nugget of information for you...over the phone?
As it so happens, the widgets are native. Mozilla exposes the underlying implementation. Which is why buttons look like Windows, Mac, or GTK+ buttons. The caveat to this is that you can create XUL buttons/components that are entirely virtual. These components are generally used to produce skins like that used in Firefox. But most XUL applications actually rely on the native components instead. Which is why the Amazon browser I linked to looks like a native Windows app.
Actually, from what I know, that is *not* true. Firefox has been criticized in the past for 'not looking quite right' on most platforms. Someone made a hack awhile ago to make the buttons look more accurate in OS X (*)...and there was much grief had over the appearance of the menus on the "Classic" view of XP. Firefox had designed their menu theme/XUL for the eye candy "Luna" view/theme of XP, and the menu items had the wrong pixel height for Classic. Personally, I can't stand that hideous theme, and so I use Classic on my XP box at work. To make it right, I used the extension cited on this MozillaZine KB article (though I barely noticed the difference). Camino uses Cocoa for its widgets, and so is 'native,' while Firefox on OS X will be transitioning to this at some point in the future. (3.0?)
For what it's worth, the link to Roland's site is done with rel=nofollow, so it/shouldn't/ improve his PageRank.
However, recent discussions elsewhere have suggested that Google is starting to follow the links anyway, but give them almost no weight unless they appear to have merit.
As observed already, "WebOS" is a complete misnomer. Last time I checked, I was not able to boot my computer with a blank hard drive using a "WebOS." An operating system allows your computer to boot and run commands, regardless of whether it's connected to a network or not.
What would be super-cool is an BIOS-embedded OS that booted from the NIC from a server available over the internet. But what these "WebOS" people are actually providing is a "WebOffice" suite. Still a useful commodity, but not an operating system.
Well, for the former, there's always Knoppix.
For the latter, I thought of an interesting solution - PXE booting already exists, but the Internet part is a slight complication. However, I bet it would be quite feasible to mod a Linksys WRT54G to serve up PXE booting to this effect. With economies of scale, I bet Google could give them away (there are already ~$10 routers out there), provided that you let AdSense pervade deeper into your computing realm.
Re:Am I the only one scared of this?
on
Google Calendar
·
· Score: 2
I am personally less concerned about Yahoo! and privacy. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo! is only interested in the bottom line w.r.t. advertising and media partners. I don't think they care at all about information. Google is information hungry in a very big way. Google offers fantastic products, but it does make you think for a second about what they're going to do with the information you provide them.
I don't know why people try to defend Apple on this particular design decision. There's absolutely no reason why hibernation shouldn't be included in OS X.
It could be that it's because hiberation actually does exist in Mac OS X. It's just not a well known fact. OS X 10.4's "Safe Sleep" (Google cache) saves the active memory to disk when a Mac [laptop] goes to sleep...lest the power get interrupted. If one is so inclined, they can activate it, and even choose to use it by default. I've enabled it on my Mini, and it definitely works.
However, if you're not a Mac user, you may not appreciate how good the normal "Sleep" mode is. Unlike Windows, a Mac which has been put to sleep will resume almost immediately, and be instantly usable. My iBook can stay 'asleep' in my briefcase for ages, with very little battery consumption, and as soon as I open the lid, I am good to go. This impresses me more than words can say.
The day that Apple decides to by default make window titles and borders semi-translucent with a nice blurring feature and hides the title of background windows and all that jazz, I'll go back to a Linux desktop.
You must not have used Jaguar. By default, the window titles of inactive windows were translucent. It was horrible - they quickly figured it out, and that is no more. Vista is taking the flawed approach and making it much worse. Those screenshots look thorougly confusing!
Unless anyone actually clicks on it, there will be no real increase in traffic - Taco's made the link to his site rel=nofollow. Ergo, Google will not give his site a higher PageRank due to this story posting.
Indeed... silly as it seemed, that happened to me when I took an airport shuttle a year ago.
Don't forget...even if you don't put the number on the card, the copy of the receipt that the store keeps often has the full number on it, despite your copy only having the last 4 digits.
Want real security at the gas station, or restaurants (your most likely source of CC# theft)? Use cash.
Likewise, I contributed once to the FSF, but won't do it again. I like much of the software they've produced, but I just can't stand RMS' wild ravings, and won't support it financially.
I would happily give to Debian, as they promote open source, whilst being *sensible.*
Re:Will I be able to configure the screensaver?
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Hmm...funny - OS X has both options and a full screen test for screen savers. In fact, I see they stopped calling them "Screen Effects" (which they did in Jaguar as last I recalled). Given GNOME's love of copying OS X poorly, it's funny that they didn't notice that OS X considers this a permissible act. GNOME sickens me these days - they need to get over themselves.
It's because of URLs and *nix paths. i.e. H-T-T-P-Colon-SLASH-SLASH-www-DOT-slashdot-DOT-org . It's kind of intended to mess with people's heads, and in general, CmdrTaco thought it was cool.:)
Also, this site used to have far more of a Linux bias, and while one typically references './' instead of '/.' (which is pretty much meaningless), it's kind of a mix of familiar characters. *sigh* I miss those days around here...
Well, I find the other replies to this comment interesting about the move of the nag to the menu options, but I still find it all irksome. BTW, I'm not necessarily saying it's the best thing to do, but on older versions of Quicktime, I once read on/. that if you set the date far into the future, open Quicktime, click "Later," exit, and then fix the date, you'll never see the ad. Of course, I never tried it... (though I have a strong intuition that it works)
Erm...yeah...likewise. Actually, I started to think it had to be a joke, and I'm guessing that's how it got modded +4||+5, Funny. It only took reading every comment in this thread, including the -1 posts and a solid re-reading to notice the 'by.'
I'm just a little skeptical about this thing - it better be/very/ easy to connect, otherwise I expect it to people to get confused by it. It strikes me that it won't 'feel' right. I guess I'd love being able to just give a quick tug on the power cord before leaving in the morning, as that's the one thing I have to give actual attention to with my iBook these days. The current connector is very straight-forward to connect, and the illuminated ring is a very nice touch - the single dot on the new connector might not be appreciated by all... and it needs to be able to be plugged in upside down. I've/never/ had a problem snagging a computer and pulling it via the charger cable. I suppose they have no concerns about Cat-5, as they figure everyone in the whole wide world will use wireless, but that's a connector that will maintain a death grip on the computer! Oh well.
I'm a Perl programmer, and I've just started to write some more serious code in Javascript...messing around with Greasemonkey. I've also had to learn and mess around with some PHP recently, which has been a horrific thing to me. A funny observation I've run into while playing with Javascript - it strikes me as being far better designed than PHP.:D
(I'll take Perl over the lot of them any day of the week, though.:))
Slashdot Mirror
That feature is so poorly implemented - I don't know how anyone can use that well. If they implemented it as a 'second finger tap,' it would be viable, but as it is, you need three fingers to right click, and that's just awkward to do. (I tried it out, and found it pretty awkward to try and hit the button with my thumb while putting my index and middle finger on the pad. It's honestly quite a bit easier for me to just hit 'control' with my left pinky while clicking with my thumb or tapping with my index finger.) It should be that you hold one finger on the touchpad for positioning, and use the other finger to tap. I believe they use this chord to handle scrolling instead. :-/
Be careful - some network appliances actually use connectors that you'd never expect to do curious things. None of my PIXes (PIXen? PIXies?) have USB connectors...they have RJ-45 connectors, for which an adapter/cable exists that pins out to a DB9 connector. (I have made my own converter to allow for various configurations of this.) Dell switches have an SPF module that uses USB cables for stacking - USB A-A male cables to be precise. Those are most definitely /not/ for use with a computer. But really, I'd be quite surprised to find Cisco using USB - you'd practically have to have special drivers on the computer you connect with. Almost anything (save for a Mac) can run a serial console to DB9. Heck, I have a wonderful floppy - Serial Terminal Linux, which I can use to boot an old laptop right into minicom. Long live /dev/ttyS0 | COM1!!
I believe it's the part where you expect me not to buy Cisco hardware because it uses that 'rather outdated protocol.' Any router that has USB on it is probably a toy! I'd just assume not have to connect via a USB -> DB9 dongle, but at some point, it's going to be harder to buy computers that way. I already know a group that uses those gizmos on client visits, because their company bought a fleet of Compaq laptops that are super-slim, and only have USB.
I get so very tired of people who only think of home computer applications, and can't see the big picture. I once made quite an argument about the stupidity of going DVD only with Knoppix. ("But everyone has DVD drives!") Kids just don't understand that a high majority of computers still do not have DVD drives - it's just not an essential for the average business PC. That's starting to change (this was probably 2 yrs ago), but the places that spend the most money don't see the need for toys, and understand the value of technology that *just works.*
It sure looks like it affects Intel-based Apple laptops to me. I don't buy the spin - I think it's quite likely the SecureWorks guys are right...and if they're wrong, well then these computers are just more secure. That sounds like a /really bad thing/ to me.
*sound of crickets in the night*
Hear that? That's the answer from the Mozilla guys about implementing MSIs, which they said they would do for 1.5. It's still not going into 2.0, and we'll be lucky if they do it in 3.0. You might be thinking of NSIS, which they redid the installer with - this is an open-source installer tool (written by Nullsoft as the original Winamp installer).
I may not be a big fan of Windows, but I'll certainly say that having an MSI would be rather convenient for deploying Firefox in environments where Windows is currently in full force. More so, not having that MSI will prevent certain IT departments from /ever/ considering it. (Yes, unofficial MSIs exist, but this defeats the trust matter addressed in many posts in this thread.)
This post was written on a Mac...without making use of Installer... :P
It's been ages since I've seen it referenced here, but it turns out Mirrordot does have it cached!
Ohloh (front page only)
Too expensive if they're paying you for support? I think it seems like a great idea...sure I could work the magic myself, but it's so cheap that I definitely plan on using it someday. Have you ever tried to tell some people how to make quirky settings on their computer, or find an invaluable nugget of information for you...over the phone?
Actually, from what I know, that is *not* true. Firefox has been criticized in the past for 'not looking quite right' on most platforms. Someone made a hack awhile ago to make the buttons look more accurate in OS X (*)...and there was much grief had over the appearance of the menus on the "Classic" view of XP. Firefox had designed their menu theme/XUL for the eye candy "Luna" view/theme of XP, and the menu items had the wrong pixel height for Classic. Personally, I can't stand that hideous theme, and so I use Classic on my XP box at work. To make it right, I used the extension cited on this MozillaZine KB article (though I barely noticed the difference). Camino uses Cocoa for its widgets, and so is 'native,' while Firefox on OS X will be transitioning to this at some point in the future. (3.0?)
I found the OS X story: http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/native-lookin g-firefox-os-x-widgets
For what it's worth, the link to Roland's site is done with rel=nofollow, so it /shouldn't/ improve his PageRank.
However, recent discussions elsewhere have suggested that Google is starting to follow the links anyway, but give them almost no weight unless they appear to have merit.
Well, for the former, there's always Knoppix.
For the latter, I thought of an interesting solution - PXE booting already exists, but the Internet part is a slight complication. However, I bet it would be quite feasible to mod a Linksys WRT54G to serve up PXE booting to this effect. With economies of scale, I bet Google could give them away (there are already ~$10 routers out there), provided that you let AdSense pervade deeper into your computing realm.
I am personally less concerned about Yahoo! and privacy. As far as I'm concerned, Yahoo! is only interested in the bottom line w.r.t. advertising and media partners. I don't think they care at all about information. Google is information hungry in a very big way. Google offers fantastic products, but it does make you think for a second about what they're going to do with the information you provide them.
I don't know why people try to defend Apple on this particular design decision. There's absolutely no reason why hibernation shouldn't be included in OS X.
It could be that it's because hiberation actually does exist in Mac OS X. It's just not a well known fact. OS X 10.4's "Safe Sleep" (Google cache) saves the active memory to disk when a Mac [laptop] goes to sleep...lest the power get interrupted. If one is so inclined, they can activate it, and even choose to use it by default. I've enabled it on my Mini, and it definitely works.
However, if you're not a Mac user, you may not appreciate how good the normal "Sleep" mode is. Unlike Windows, a Mac which has been put to sleep will resume almost immediately, and be instantly usable. My iBook can stay 'asleep' in my briefcase for ages, with very little battery consumption, and as soon as I open the lid, I am good to go. This impresses me more than words can say.
The day that Apple decides to by default make window titles and borders semi-translucent with a nice blurring feature and hides the title of background windows and all that jazz, I'll go back to a Linux desktop.
You must not have used Jaguar. By default, the window titles of inactive windows were translucent. It was horrible - they quickly figured it out, and that is no more. Vista is taking the flawed approach and making it much worse. Those screenshots look thorougly confusing!
Unless anyone actually clicks on it, there will be no real increase in traffic - Taco's made the link to his site rel=nofollow. Ergo, Google will not give his site a higher PageRank due to this story posting.
HAND.
Indeed... silly as it seemed, that happened to me when I took an airport shuttle a year ago.
Don't forget...even if you don't put the number on the card, the copy of the receipt that the store keeps often has the full number on it, despite your copy only having the last 4 digits.
Want real security at the gas station, or restaurants (your most likely source of CC# theft)?
Use cash.
Likewise, I contributed once to the FSF, but won't do it again. I like much of the software they've produced, but I just can't stand RMS' wild ravings, and won't support it financially.
I would happily give to Debian, as they promote open source, whilst being *sensible.*
Hmm...funny - OS X has both options and a full screen test for screen savers. In fact, I see they stopped calling them "Screen Effects" (which they did in Jaguar as last I recalled). Given GNOME's love of copying OS X poorly, it's funny that they didn't notice that OS X considers this a permissible act. GNOME sickens me these days - they need to get over themselves.
It's because of URLs and *nix paths. i.e. H-T-T-P-Colon-SLASH-SLASH-www-DOT-slashdot-DOT-org . It's kind of intended to mess with people's heads, and in general, CmdrTaco thought it was cool. :)
Also, this site used to have far more of a Linux bias, and while one typically references './' instead of '/.' (which is pretty much meaningless), it's kind of a mix of familiar characters. *sigh* I miss those days around here...
Well, I find the other replies to this comment interesting about the move of the nag to the menu options, but I still find it all irksome. BTW, I'm not necessarily saying it's the best thing to do, but on older versions of Quicktime, I once read on /. that if you set the date far into the future, open Quicktime, click "Later," exit, and then fix the date, you'll never see the ad. Of course, I never tried it... (though I have a strong intuition that it works)
But does it play Oggs?!
;P)
(Alas, questions pertaining Beowulf cluster aren't relevant. *sigh* I miss old Slash-culture.
Erm...yeah...likewise. Actually, I started to think it had to be a joke, and I'm guessing that's how it got modded +4||+5, Funny. It only took reading every comment in this thread, including the -1 posts and a solid re-reading to notice the 'by.' I'm just a little skeptical about this thing - it better be /very/ easy to connect, otherwise I expect it to people to get confused by it. It strikes me that it won't 'feel' right. I guess I'd love being able to just give a quick tug on the power cord before leaving in the morning, as that's the one thing I have to give actual attention to with my iBook these days. The current connector is very straight-forward to connect, and the illuminated ring is a very nice touch - the single dot on the new connector might not be appreciated by all... and it needs to be able to be plugged in upside down. I've /never/ had a problem snagging a computer and pulling it via the charger cable. I suppose they have no concerns about Cat-5, as they figure everyone in the whole wide world will use wireless, but that's a connector that will maintain a death grip on the computer! Oh well.
I'm a Perl programmer, and I've just started to write some more serious code in Javascript...messing around with Greasemonkey. I've also had to learn and mess around with some PHP recently, which has been a horrific thing to me. A funny observation I've run into while playing with Javascript - it strikes me as being far better designed than PHP. :D
:))
(I'll take Perl over the lot of them any day of the week, though.
Are you suggesting that it might be a bad idea to uncap one end, fill it with gasoline, and light it...for the purpose of a lightsaber duel?