For a long time, Gnome was frequently criticised for having too many confusing options, and cluttered interfaces, and KDE was the one that was admired for its simplicity (and criticised for its lack of options). Now the situation is reversed....
I don't mind if they want to remove the infrequently used options from the GUI in order to simplify things for novice users. I have absolutely no problem with requiring advanced users to use the gconf editor to access some of the more specialized features.
What bothers me is that in a lot of cases, they simply removed the ability to do something rather than hiding the option. Like the tasklist option I mentioned earlier, or the edge flipping someone else pointed out, or the highly useful (to me anyway) pop-out window list attached to the pager, etc...
Kind of like what GNOME 2 did and why I find it so annoying to use. All of the really useful features (like the task list only showing iconified apps, to name one of many) were taken out.
It's starting to slowly get better, and some options can still be set with the gconf editor, but some are just completely missing...
Some laptops store BIOS settings on a hard disk, and it's a bitch when an OS upgrade braindeads it, or keeps it from suspending, etc...
Yeah, we had a stupid Compaq laptop at work a while back whose BIOS boot order was set to HD only. Then the HD died, so we put in a new one. Only problem -- the Compaq BIOS configuration tool is normally stored on the hard disk (though the settings themselves are in NVRAM). There are utilities you can get from the Compaq web site to re-create the setup partition, you just make some floppies and boot off of them. Oops, the system won't boot off of floppies because the BIOS is defaulting to the hard disk ("Non system disk or disk error"). Great, we now have a paperweight.
We did manage to get the system to boot off the floppies -- by removing the hard drive. So now we can install the Compaq BIOS on the nonexistent drive.
I suppose theoritcally an IDE hot-plug at just the right moment might work, but I don't trust Compaq hardware to not burn out. We did manage to finally get it working by putting the HD in another laptop (a Dell) and running the setup disks on there... Thanks for nothing, Compaq.
Because EFI has its own filing system that lives on a reserved part of the hard disk, it can become the standard home for a whole set of utilities that have always had an awkward fit with the BIOS: things like disk partitioners, multiple OS boot controllers...
So, if EFI lives on the hard disk, how does the boot code get from the hard drive to the memory and into the CPU? Sounds like Intel needs to invent a bootloader for EFI. Since it deals with such basic tasks, they could call it the Basic Input Output System.
Yes I work for a Non-Bell ILEC and frankly why should "my" infrastructure be used for someone elses profit. I wouldn't like it if Bell tried to bully their way into one of our markets, why should I be allowed to steal from them.
Yeah, the problem is though that the government subsidized the creation of Bell's infrastructure in the first place.
Actually, I just use Mozilla, and turn off popups. I also turn off images and JavaScript in my e-mail.
I love Evolution's option that will show images in emails that are actually embedded in the email, but refuses to go out to the 'net to retrieve any images. And if the mail is from someone you trust, just hit view/message display/load images (or make a toolbar button for it) to load them only for the one email.
99% of real messages use embedded images, and 99% of spam tries to fetch them (and possibly track your address) from somewhere else.
Every mail client should have that option. Except maybe mutt.
I'm not sure about this. NT uses a Hardware Abstraction Layer which should prevent any direct access to any hardware. In order to write a defragmenter for NT, Diskeeper had to write a kernel extension which would give them low level access to the disk.
No, the HAL does not prevent direct writes to the disk. An administrator can open the raw disk device ("\\.\PhysicalDrive0" -- the NT equivalent of BSD's/dev/ad0c or Linux's/dev/hda0) and read / write anything.
I suspect the reason that a defragmenter would need special kernel support is that the file system driver keeps internal state data and would react, um, badly to the data on the disk changing out from under it. Think blue screen and possibly corrupt filesystem.
However, for areas that aren't directly touched by the FS driver, such as the MBR, unallocated partitions, or partitions for which there is no filesystem driver loaded, like UFS or ext2, this method of access works just fine. A while back I wrote a quick utility to let me tell the FreeBSD bootloader (which lives in the MBR) which partition I want it to default to loading on the next boot. Real handy for accessing dual-boot systems remotely.
Star Trek transporters could be a theoretical possiblity. But replicators cannot exist, because that would involve exact cloning of quantum states, which is impossible.
Not entirely. Star Trek replicators don't create an exact copy of an object, just an approximation. If you scan an object and then replicate it, there are detectable physical differences between the original and the copy on the micro level -- though it's close enough on the macro level that it is a passable substitute. This plays a part in the TNG episode "Mind's Eye" where Data finds memory chips that have been replicated by Romulans.
I don't work for them or know anybody who does, but I've had all my domains on there for a couple years (after getting fed up with Networ... uh I mean Verisi... uh I mean Network Solutions) and have been very happy with the price and performance. Quick and clean management interface.
They assign a phone number to frame relay?! Geez, which telco is this?
I've always found it annoying to call SBC's support and they ask me for the phone number of the line that's having trouble. I tell them, "It's a T1, all 24 channels are down, and there's no phone number. The circuit ID is XXHCGS......"
And yes, we're running straight data over it, so all 24 are allocated as B channels.
They'll have a single PRI (specifically 23 B channels and 1 D - so 9 PRI's would actually only allow 207 simultanious incoming and outgoing calls - but I digress), and 200 numbers.
You're right -- I forgot about the D channel (d'oh!). If you wanted 200 numbers, but only needed 23 concurrent conversations, then yes, a single PRI would do the trick here.
My post was about doing the opposite. For example, a busy call center that needed up to 200 concurrent calls, but only has a few numbers (say, a master 1-800 number) that people would be calling in on. In the old days you'd have to get 200 numbers and set up a giant hunt group, but with PRIs the numbers can be allocated much more efficiently.
Now, there's nothing that says whoever orders it won't just order a block of 200 numbers too, but that's their fault, not the technology's.
When you move up to T1's, you'll route to extensions via DNIS digits.
That's funny; we have a switched T1 at work using DNIS, and AT&T keeps bugging us to switch it to a PRI. Though the nice thing about it is that I can use the T1 to place calls that show up as "Caller ID Unavailable";)
Now if I can just talk then into turning on ANI on that line...
Why does a person need three numbers? Why does a business need 200?
They don't. Pretty much any business with 200 or more phone lines will use PRIs. A PRI is a T1 line (24 channels) to the phone company. So your business would have 9 PRIs coming in, for a total of 216 channels. A PRI channel allows for an outgoing call, but it does NOT have its own phone number. The way it works is that the business buys a block of DID numbers, however many they need, and those get routed over the PRI. An incoming call to one of those numbers uses whatever channel is available and sends a signal to your PBX identifying which number was dialed. This is much more efficient and cost effective than the single line / phone number model.
So no businness in their right mind would have 200 individual phone lines dropped in a single location. It's just inefficient and a management nightmare.
It sounds like it's a mixed mode CD with some control information in the data tracks that is read by Palladium-enabled applications or OSes to control what the user can do with it.
If that's all it is, it's not going to stop anyone from ripping it on pre-Palladium systems, nor from CD players with digital I/O (although that'll only work at single speed).
Sssshhhhhhh!!! Don't tell them that! If the media companies think this is a magic bullet they may opt to use it rather than solutions that violate Red Book and are more difficult to bypass...
I can sniff most low end cicso switches.... The 2924xl and 2950 allow you to block any mac address except broadcast addresses. So if you you flood the network with packets with one broadcast address and one real mac address you overflow its table it goes into a nice bridge mode. With a decent box it takes nearly two whole minutes to crack a single vendors mac codes.
That's because packet switching is intended to be a performance optimization, not a security measure. Ethernet, even switched ethernet does not guarantee that your packets are not sniffed. On routed networks, it's assumed that they will be seen at a minumum by the routers that the traffic goes through. If your application protocol depends on the lower levels being secure and unsniffable, then your application protocol is broken.
If anything, I think Cisco is doing the right thing by ensuring that the failure mode doesn't disrupt the network. Otherwise, filling up the MAC table would lead to a quick and easy DoS attack.
Don't mean to sound harsh but people need to realize that the RFCs that define these protocols (Ethernet/IP) explicitly state that security is the responsibility of the upper layers. That's why IPSEC was invented. I've seen many networks where the network "engineer" is relying on VLANs for a "secure" subnet. VLANs are another feature that was designed for convenience (segmenting broadcast domains for performance reasons) rather than security. Despite several band-aids to try to make VLANs security-conscious, it's still a bad idea to depend on them for that purpose.
Any site that seriously wants to keep part of its material out of the search sites' databases has a tool that does exactly this, and almost all search sites will honor it.
It has other creative uses, too. For example, my robots.txt is a two edged sword that keeps Google from trying to index my recursive spamtrap tarpit, and simultaneously lures in spambots that abuse the standard. (evil grin)
Slashdot Mirror
For a long time, Gnome was frequently criticised for having too many confusing options, and cluttered interfaces, and KDE was the one that was admired for its simplicity (and criticised for its lack of options). Now the situation is reversed....
I don't mind if they want to remove the infrequently used options from the GUI in order to simplify things for novice users. I have absolutely no problem with requiring advanced users to use the gconf editor to access some of the more specialized features.
What bothers me is that in a lot of cases, they simply removed the ability to do something rather than hiding the option. Like the tasklist option I mentioned earlier, or the edge flipping someone else pointed out, or the highly useful (to me anyway) pop-out window list attached to the pager, etc...
Why can't this same type of system be used to configure a desktop UI?
Your options could be:
- Simple, lightweight
- Middle of the road
- Lots of eye candy, bloated
- Masochist
Nautilus used to have something very similar to this before they dumbed it down for 2.0.
Document the defaults, and if someone changes it, it's their responsibility to inform any users that may be affected by the change.
Kind of like what GNOME 2 did and why I find it so annoying to use. All of the really useful features (like the task list only showing iconified apps, to name one of many) were taken out.
It's starting to slowly get better, and some options can still be set with the gconf editor, but some are just completely missing...
Some laptops store BIOS settings on a hard disk, and it's a bitch when an OS upgrade braindeads it, or keeps it from suspending, etc...
Yeah, we had a stupid Compaq laptop at work a while back whose BIOS boot order was set to HD only. Then the HD died, so we put in a new one. Only problem -- the Compaq BIOS configuration tool is normally stored on the hard disk (though the settings themselves are in NVRAM). There are utilities you can get from the Compaq web site to re-create the setup partition, you just make some floppies and boot off of them. Oops, the system won't boot off of floppies because the BIOS is defaulting to the hard disk ("Non system disk or disk error"). Great, we now have a paperweight.
We did manage to get the system to boot off the floppies -- by removing the hard drive. So now we can install the Compaq BIOS on the nonexistent drive.
I suppose theoritcally an IDE hot-plug at just the right moment might work, but I don't trust Compaq hardware to not burn out. We did manage to finally get it working by putting the HD in another laptop (a Dell) and running the setup disks on there... Thanks for nothing, Compaq.
Because EFI has its own filing system that lives on a reserved part of the hard disk, it can become the standard home for a whole set of utilities that have always had an awkward fit with the BIOS: things like disk partitioners, multiple OS boot controllers...
So, if EFI lives on the hard disk, how does the boot code get from the hard drive to the memory and into the CPU? Sounds like Intel needs to invent a bootloader for EFI. Since it deals with such basic tasks, they could call it the Basic Input Output System.
oh, wait...
Yes I work for a Non-Bell ILEC and frankly why should "my" infrastructure be used for someone elses profit. I wouldn't like it if Bell tried to bully their way into one of our markets, why should I be allowed to steal from them.
Yeah, the problem is though that the government subsidized the creation of Bell's infrastructure in the first place.
Actually, I just use Mozilla, and turn off popups. I also turn off images and JavaScript in my e-mail.
I love Evolution's option that will show images in emails that are actually embedded in the email, but refuses to go out to the 'net to retrieve any images. And if the mail is from someone you trust, just hit view/message display/load images (or make a toolbar button for it) to load them only for the one email.
99% of real messages use embedded images, and 99% of spam tries to fetch them (and possibly track your address) from somewhere else.
Every mail client should have that option. Except maybe mutt.
I'm not sure about this. NT uses a Hardware Abstraction Layer which should prevent any direct access to any hardware. In order to write a defragmenter for NT, Diskeeper had to write a kernel extension which would give them low level access to the disk.
/dev/ad0c or Linux's /dev/hda0) and read / write anything.
No, the HAL does not prevent direct writes to the disk. An administrator can open the raw disk device ("\\.\PhysicalDrive0" -- the NT equivalent of BSD's
I suspect the reason that a defragmenter would need special kernel support is that the file system driver keeps internal state data and would react, um, badly to the data on the disk changing out from under it. Think blue screen and possibly corrupt filesystem.
However, for areas that aren't directly touched by the FS driver, such as the MBR, unallocated partitions, or partitions for which there is no filesystem driver loaded, like UFS or ext2, this method of access works just fine. A while back I wrote a quick utility to let me tell the FreeBSD bootloader (which lives in the MBR) which partition I want it to default to loading on the next boot. Real handy for accessing dual-boot systems remotely.
Star Trek transporters could be a theoretical possiblity. But replicators cannot exist, because that would involve exact cloning of quantum states, which is impossible.
Not entirely. Star Trek replicators don't create an exact copy of an object, just an approximation. If you scan an object and then replicate it, there are detectable physical differences between the original and the copy on the micro level -- though it's close enough on the macro level that it is a passable substitute. This plays a part in the TNG episode "Mind's Eye" where Data finds memory chips that have been replicated by Romulans.
</geek>
License prohibits binary distribution? Barely legal codecs that Debian can't distribute? No problem!
/usr/ports/multimedia/mplayer
cd
make install
Yay BSD!
Check out DirectNIC.
I don't work for them or know anybody who does, but I've had all my domains on there for a couple years (after getting fed up with Networ... uh I mean Verisi... uh I mean Network Solutions) and have been very happy with the price and performance. Quick and clean management interface.
If you run Windoze and want to piss JWZ off, go download this screensaver. He wasn't too happy when he found out about its existence.
The V Toolkit for C++ had a lot of promise, but sadly it doesn't seem to have been maintained in a while...
They assign a phone number to frame relay?! Geez, which telco is this?
I've always found it annoying to call SBC's support and they ask me for the phone number of the line that's having trouble. I tell them, "It's a T1, all 24 channels are down, and there's no phone number. The circuit ID is XXHCGS......"
And yes, we're running straight data over it, so all 24 are allocated as B channels.
They'll have a single PRI (specifically 23 B channels and 1 D - so 9 PRI's would actually only allow 207 simultanious incoming and outgoing calls - but I digress), and 200 numbers.
;)
You're right -- I forgot about the D channel (d'oh!). If you wanted 200 numbers, but only needed 23 concurrent conversations, then yes, a single PRI would do the trick here.
My post was about doing the opposite. For example, a busy call center that needed up to 200 concurrent calls, but only has a few numbers (say, a master 1-800 number) that people would be calling in on. In the old days you'd have to get 200 numbers and set up a giant hunt group, but with PRIs the numbers can be allocated much more efficiently.
Now, there's nothing that says whoever orders it won't just order a block of 200 numbers too, but that's their fault, not the technology's.
When you move up to T1's, you'll route to extensions via DNIS digits.
That's funny; we have a switched T1 at work using DNIS, and AT&T keeps bugging us to switch it to a PRI. Though the nice thing about it is that I can use the T1 to place calls that show up as "Caller ID Unavailable"
Now if I can just talk then into turning on ANI on that line...
There's only one 'me', so there should only need to be one number.
Do you really want all the people who bug you all day at work to be able to call you at home without any extra effort on their part?
404? I would expect anything in the 404 area code to answer with the three tones and "The number you have dialed cannot be found".
Why does a person need three numbers? Why does a business need 200?
They don't. Pretty much any business with 200 or more phone lines will use PRIs. A PRI is a T1 line (24 channels) to the phone company. So your business would have 9 PRIs coming in, for a total of 216 channels. A PRI channel allows for an outgoing call, but it does NOT have its own phone number. The way it works is that the business buys a block of DID numbers, however many they need, and those get routed over the PRI. An incoming call to one of those numbers uses whatever channel is available and sends a signal to your PBX identifying which number was dialed. This is much more efficient and cost effective than the single line / phone number model.
So no businness in their right mind would have 200 individual phone lines dropped in a single location. It's just inefficient and a management nightmare.
really, I could reboot OS/2 by clicking Ctrl-Alt-Del. Is not it the sign that it is just DOS?
I can reboot Linux by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del, that means it must be based on DOS...
It sounds like it's a mixed mode CD with some control information in the data tracks that is read by Palladium-enabled applications or OSes to control what the user can do with it.
If that's all it is, it's not going to stop anyone from ripping it on pre-Palladium systems, nor from CD players with digital I/O (although that'll only work at single speed).
Sssshhhhhhh!!! Don't tell them that! If the media companies think this is a magic bullet they may opt to use it rather than solutions that violate Red Book and are more difficult to bypass...
Gobbles is the N'Sync of the security world.
...of how to even correctly discharge capacitors while working with them...
:)
Use a screwdriver to short the contacts and watch it go flying across the room?
I can sniff most low end cicso switches....
.
The 2924xl and 2950 allow you to block any mac address except broadcast addresses. So if you you flood the network with packets with one broadcast address and one real mac address you overflow its table it goes into a nice bridge mode. With a decent box it takes nearly two whole minutes to crack a single vendors mac codes.
That's because packet switching is intended to be a performance optimization, not a security measure . Ethernet, even switched ethernet does not guarantee that your packets are not sniffed. On routed networks, it's assumed that they will be seen at a minumum by the routers that the traffic goes through. If your application protocol depends on the lower levels being secure and unsniffable, then your application protocol is broken
If anything, I think Cisco is doing the right thing by ensuring that the failure mode doesn't disrupt the network. Otherwise, filling up the MAC table would lead to a quick and easy DoS attack.
Don't mean to sound harsh but people need to realize that the RFCs that define these protocols (Ethernet/IP) explicitly state that security is the responsibility of the upper layers. That's why IPSEC was invented. I've seen many networks where the network "engineer" is relying on VLANs for a "secure" subnet. VLANs are another feature that was designed for convenience (segmenting broadcast domains for performance reasons) rather than security. Despite several band-aids to try to make VLANs security-conscious, it's still a bad idea to depend on them for that purpose.
Any site that seriously wants to keep part of its material out of the search sites' databases has a tool that does exactly this, and almost all search sites will honor it.
It has other creative uses, too. For example, my robots.txt is a two edged sword that keeps Google from trying to index my recursive spamtrap tarpit, and simultaneously lures in spambots that abuse the standard. (evil grin)