It's hot grits and Natalie Portman naked and petrified. And never mind OGG, you really want OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN and The Glorous MEEPT.
OOG THE CAVEMAN BREAK OPEN SOURCE CD OVER HEAD!
-- OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN
We will unite all the divided factions of Linux into one great big divided faction!
--The Glorious MEEPT
I wonder if I have been reading/. for too long?
Re:IPv6 is a hack
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IANA hasn't been handing out class A blocks "like tap water" for a long time. Sure, some organizations have too many addresses, but these were mainly organizations that pioneered the IP network and were handed these netblocks very early on.
As an AC pointed out in an earlier response, NAT is the hack, not IPv6. It breaks end-to-end connectivity, and you have to jump through lots of hoops to get many protocols to work correctly. NAT was a measure that slowed the need for IPv6, but it didn't remove it.
Re:Mass media distribution
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 1
For DSL, getting this kind of speed is predicated on local loop length. Some major North American providers are now putting in FTTN (or even FTTP) which will make local loop lengths short enough for VDSL, which will get you your 25 Mbps, or even higher. This builds out the infrastructure needed for triple play (data + video + voice).
This hasn't been done previously in North America because getting that much fiber laid wasn't economically feasible here. That is starting to change. It doesn't have anything to do with technology leadership - the technology has been around for a long time, it has just been a cost issue.
I don't think it is so new - it is fixed by 1.0.1. From the description:
Status
The exploit is based on multiple vulnerabilities:
bugzilla.mozilla.org #280664 (fireflashing)
bugzilla.mozilla.org #280056 (firetabbing)
bugzilla.mozilla.org #281807 (firescrolling)
Upgrade to Firefox 1.0.1 or disable javascript.
Try going to http://www.spacedaily.com/ and observe absolute insane shit that FireFox still allows random web sites to do.
I get the little yellow "Firefox prevented this website from opening a pop-up window..." bar using Firefox (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 Firefox/0.10.1).
Re:G4 bought TechTV for one reason ...
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I sincerely hope someone steps up and resurrects some of this content.
Leo Laporte is still doing Call for Help on G4TechTV Canada. We still get a bunch of the content from the US G4TechTV though. Is it illegal to own a Candian satellite receiver in the US?
It took a few hours. I did it the day that the game was released, so I'm not sure if that was because of the 56k connection or overloaded servers at Valve or both.
Which is why most accidents and fatalities involve private pilots with VFR ratings. Their lack of experience or qualifications lands gets them killed when they get into an unfamiliar situation and make a mistake, like JFK Jr.
While people with Airline Transport Pilot's Licenses still make mistakes, they are much fewer and father between because they have 1500 hours of experience and an IFR rating.
THEN what is the probability of dying in a car crash? It's basically the chance of being hit by or running into a random nut.
So you only drive on divided highways during the day in clear weather with a car in excellent mechanical condition, wearing your seatbelt with two hands on the wheel and paying strict attention to the road? Even if you are the perfect driver and never make mistakes (I call BS) have you taken a look at the people driving around you? All it takes is a mistake from one of them and you end up in an accident, maybe even killed.
Bad drivers kill good drivers every day. Even if you take out the single-vehicle drunk driver deaths, it isn't going to make up the several orders of magnitude that airplanes are safer than cars.
Throw all the above variables into a multiple regression, then show me airplanes are "safer," and I'll believe. It won't happen, because the airlines would never fund such a study.
The available evidence states that air travel is safer. How about you look up the statistics and prove that your mythical perfect driver is safer?
I'm sure some poeple on/. are racist, but get a reality check. Most people are just ignorant. If the article was about Canada trying to send a probe to the moon, do you think that most people would have the first clue about the Canadian space program and its accomplishments? I'm sure we'd be getting lots of uninformed comments and jokes (the usual regarding beer, hockey, high taxes or how we pronounce something), but no accusations of racisim.
Just beacuse people don't know anything about the Indian space program or conditions in India in general doesn't make them a racist.
When I install your software on my PC, I have to trust that it is going to do what it is designed to do, not spy on me, irritate me, etc.
Some software is closed source, so you have to gauge how much you trust the company providing it. Non-trivial open source software has the same problem - I'm not going to read the code for Firefox before I use it - I trust the Mozilla foundation.
Real burned people in the past. I know that maybe that wasn't you specifically, or maybe the people who were responsible have left the company. But a piece of software with your company logo on it was downloaded by millions of users who had a horrible experience with it. As a result people don't trust Real, and won't download your software and install it.
Don't try and defend Real's past behaviour - it isn't defensible. What you need to be doing is saying - "hey look we've changed" - no more annoyances, spyware and other junk installed with Real Player. Then you need to give people time to believe you - because if all they remember is the time they installed Real Player in Windows 3 years ago they aren't likely to ever try it again. Kudos for fixing your past mistakes, but don't expect people to forget about them overnight.
There's been some comments on ethics, and how a company "can never be trusted again" after making missteps.
Not everyone is saying you can't be trusted again. Some of us are just saying that is is going to take a while to win back trust. After recently installing Real after several years of not touching it with a 10' pole, I would have to say that I trust installing Real Player again, but I'll be watching closely.
Just because you (or Rob Glaser) say that the old Real Player is a thing of the past doesn't erase the past. I still shudder thinking of installing Real on Windows circa 2000. Realize that some people have been burned enough by Real that they are going to take some convincing to give your software another try.
All that being said, thanks again for Real Player 10 on Linux. Easy install, works as advertised, no annoying junk. Just as it should be.
He avoids answering why Real has taken over your computer by default for the past 5 or so years, insisting that NOW everything is a-okay (arguable).
The question that he was responding to was too vague, but I agree that he dodged the question that should have been asked: "why was Real Player so annoyingly intrusive?" Stealing MIME types, junk all over your registry, startup folder and system tray, spyware, annoying popups, brutal user interface covering in marketing crap trying to get you to buy premium services. All you wanted to do was watch/listen to some media, and putting up with all the crap that Real installed and did wasn't worth it.
It certainly is better today - I gave it a try after the last Real article on/. The Linux install is dead simple, with no attempt to pitch premium services or install junk on your system. The windows install process isn't as good - you still have to endure the pitch for the premium player when you download, and you have to uncheck a lot of boxes to prevent the player from taking over your system. Still, it is better than it used to be - maybe even worth installing if you know what you are doing.
So I guess the real question that should have been asked is after having abused our trust with the old Real Player, how are we ever supposed to trust Real again?
Is this story just one big place for anti-USA FUD or what?
but it seems like foreigners, even english speaking, western world, acceptably 'caucasian' foreigners, often get treated like shit, especially by the authorities
What a bunch of BS. Try talking to any Canadian - many of us are "acceptably caucasian" foreigners. I know dozens of people who travel regularily on business to the US. I personally cross the border several times a year. People know you are Canadian too - you get recognized for your "Canadian accent" in New York for example.
I've never known anyone to be "treated like shit, especially by the authorities". If this was truly a problem, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of Canadians crossing the border every day. Get some perspective.
Re:Who protects us from MS's patents?
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
This patent was filed on March 6th, 1997. What will protect you from their patents is - if you are really scared of Microsoft's patents - you getting off your ass and proving that someone else came up with this before their filing date.
I was using text-based browsers that were doing this in 1994. This patent was just as silly in 1997 as it is today.
The Canadian population is heavily concentrated in several cities that are all close to the US border. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Halifax. The "golden horshoe" area between Toronto and Niagra Falls has a very high population density. See this map for details.
The other thing that we have going for us is that most areas are serviced by one government-granted monopoly for phone service (DSL) and another for cable. So, in the cities, there was good infrastructure in place to build broadband services on.
However, we don't have any 10 or 100mbit fiber to the door, and access in rural areas is still abysmal but improving.
they have 120 custom MS Office-based applications running already, with all the attendant development costs already paid and all the staff already trained, can any OSS zealot really tell us with a straight face that it will be cheaper to switch to OpenOffice?
Depends on how long a period of time you run the cost/benefit analysis over. It quite likely wouldn't be cheaper over the short to medium term.
In some situations it may make perfect sense to go with a Microsoft-based solution (or at least a hybrid solution) from a cost-benefit perspective. But you have to take any study that supports a certain vendor that was paid for by said vendor as a joke. If Microsoft is the better solution here then let them stand on their own merits, and not propped up by marketing literature disguised as an "independent study".
How many large organisations do you really know that have been hit hard because of a bug in Microsoft software?
A couple of years ago when the Microsoft Outlook based worms first started to take off, entire Federal Government departments were knocked off the internet for days while they dealt with the aftermath. IT departments may be wiser now, but don't underestimate the costs (staff, trainging, antivirus software, etc.) of ten years worth of "features ahead of security" from Microsoft. OSS may not be a silver bullet, but any study that paints OSS as "less secure" than Microsoft probably deserves to be laughed at.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hot grits and Natalie Portman naked and petrified. And never mind OGG, you really want OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN and The Glorous MEEPT.
OOG THE CAVEMAN BREAK OPEN SOURCE CD OVER HEAD!-- OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMAN
We will unite all the divided factions of Linux into one great big divided faction!
--The Glorious MEEPT
I wonder if I have been reading /. for too long?
IANA hasn't been handing out class A blocks "like tap water" for a long time. Sure, some organizations have too many addresses, but these were mainly organizations that pioneered the IP network and were handed these netblocks very early on.
As an AC pointed out in an earlier response, NAT is the hack, not IPv6. It breaks end-to-end connectivity, and you have to jump through lots of hoops to get many protocols to work correctly. NAT was a measure that slowed the need for IPv6, but it didn't remove it.
For DSL, getting this kind of speed is predicated on local loop length. Some major North American providers are now putting in FTTN (or even FTTP) which will make local loop lengths short enough for VDSL, which will get you your 25 Mbps, or even higher. This builds out the infrastructure needed for triple play (data + video + voice).
This hasn't been done previously in North America because getting that much fiber laid wasn't economically feasible here. That is starting to change. It doesn't have anything to do with technology leadership - the technology has been around for a long time, it has just been a cost issue.
C'mon Bowie, you know that you can't resist trolling Chris DiBona. Let us know about how Google Code was all your idea until he stole it from you!
Another exploit can out this weekend.
I don't think it is so new - it is fixed by 1.0.1. From the description:
Try going to http://www.spacedaily.com/ and observe absolute insane shit that FireFox still allows random web sites to do.
I get the little yellow "Firefox prevented this website from opening a pop-up window..." bar using Firefox (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 Firefox/0.10.1).
I sincerely hope someone steps up and resurrects some of this content.
Leo Laporte is still doing Call for Help on G4TechTV Canada. We still get a bunch of the content from the US G4TechTV though. Is it illegal to own a Candian satellite receiver in the US?
It took a few hours. I did it the day that the game was released, so I'm not sure if that was because of the 56k connection or overloaded servers at Valve or both.
How big is this patch?
It came down over my 56k connection in a minute or two.
dup
Which is why most accidents and fatalities involve private pilots with VFR ratings. Their lack of experience or qualifications lands gets them killed when they get into an unfamiliar situation and make a mistake, like JFK Jr.
While people with Airline Transport Pilot's Licenses still make mistakes, they are much fewer and father between because they have 1500 hours of experience and an IFR rating.
THEN what is the probability of dying in a car crash? It's basically the chance of being hit by or running into a random nut.
So you only drive on divided highways during the day in clear weather with a car in excellent mechanical condition, wearing your seatbelt with two hands on the wheel and paying strict attention to the road? Even if you are the perfect driver and never make mistakes (I call BS) have you taken a look at the people driving around you? All it takes is a mistake from one of them and you end up in an accident, maybe even killed.
Bad drivers kill good drivers every day. Even if you take out the single-vehicle drunk driver deaths, it isn't going to make up the several orders of magnitude that airplanes are safer than cars.
Throw all the above variables into a multiple regression, then show me airplanes are "safer," and I'll believe. It won't happen, because the airlines would never fund such a study.
The available evidence states that air travel is safer. How about you look up the statistics and prove that your mythical perfect driver is safer?
I'm sure some poeple on /. are racist, but get a reality check. Most people are just ignorant. If the article was about Canada trying to send a probe to the moon, do you think that most people would have the first clue about the Canadian space program and its accomplishments? I'm sure we'd be getting lots of uninformed comments and jokes (the usual regarding beer, hockey, high taxes or how we pronounce something), but no accusations of racisim.
Just beacuse people don't know anything about the Indian space program or conditions in India in general doesn't make them a racist.
Yup, looks like I'll be buying a 6600GT AGP to replace my Ti4400 once they are available in quantity. Then I'll be playing Doom 3 and Farcry again :-)
How much should trust enter into it?
When I install your software on my PC, I have to trust that it is going to do what it is designed to do, not spy on me, irritate me, etc.
Some software is closed source, so you have to gauge how much you trust the company providing it. Non-trivial open source software has the same problem - I'm not going to read the code for Firefox before I use it - I trust the Mozilla foundation.
Real burned people in the past. I know that maybe that wasn't you specifically, or maybe the people who were responsible have left the company. But a piece of software with your company logo on it was downloaded by millions of users who had a horrible experience with it. As a result people don't trust Real, and won't download your software and install it.
Don't try and defend Real's past behaviour - it isn't defensible. What you need to be doing is saying - "hey look we've changed" - no more annoyances, spyware and other junk installed with Real Player. Then you need to give people time to believe you - because if all they remember is the time they installed Real Player in Windows 3 years ago they aren't likely to ever try it again. Kudos for fixing your past mistakes, but don't expect people to forget about them overnight.
There's been some comments on ethics, and how a company "can never be trusted again" after making missteps.
Not everyone is saying you can't be trusted again. Some of us are just saying that is is going to take a while to win back trust. After recently installing Real after several years of not touching it with a 10' pole, I would have to say that I trust installing Real Player again, but I'll be watching closely.
Just because you (or Rob Glaser) say that the old Real Player is a thing of the past doesn't erase the past. I still shudder thinking of installing Real on Windows circa 2000. Realize that some people have been burned enough by Real that they are going to take some convincing to give your software another try.
All that being said, thanks again for Real Player 10 on Linux. Easy install, works as advertised, no annoying junk. Just as it should be.
http://www.blastwave.org
Sun should be doing this themselves - the Solaris package format is inferior and automatic dependency resolution should be expected.
He avoids answering why Real has taken over your computer by default for the past 5 or so years, insisting that NOW everything is a-okay (arguable).
The question that he was responding to was too vague, but I agree that he dodged the question that should have been asked: "why was Real Player so annoyingly intrusive?" Stealing MIME types, junk all over your registry, startup folder and system tray, spyware, annoying popups, brutal user interface covering in marketing crap trying to get you to buy premium services. All you wanted to do was watch/listen to some media, and putting up with all the crap that Real installed and did wasn't worth it.
It certainly is better today - I gave it a try after the last Real article on /. The Linux install is dead simple, with no attempt to pitch premium services or install junk on your system. The windows install process isn't as good - you still have to endure the pitch for the premium player when you download, and you have to uncheck a lot of boxes to prevent the player from taking over your system. Still, it is better than it used to be - maybe even worth installing if you know what you are doing.
So I guess the real question that should have been asked is after having abused our trust with the old Real Player, how are we ever supposed to trust Real again?
...
Alex: No! Good Lord! We would've accepted "bow-wow" or "ruff"!
Sean: Ah, ruff. Just the way your mother likes it.
Is this story just one big place for anti-USA FUD or what?
but it seems like foreigners, even english speaking, western world, acceptably 'caucasian' foreigners, often get treated like shit, especially by the authorities
What a bunch of BS. Try talking to any Canadian - many of us are "acceptably caucasian" foreigners. I know dozens of people who travel regularily on business to the US. I personally cross the border several times a year. People know you are Canadian too - you get recognized for your "Canadian accent" in New York for example.
I've never known anyone to be "treated like shit, especially by the authorities". If this was truly a problem, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of Canadians crossing the border every day. Get some perspective.
This patent was filed on March 6th, 1997. What will protect you from their patents is - if you are really scared of Microsoft's patents - you getting off your ass and proving that someone else came up with this before their filing date.
I was using text-based browsers that were doing this in 1994. This patent was just as silly in 1997 as it is today.
The Canadian population is heavily concentrated in several cities that are all close to the US border. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary, Halifax. The "golden horshoe" area between Toronto and Niagra Falls has a very high population density. See this map for details.
The other thing that we have going for us is that most areas are serviced by one government-granted monopoly for phone service (DSL) and another for cable. So, in the cities, there was good infrastructure in place to build broadband services on.
However, we don't have any 10 or 100mbit fiber to the door, and access in rural areas is still abysmal but improving.
I think I'm going to change my sig to: "MSDN is owned my Microsoft. Don't expect unbiased news there!"
I think that will be a real wakeup to lots of people.
Sync support is planned eventually, but some of us are starting to look at it now.
they have 120 custom MS Office-based applications running already, with all the attendant development costs already paid and all the staff already trained, can any OSS zealot really tell us with a straight face that it will be cheaper to switch to OpenOffice?
Depends on how long a period of time you run the cost/benefit analysis over. It quite likely wouldn't be cheaper over the short to medium term.
In some situations it may make perfect sense to go with a Microsoft-based solution (or at least a hybrid solution) from a cost-benefit perspective. But you have to take any study that supports a certain vendor that was paid for by said vendor as a joke. If Microsoft is the better solution here then let them stand on their own merits, and not propped up by marketing literature disguised as an "independent study".
How many large organisations do you really know that have been hit hard because of a bug in Microsoft software?
A couple of years ago when the Microsoft Outlook based worms first started to take off, entire Federal Government departments were knocked off the internet for days while they dealt with the aftermath. IT departments may be wiser now, but don't underestimate the costs (staff, trainging, antivirus software, etc.) of ten years worth of "features ahead of security" from Microsoft. OSS may not be a silver bullet, but any study that paints OSS as "less secure" than Microsoft probably deserves to be laughed at.