I know it's a strikingly new idea to most teens, but your parents don't HAVE to give an "allowance," and I would dare say that some of them may even be willing to pay their children to do jobs that they otherwise have to pay someone else to do
Wait wait... what? I'm sorry, in what world is an allowance not, by definition, the pay a child receives from their parents for doing chores around the house?
Who said anything about propaganda? It's just a video streaming service. Hell, by your logic, an app which allowed you to view Fox News or BBC programming on the iPhone should be banned (the former being "political" and the latter being "state run").
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source?
Because the punishment in a copyright infringement case isn't to be forced to follow the terms of the license agreement for the work that was unlawfully distributed. It's to pay a fine and/or damages to the owner of the copyright of the work.
Am I misinterpreting the word obliged?
Not at all. You're just misinterpreting the law, and more specifically, the consequences of violating it.
Linux is a monolithic kernel. Windows is a hybrid kernel. Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does. Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.
Uh, just FYI, printer drivers are usermode in Linux as well. Furthermore, until recently (ie, the Vista pedigree), the Windows drivers were built against the KMDF, and so ran in kernel mode.
Secondly, your statement that "the only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system" *severely* understates the impact of this difference. The "graphics subsystem" in both Windows and Linux is *massive*. That's an extremely non-trivial amount of code that unnecessarily runs in kernelmode on Windows, and that means a vastly increased surface area that can be exploited.
'course, that's not to say Linux couldn't improve and move more functionality out into userspace (assuming no negative performance impact). But Windows is really not that much better.
Well, tbf, I think the GP's point is that there is *no* argument for handling fonts in kernel space. ie, it's not an "interesting" argument since it's one you shouldn't even be having.
The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.
Interesting. So this actually goes even deeper than IE being integrated with the OS, and demonstrates why things like font handling should *not* be done in kernel space.
'course, this wasn't always the case. There was a time when the video subsystem was largely a userspace component, but during the NT days, they decided to move a lot of video-related functionality into the kernel for performance reasons... and now they're paying the price in the form of weaker security.
Did I mention cod worm specifically there? No. Did I go on to mention another worm (pinworm) in that context? Yes. Do between 30% and 80% of people have pinworm? Yes. Do most know it? No.
Does pin worm come from fish? No. Does the most common salt-water fish-borne parasite, the one discussed in the very article you cited, produce symptoms such that any human carrying it would immediately go to the hospital? Yes. So for *fish* parasites, most humans *would* know it. And last I checked, we were talking about fish parasites... right?
The basic problem is that we're resorting to things like salmon farming because we've seriously impacted the natural resource. Unfortunately, the fish farms also impact the local environment in a negative way.
They sure do, which is why the government needs to step up and properly regulate them. Of course, given the reticence of the US/state government(s) to ban things like hormone use in dairy cattle (unlike, say, Canada), it's highly unlikely that'll ever happen.
But in the end, the discussion was originally about fish-borne parasites. And the simple fact is, they're just not that big of a deal, at least as far as I can tell, and so from a human consumption standpoint, fish is as safe as it ever was... well, save for the hormones and antibiotics (though, to be fair, those same compounds have been used in the beef industry for quite a while, now, without any clear negative human impact... 'course, I have no idea what the regulations are in the fish farming industry vis a vis residual drugs in the harvested meat).
Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite
Did you not bother even reading the FAQ on the site you linked to? It says the following about the Cod Worm:
Q: What would happen if a cod worm were to survive in your stomach? A: Nothing life threatening or permanently damaging will happen, but you are likely to experience a terrible stomach ache, nausea, and vomiting.
So, no, I really doubt anyone infested with said worm wouldn't realize it.
And looking through the list on this site, it appears the Cod Worm is the only common salt water parasite that humans contract. And only an idiot would eat raw fresh water fish.
So I repeat, if parasites were a problem, sushi eaters would be the proverbial canary in the coalmine... unless there aren't that many of them, in which case it doesn't matter either way, since cooking fish renders it completely safe.
What's alarmist is the H1N1 scare.
Which only reinforces my point. If fish parasites were *really* a problem, the media would be all over it faster than you can say "manufactured hysteria".
In fact, I don't know anyone who eats it more than once a year, tops.
Consider that a) the people you know are likely to be similar, and that b) this likely varies *widely* based on locale. Go to Vancouver, New York, or Seattle, and I guarantee you'll see more sushi consumption than in, say, North Dakota (although here in Edmonton, the heart of the Canadian prairies, sushi is very commonly consumed... hell, I went out for sushi just a few days ago). And then there's the home of sushi, Japan, a nation which is *obsessed* with food freshness and safety.
But, hey, let's pretend for a moment that you're right, that sushi consumption is fairly uncommon. It then follows that most people cook their fish before eating it, right? And, again, the very links you provided indicate that cooked fish is perfectly safe.
So, either it's a non-issue because raw fish is eaten in many places and yet we don't see a media frenzy about the dangers of raw fish thanks to an upswing in parasitic infestations in humans, or it's a non-issue because raw fish isn't commonly eaten. Either way, unless you can provide cited numbers which indicate that illness due to fish consumption is on the rise, I think it's more reasonable to assume that those linked articles are simply alarmist.
You can attack Beck all you want, but he plays video and audio that nobody else finds, so he doesn't need credibility.
Uhuh. Here, let me show you how Beck would quote you:
So here's an interesting quote I found in some writings by jadavis:
'"we want the president hiring a bunch of leftist radicals"
Yup, you heard him right, folks. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying jadavis is a filthy, pinko communist. Heck, I *like* jadavis. But, let's face it, when you read something like this, it just makes you wonder, doesn't it?'
In short, Beck is a filthy, stinking liar. Worse, he's been caught repeatedly, and he keeps doing it. Worst of hall, his idiot fans believe his bullshit.
And yes, you read that right, I did in fact call you a fucking idiot.
Your stomach will eventually kill them, but since they originate in seals, they can get quite comfy in any mammal including us humans making the experience extremely unpleasant. As Dr. Palm puts it, "It is better not to eat them alive."
Now, according to that article, cooked fish, parasites or no, is perfectly safe to eat, and not "harmful to humans" at all. So the only concern is raw fish.
So where are all the stories about people getting sick from parasites present on their raw fish? I mean, sushi is widely consumed, so there should be stories all over the place, right?
Or maybe it's just that you, or the people bringing up this issue, are vastly overstating the problem. But they wouldn't do that, right?
While an SQL database can do this, so can many other database types. There's no complex relational searching with this; it's just basic indexing (with maybe a tree of index relationships). I'd sooner do this with a B-tree based filesystem.
And how many B-tree-based filesystems out there are there? And how portable are their implementations? Yeah, exactly.
Even for straight, non-relational, tabular data, the fact is, your average RDBMS provides decent performance and portability while allowing you to leverage the facilities your pet language of choice offers for database integration. That's a *huge* win, particularly if your alternative is to roll your own custom storage solution (as you suggest).
Frankly, I'd seriously question someone's competence if they chose to write their own filesystem-based storage layer over leveraging an existing solution like an RDBMS, *particularly* for simple applications that don't have special perform or data storage/querying requirements.
Every repository of knowledge can be described relationally. When a programmer claims that a problem doesn't map well to the relational model, what he means is that his mind can't transform the problem into that notation, and that's a deficiency in the programmer, not the data.
While that may be true, it's also true that there *is* an impedance mismatch between object and relational data modeling, and as such, you have to perform some non-trivial transformations to move from one to the other. And that creates cognitive complexity, wherein bugs often lie, not to mention real computational overhead.
As such, there's certainly room for data storage solutions which try to better fit object oriented data modeling (hell, the OODBMS has been an interesting research area for decades).
That said, I think the backlash against SQL in general, and relational databases specifically, is more than a little absurd. RDBMS's have been around for decades, and are very good at what they do. As such, I think it's ridiculous to position the "NoSQL" approach as a replacement for RDBMS's. Rather, I see them as complimentary tools (although I happen to believe that the non-relational approach is much more of a niche solution than it's proponents would like us to believe, as I think, for most problem spaces, the relational approach works very well, and has the advantage of greater maturity).
Re:like the network effect and developer laziness
on
The NoSQL Ecosystem
·
· Score: 1
its simpler to switch to a different rdbms when your queriees are already in sql.
It's mostly just human ignorance and laziness.
Bullshit. That argument *might* be true for people who actively migrate from an existing SQL DB to SQLite, but the reality is that SQLite's *real* niche is in supplanting BDB. In that case, you don't have people with queries "already in SQL"... these are new projects that choose SQLite because it fits a need they have, and does so better than any existing, non-relational storage solution.
I'd love to use Myth, but as an American television consumer who loves his HDTV, I really can't. Show me a way I can get the HDTV feeds of Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic, or any of the dedicated HDTV networks like HDNet or HD Theater on a Myth box without converting through analog first and I'll jump on it of course
Why the artificial "no analog" limitation? You can get cheap (ie, $250 list) 1080i component capture that looks perfectly fine.
Long term, muscle mass needs feeding. That's why your body gets rid of it if you don't use it - it's a waste of energy. You put muscle mass on, you burn calories whether you use it or not.
Nope, wrong, sorry. Increasing muscle mass does very little to affect your resting BMR, as resting muscle doesn't actually burn much in the way of calories, no matter how much extra bulk you have.
BS. Recent studies have sown that resting metabolic rate is not affected by muscle mass. Period. Which, when you think about it, makes sense. Why would a bunch of sedentary muscle affect your metabolic rate if it's not *doing* anything? Right... it doesn't.
And just as a bit more detail, X, itself, is just a network protocol. The client sends commands to the server to draw things, receive events (mouse, keyboard, etc), and so forth. Normally, the server then handles drawing commands by writing to a video card, translates hardware keyboard/mouse activity into X events that it sends back to the client, etc. But there's no reason the X server actually has to talk to hardware. For example, Xvfb, the X virtual framebuffer, implements the X protocol but doesn't actually render to a display, and doesn't interact with any input devices. It just provides something for the client to connect and render to (which, BTW, is really damned handy for running certain applications headless).
Meanwhile, VNC is really a similar sort of thing. The server sends (usually compressed) framebuffer data describing the screen back to the client, and the client sends keyboard/mouse events to the server. Normally, that framebuffer comes from a display that's being exported (eg, a Windows desktop, an existing X server display, etc), but that's just a technicality. All the VNC server is ultimately doing is sending back bitmap data and receiving events... where it gets that bitmap, and what it does with those events, is up to the server.
Now, imagine an X server implementation that renders to an internal framebuffer, exposing that framebuffer over VNC, and translates VNC client activity (mouse/keyboard) into events that it sends back to the X client. Voila! Suddenly you have a bridge which connects the X protocol to VNC that's entirely headless.
Incidentally, *this* is one of the reasons why, for all it's warts, X kicks ass.:)
That's fine until you have to reboot and X refuses to start because there's no monitor attached, then you have to faff about making a VGA nully-thingy with resistors.
No, dumbass, there is no X server running!:) The system boots headless and just happens to have the X libs and other necessary trappings installed such that Xvnc's dependencies are satisfied. But no *real* X server (ie, one that talks to a video card, etc) is actually running on the system.
Then, if I need to run mythtv-setup, I just launch Xvnc, connect to it with my favorite VNC client, do the setup I need to do, then shut Xvnc back down.
TBH, based on your comments, it sounds like you just don't know what vncserver/Xvnc is? If not, educate yourself, my man. It's a very handy tool to have in your belt.
It still boils down to the fact that a back-end should not need a GUI in order to be configured. Imagine if you couldn't configure Apache without a GUI, or MySQL?
Yeah, OTOH if Myth *didn't* have a nice, pretty configuration system, people would bitch even more about how hard it is to set up. And given Xvnc is so trivial to get up and running, I don't think it's *that* big of a deal.
That said, I'm with you in that I'd be happier if they provided a text-mode configuration application, in addition to the GUI version. But it's hardly a deal breaker.
My TiVo HD records Mythbusters every week, but around 6 hours later my media server goes out to the internet and grabs a copy of the same episode. I could just script a few tools like kmttg does to rip the content off the TiVo and transcode to a format of my preference, but why bother when someone else has already done it for me and at the same time cut the commercials for me?
Yeah, or, you could run a system like Myth which lets you do what you want with the content.
Let's face it, the justification for your actions is rooted in the fact that your TiVo doesn't let you do what you want. The beauty of a system like Myth is that that problem goes away. Want to automatically transcode any content you record to a different format? Just set up mythtranscode, and voila, you're off to the races.
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you that what you're doing is certainly moral. But, TBH, I actually find my Myth system to be a better solution than downloading. It's something my wife can use, I get access to programming that I'd never be able to find online (good luck finding random, individual, well-seeded episodes of M*A*S*H or Star Trek), I get a full guide that I can use to search for programs, configure recording rules, etc... it's just way less hassle than having to maintain an RSS -> torrent downloader.
All that said, I continue to stick with SD, and the fact that many networks are now *clipping* widescreen HD content for broadcast as SD may force me to move some of my recording over to downloads... there's nothing worse than watching a scene involving two people where both of the faces are clipped. Fucking idiots...
Meh, I just end up using vncserver on the backend. Technically, yeah, I'm running an X server on it, but it's still headless and remotely configurable.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's a strikingly new idea to most teens, but your parents don't HAVE to give an "allowance," and I would dare say that some of them may even be willing to pay their children to do jobs that they otherwise have to pay someone else to do
Wait wait... what? I'm sorry, in what world is an allowance not, by definition, the pay a child receives from their parents for doing chores around the house?
Who said anything about propaganda? It's just a video streaming service. Hell, by your logic, an app which allowed you to view Fox News or BBC programming on the iPhone should be banned (the former being "political" and the latter being "state run").
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source?
Because the punishment in a copyright infringement case isn't to be forced to follow the terms of the license agreement for the work that was unlawfully distributed. It's to pay a fine and/or damages to the owner of the copyright of the work.
Am I misinterpreting the word obliged?
Not at all. You're just misinterpreting the law, and more specifically, the consequences of violating it.
Linux is a monolithic kernel. Windows is a hybrid kernel. Linux puts a lot more into kernel mode/real mode than Windows does. Many drivers in Windows are user mode drivers, for example, particularly printers.
Uh, just FYI, printer drivers are usermode in Linux as well. Furthermore, until recently (ie, the Vista pedigree), the Windows drivers were built against the KMDF, and so ran in kernel mode.
Secondly, your statement that "the only thing I can think of that runs in kernel mode in Windows and not in Linux is the graphics system" *severely* understates the impact of this difference. The "graphics subsystem" in both Windows and Linux is *massive*. That's an extremely non-trivial amount of code that unnecessarily runs in kernelmode on Windows, and that means a vastly increased surface area that can be exploited.
'course, that's not to say Linux couldn't improve and move more functionality out into userspace (assuming no negative performance impact). But Windows is really not that much better.
Well, tbf, I think the GP's point is that there is *no* argument for handling fonts in kernel space. ie, it's not an "interesting" argument since it's one you shouldn't even be having.
The handling of EOT (Embedded OpenType) fonts is apparently (at least partially) handled by the kernel and presumably a component of the GDI system.
Interesting. So this actually goes even deeper than IE being integrated with the OS, and demonstrates why things like font handling should *not* be done in kernel space.
'course, this wasn't always the case. There was a time when the video subsystem was largely a userspace component, but during the NT days, they decided to move a lot of video-related functionality into the kernel for performance reasons... and now they're paying the price in the form of weaker security.
Yeah, my OS also has memory protection and doesn't look like ass. How 'bout yours? :)
Did I mention cod worm specifically there? No. Did I go on to mention another worm (pinworm) in that context? Yes. Do between 30% and 80% of people have pinworm? Yes. Do most know it? No.
Does pin worm come from fish? No. Does the most common salt-water fish-borne parasite, the one discussed in the very article you cited, produce symptoms such that any human carrying it would immediately go to the hospital? Yes. So for *fish* parasites, most humans *would* know it. And last I checked, we were talking about fish parasites... right?
The basic problem is that we're resorting to things like salmon farming because we've seriously impacted the natural resource. Unfortunately, the fish farms also impact the local environment in a negative way.
They sure do, which is why the government needs to step up and properly regulate them. Of course, given the reticence of the US/state government(s) to ban things like hormone use in dairy cattle (unlike, say, Canada), it's highly unlikely that'll ever happen.
But in the end, the discussion was originally about fish-borne parasites. And the simple fact is, they're just not that big of a deal, at least as far as I can tell, and so from a human consumption standpoint, fish is as safe as it ever was... well, save for the hormones and antibiotics (though, to be fair, those same compounds have been used in the beef industry for quite a while, now, without any clear negative human impact... 'course, I have no idea what the regulations are in the fish farming industry vis a vis residual drugs in the harvested meat).
Most people won't be aware that they have a parasite
Did you not bother even reading the FAQ on the site you linked to? It says the following about the Cod Worm:
So, no, I really doubt anyone infested with said worm wouldn't realize it.
And looking through the list on this site, it appears the Cod Worm is the only common salt water parasite that humans contract. And only an idiot would eat raw fresh water fish.
So I repeat, if parasites were a problem, sushi eaters would be the proverbial canary in the coalmine... unless there aren't that many of them, in which case it doesn't matter either way, since cooking fish renders it completely safe.
What's alarmist is the H1N1 scare.
Which only reinforces my point. If fish parasites were *really* a problem, the media would be all over it faster than you can say "manufactured hysteria".
BTW, nice try attempting to change the subject.
In fact, I don't know anyone who eats it more than once a year, tops.
Consider that a) the people you know are likely to be similar, and that b) this likely varies *widely* based on locale. Go to Vancouver, New York, or Seattle, and I guarantee you'll see more sushi consumption than in, say, North Dakota (although here in Edmonton, the heart of the Canadian prairies, sushi is very commonly consumed... hell, I went out for sushi just a few days ago). And then there's the home of sushi, Japan, a nation which is *obsessed* with food freshness and safety.
But, hey, let's pretend for a moment that you're right, that sushi consumption is fairly uncommon. It then follows that most people cook their fish before eating it, right? And, again, the very links you provided indicate that cooked fish is perfectly safe.
So, either it's a non-issue because raw fish is eaten in many places and yet we don't see a media frenzy about the dangers of raw fish thanks to an upswing in parasitic infestations in humans, or it's a non-issue because raw fish isn't commonly eaten. Either way, unless you can provide cited numbers which indicate that illness due to fish consumption is on the rise, I think it's more reasonable to assume that those linked articles are simply alarmist.
Seriously, what crack are the mods on? The reality is that politicians/news people wouldn't act like "cackling buffoons" if it didn't sell.
You can attack Beck all you want, but he plays video and audio that nobody else finds, so he doesn't need credibility.
Uhuh. Here, let me show you how Beck would quote you:
So here's an interesting quote I found in some writings by jadavis:
'"we want the president hiring a bunch of leftist radicals"
Yup, you heard him right, folks. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying jadavis is a filthy, pinko communist. Heck, I *like* jadavis. But, let's face it, when you read something like this, it just makes you wonder, doesn't it?'
In short, Beck is a filthy, stinking liar. Worse, he's been caught repeatedly, and he keeps doing it. Worst of hall, his idiot fans believe his bullshit.
And yes, you read that right, I did in fact call you a fucking idiot.
ROFL, utter brilliance! Kudos, my friend. Kudos.
So, according to that article:
Your stomach will eventually kill them, but since they originate in seals, they can get quite comfy in any mammal including us humans making the experience extremely unpleasant. As Dr. Palm puts it, "It is better not to eat them alive."
Now, according to that article, cooked fish, parasites or no, is perfectly safe to eat, and not "harmful to humans" at all. So the only concern is raw fish.
So where are all the stories about people getting sick from parasites present on their raw fish? I mean, sushi is widely consumed, so there should be stories all over the place, right?
Or maybe it's just that you, or the people bringing up this issue, are vastly overstating the problem. But they wouldn't do that, right?
While an SQL database can do this, so can many other database types. There's no complex relational searching with this; it's just basic indexing (with maybe a tree of index relationships). I'd sooner do this with a B-tree based filesystem.
And how many B-tree-based filesystems out there are there? And how portable are their implementations? Yeah, exactly.
Even for straight, non-relational, tabular data, the fact is, your average RDBMS provides decent performance and portability while allowing you to leverage the facilities your pet language of choice offers for database integration. That's a *huge* win, particularly if your alternative is to roll your own custom storage solution (as you suggest).
Frankly, I'd seriously question someone's competence if they chose to write their own filesystem-based storage layer over leveraging an existing solution like an RDBMS, *particularly* for simple applications that don't have special perform or data storage/querying requirements.
Every repository of knowledge can be described relationally. When a programmer claims that a problem doesn't map well to the relational model, what he means is that his mind can't transform the problem into that notation, and that's a deficiency in the programmer, not the data.
While that may be true, it's also true that there *is* an impedance mismatch between object and relational data modeling, and as such, you have to perform some non-trivial transformations to move from one to the other. And that creates cognitive complexity, wherein bugs often lie, not to mention real computational overhead.
As such, there's certainly room for data storage solutions which try to better fit object oriented data modeling (hell, the OODBMS has been an interesting research area for decades).
That said, I think the backlash against SQL in general, and relational databases specifically, is more than a little absurd. RDBMS's have been around for decades, and are very good at what they do. As such, I think it's ridiculous to position the "NoSQL" approach as a replacement for RDBMS's. Rather, I see them as complimentary tools (although I happen to believe that the non-relational approach is much more of a niche solution than it's proponents would like us to believe, as I think, for most problem spaces, the relational approach works very well, and has the advantage of greater maturity).
its simpler to switch to a different rdbms when your queriees are already in sql.
It's mostly just human ignorance and laziness.
Bullshit. That argument *might* be true for people who actively migrate from an existing SQL DB to SQLite, but the reality is that SQLite's *real* niche is in supplanting BDB. In that case, you don't have people with queries "already in SQL"... these are new projects that choose SQLite because it fits a need they have, and does so better than any existing, non-relational storage solution.
Put camera on TV. Put mic in room somewhere. Use TV as display. Voila, video phone in your livingroom. That was the idea.
I'd love to use Myth, but as an American television consumer who loves his HDTV, I really can't. Show me a way I can get the HDTV feeds of Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic, or any of the dedicated HDTV networks like HDNet or HD Theater on a Myth box without converting through analog first and I'll jump on it of course
Why the artificial "no analog" limitation? You can get cheap (ie, $250 list) 1080i component capture that looks perfectly fine.
Long term, muscle mass needs feeding. That's why your body gets rid of it if you don't use it - it's a waste of energy. You put muscle mass on, you burn calories whether you use it or not.
Nope, wrong, sorry. Increasing muscle mass does very little to affect your resting BMR, as resting muscle doesn't actually burn much in the way of calories, no matter how much extra bulk you have.
BS. Recent studies have sown that resting metabolic rate is not affected by muscle mass. Period. Which, when you think about it, makes sense. Why would a bunch of sedentary muscle affect your metabolic rate if it's not *doing* anything? Right... it doesn't.
And just as a bit more detail, X, itself, is just a network protocol. The client sends commands to the server to draw things, receive events (mouse, keyboard, etc), and so forth. Normally, the server then handles drawing commands by writing to a video card, translates hardware keyboard/mouse activity into X events that it sends back to the client, etc. But there's no reason the X server actually has to talk to hardware. For example, Xvfb, the X virtual framebuffer, implements the X protocol but doesn't actually render to a display, and doesn't interact with any input devices. It just provides something for the client to connect and render to (which, BTW, is really damned handy for running certain applications headless).
Meanwhile, VNC is really a similar sort of thing. The server sends (usually compressed) framebuffer data describing the screen back to the client, and the client sends keyboard/mouse events to the server. Normally, that framebuffer comes from a display that's being exported (eg, a Windows desktop, an existing X server display, etc), but that's just a technicality. All the VNC server is ultimately doing is sending back bitmap data and receiving events... where it gets that bitmap, and what it does with those events, is up to the server.
Now, imagine an X server implementation that renders to an internal framebuffer, exposing that framebuffer over VNC, and translates VNC client activity (mouse/keyboard) into events that it sends back to the X client. Voila! Suddenly you have a bridge which connects the X protocol to VNC that's entirely headless.
Incidentally, *this* is one of the reasons why, for all it's warts, X kicks ass. :)
That's fine until you have to reboot and X refuses to start because there's no monitor attached, then you have to faff about making a VGA nully-thingy with resistors.
No, dumbass, there is no X server running! :) The system boots headless and just happens to have the X libs and other necessary trappings installed such that Xvnc's dependencies are satisfied. But no *real* X server (ie, one that talks to a video card, etc) is actually running on the system.
Then, if I need to run mythtv-setup, I just launch Xvnc, connect to it with my favorite VNC client, do the setup I need to do, then shut Xvnc back down.
TBH, based on your comments, it sounds like you just don't know what vncserver/Xvnc is? If not, educate yourself, my man. It's a very handy tool to have in your belt.
It still boils down to the fact that a back-end should not need a GUI in order to be configured. Imagine if you couldn't configure Apache without a GUI, or MySQL?
Yeah, OTOH if Myth *didn't* have a nice, pretty configuration system, people would bitch even more about how hard it is to set up. And given Xvnc is so trivial to get up and running, I don't think it's *that* big of a deal.
That said, I'm with you in that I'd be happier if they provided a text-mode configuration application, in addition to the GUI version. But it's hardly a deal breaker.
My TiVo HD records Mythbusters every week, but around 6 hours later my media server goes out to the internet and grabs a copy of the same episode. I could just script a few tools like kmttg does to rip the content off the TiVo and transcode to a format of my preference, but why bother when someone else has already done it for me and at the same time cut the commercials for me?
Yeah, or, you could run a system like Myth which lets you do what you want with the content.
Let's face it, the justification for your actions is rooted in the fact that your TiVo doesn't let you do what you want. The beauty of a system like Myth is that that problem goes away. Want to automatically transcode any content you record to a different format? Just set up mythtranscode, and voila, you're off to the races.
Incidentally, I happen to agree with you that what you're doing is certainly moral. But, TBH, I actually find my Myth system to be a better solution than downloading. It's something my wife can use, I get access to programming that I'd never be able to find online (good luck finding random, individual, well-seeded episodes of M*A*S*H or Star Trek), I get a full guide that I can use to search for programs, configure recording rules, etc... it's just way less hassle than having to maintain an RSS -> torrent downloader.
All that said, I continue to stick with SD, and the fact that many networks are now *clipping* widescreen HD content for broadcast as SD may force me to move some of my recording over to downloads... there's nothing worse than watching a scene involving two people where both of the faces are clipped. Fucking idiots...
Meh, I just end up using vncserver on the backend. Technically, yeah, I'm running an X server on it, but it's still headless and remotely configurable.