When you install programs on Linux, they go under/usr/bin or/usr/local/bin, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in/bin. Administrative programs go in the equivalent.../sbin directories. Library files go in the equivalent.../lib directories. Application data goes into a/usr/share/ directory, if it has been written to modern standard, or possibly/usr/lib/ if it is older. For programs that might need to be started at boot time, a script goes into/etc/rc.d/init.d to do it.
I just thought... that all sounds like its much more complicated than the Windows equivalent. But it isn't - here's the Windows equivalent:
When you install programs on Windows, they go under c:\Program files\appname, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in c:\windows or c:\windows\system32. Administrative programs sometimes go into c:\windows\system32 and sometimes into a directory under c:\program files, depending on the author's preference. Library files generally go into c:\windows or c:\windows\system32, but are sometimes placed in the same directry as the program. Application data goes into c:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\appname on Windows 2000 or above, and into a similar but different location on other versions. For programs that might need to be started at boot/login time, either an entry is created in the registry or a shortcut is placed in the start menu/programs/startup directory.
I think that makes Windows _more_ complicated, although that's a matter of opinion.
One thing I've always come to expect with Windows is that when I install some software, if I go with the default install it will go into C:/Program Files and there I will find almost all the programs installed on my computer. Linux, up until Gobo, has been harder to predict in this sense.
Are you taking the piss, or what? When you install programs on Linux, they go under/usr/bin or/usr/local/bin, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in/bin. Administrative programs go in the equivalent.../sbin directories. Library files go in the equivalent.../lib directories. Application data goes into a/usr/share/ directory, if it has been written to modern standard, or possibly/usr/lib/ if it is older. For programs that might need to be started at boot time, a script goes into/etc/rc.d/init.d to do it.
This is nearly as simple as the Windows equivalent, and has the advantage that programs are by default installed on the path. (Yes, some of us wish Windows would have a more sensible system for this)
I'm running software RAID-1 on my Pentium 133 MMX and it copes fine. Performance isn't noticeably different in any respect from when I just had one drive in there. That's used for file server, print server, web proxy, e-mail (SMTP + IMAP), web server (local PHP+MySQL development) and occasional work in LaTeX. Oh, and it does NAT routing for all of our small office (3 user) internet traffic.
I'm considering an upgrade at some point. I have a machine with a 350MHz processor that's getting a little slow for modern desktop use, I'll probably switch them at some point, but I don't see much urgency. On the whole, I've found older processors/motherboards to be more reliable than new ones, so I'm hesitant.
I think your problem is unusual, for a few reasons:
1. 120 web pages open at once is a lot more than most people would even consider. I rarely see people with more than 10. I have one colleague who often opens as many as 30; he doesn't complain about CPU usage, although he does frequently complain about Mozilla's memory usage when he does that.
2. Most people still use IE. IE does seem to use less resources when idle than Mozilla.
3. Very few people would _notice_ 10% cpu usage. You must be executing some demanding apps for that to be a problem.
The bottom line is that if you could trick users into running a Perl script that came through email, which wouldn't be that difficult for a certain percentage of them
The more complicated the instructions, the smaller that percentage, I'd be willing to bet. Why? Because the more text there is, the more chance there is that you'd like at it and say, "But xxx who sent it to me wouldn't write that."
While "Could you look at this and let me know what you think?" is something maybe 70% of English speakers would write, and of the other 30% very few would be spotted, a list of technical instructions is much more likely to seem wrong.
Unfortunately there isn't a program to stop the user being stupid. No matter which e-mail client is used, they all allow attachments, and without a virus scanner screening those attachments, computer illiterate users are going to get virii.
This all comes back to one design flaw in DOS, and one in the Windows shell.
DOS used filename extensions to distinguish between executable programs and documents, rather than a filesystem flag. At the time, this wasn't recognised as a flaw, despite the fact that other systems (eg Unix) used the flag approach. DOS wasn't designed for use in the kind of environment Unix was designed for. But, it did mean that any form of file transfer that preserves the name can create an executable file.
Windows multiplied this error by having a single function, ShellOpen, which is used to perform two distinctly different actions: open a document, and execute a program. Of course it followed the DOS convention of using the filename to work out which to do.
This tempted extensions to windows where code was executed using the mechanism intended for opening documents (eg, if you call ShellOpen with a.vbs file it will be executed).
These two actions should have been kept separate. And under Unix-style systems they are. I'll admit that Unix by default doesn't provide a document open facility, but there are various common extensions that do, and most of them avoid the mistake in question.
This means:
1. It is _impossible_ for a Windows application to tell if opening a file will cause it to be displayed or executed unless it has knowledge about the file type in question. This means that in order to prevent an attachment from executing, the only feasible way forward is to maintain a list of 'known safe' extensions. While these _could_ be subverted by the user installing unusual applications, this is a side case that is probably not worth worrying about.
This, I believe, is the approach taken by recent versions of Outlook Express. Most users switch the behaviour off. Why? Because the file type list is incomplete, and prevents them from receiving certain types of file that are safe and that they want to be able to receive.
2. Unix-based mail clients don't have the same problem. When they receive an executable attachment, they either (a) don't have an associated document open facility, so just save the file, following which the user would have to explicitly make it executable before it could be executed, or (b) have the file associated to a text editor if it is written in a scripting language. Some applications could install document open facilities that execute, but this is unusual and is effectively the same as the side case dismissed in (1) anyway.
In recent versions of Outlook, executable attachments cannot be opened or saved without messing with the registry. There is nowhere in the configuration interface to alter this behaviour.
While I admit that I don't have the _most_ recent version, my version has an option under Tools/Options/Security labelled "Do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus". It is checked by default, but it is easy to switch off. And its definition of "could potentially be a virus" seems to extend to file types that I regularly exchange via e-mail, including PDF documents.
Yes. The problem is, that they don't let you open _any_ attachments. So, when somebody e-mails you a PDF and you can't open it, what do you do? You switch the feature off, because it's the only damned way of getting to the document.
No, a double fault is an exception in a kernel-level exception handler, and as such would probably cause a panic. A triple fault causes instant reboot.
Photographers are, in my experience, often ignorant of IP law.
If you hire a photographer to take photographs for you, unless you are informed by the photographer before he takes them then that is a work for hire. The copyright is automatically assigned to you when you pay him.
I did some work (for a firm of IP lawyers no less!) where the photographer basically said 'screw you, these photos were taken for web use, you can't print copies of them'. We told him what he could do, and that if he wanted to sue the firm he could try if he thought he was hard enough. He didn't.
Sometimes a company may cease distributing a product because they want to focus consumer attention on their new offerings.
However, I definately support returning the ownership of IP to the employees that authored it...assuming their employer went out of business.
Apparently, it is common in the book publishing industry for the copyright to remain with the author, who just grants an exclusive license to the publisher. This license has terms that allow it to be revoked if the book is out of print for a long period (about 5 years, I think), at which point the author can try to sell it to another publisher.
Some publishers are trying to work around this using print-on-demand technologies to keep books "in print" all the time.
Given that Pascal 7 doesn't work any more (it gives a runtime error when you try to run the install program on anything > about 300MHz processor, because it calibrates a delay loop and gets a zero), there's not a lot of point in Borland selling it.
Yes, I have an original copy of BP7 with all disks still working, and tried to install it last year. There's a hack you can download that makes programs you compiled with it work, but that doesn't help you install the damned thing.
Some people have suggested a system where the loser pays the winner's legal fees, but there are problems with that also. Someone with a legitimate but hard-to-prove claim may not have the financial resources to risk losing.
We have a system a little like this in the UK, and I think it works very well. Cost awards aren't _always_ given, but they usually are if the case is very onesided. Like the ones in question would be; it essentially means you can't get away with threatening legal action on a case that has no merit whatsoever. But if there's any real contest, both parties usually end up paying their own costs.
Small claims ( GBP 5,000 = about $8,000 US) have limited costs which most people should be able to afford, and there is state aid for those who can't.
Actually, that should be anti-money-laundering regulations. I've never even considered laundering anti-money before now. Although that does coincide quite nicely with credit cards, as originally discussed.
Seriously, does anyone have experience with trying to use MPlayer on the site with the windows codecs installed?
I'm not certain, I use a very old version of mplayer myself, but I don't believe it implements the DRM aspects of the more recent versions of media player, so probably not.
why only UK, France, Germany and Italy? What about us in the rest of Europe?
Interesting question. Did you know that offering a product with restrictions based on residence in a particular country in Europe is illegal under EU regulations? The EU Ombudsman may be interested in this case.
The article states that OD2 is "Europe's leading music download firm", and I've never heard of the company - which might explain why the service will not be available in my country...
It seems from the Register's story that they've been operating a service that's co-branded with Coca Cola (I think I remember seeing something about it somewhere before, never paid much attention), so they've probably not used their own name to market it before.
All ISPs have a techy that constantly reads slashdot. He looks for articles that link to sites on their servers, and when he spots one, he pulls the plug.
Slashdot Mirror
When you install programs on Linux, they go under /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in /bin. Administrative programs go in the equivalent .../sbin directories. Library files go in the equivalent .../lib directories. Application data goes into a /usr/share/ directory, if it has been written to modern standard, or possibly /usr/lib/ if it is older. For programs that might need to be started at boot time, a script goes into /etc/rc.d/init.d to do it.
I just thought... that all sounds like its much more complicated than the Windows equivalent. But it isn't - here's the Windows equivalent:
When you install programs on Windows, they go under c:\Program files\appname, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in c:\windows or c:\windows\system32. Administrative programs sometimes go into c:\windows\system32 and sometimes into a directory under c:\program files, depending on the author's preference. Library files generally go into c:\windows or c:\windows\system32, but are sometimes placed in the same directry as the program. Application data goes into c:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\appname on Windows 2000 or above, and into a similar but different location on other versions. For programs that might need to be started at boot/login time, either an entry is created in the registry or a shortcut is placed in the start menu/programs/startup directory.
I think that makes Windows _more_ complicated, although that's a matter of opinion.
One thing I've always come to expect with Windows is that when I install some software, if I go with the default install it will go into C:/Program Files and there I will find almost all the programs installed on my computer. Linux, up until Gobo, has been harder to predict in this sense.
/usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, unless they're a core system program in which case they go in /bin. Administrative programs go in the equivalent .../sbin directories. Library files go in the equivalent .../lib directories. Application data goes into a /usr/share/ directory, if it has been written to modern standard, or possibly /usr/lib/ if it is older. For programs that might need to be started at boot time, a script goes into /etc/rc.d/init.d to do it.
Are you taking the piss, or what? When you install programs on Linux, they go under
This is nearly as simple as the Windows equivalent, and has the advantage that programs are by default installed on the path. (Yes, some of us wish Windows would have a more sensible system for this)
Unless you have an ancient CPU, you'll be fine.
I'm running software RAID-1 on my Pentium 133 MMX and it copes fine. Performance isn't noticeably different in any respect from when I just had one drive in there. That's used for file server, print server, web proxy, e-mail (SMTP + IMAP), web server (local PHP+MySQL development) and occasional work in LaTeX. Oh, and it does NAT routing for all of our small office (3 user) internet traffic.
I'm considering an upgrade at some point. I have a machine with a 350MHz processor that's getting a little slow for modern desktop use, I'll probably switch them at some point, but I don't see much urgency. On the whole, I've found older processors/motherboards to be more reliable than new ones, so I'm hesitant.
I think your problem is unusual, for a few reasons:
1. 120 web pages open at once is a lot more than most people would even consider. I rarely see people with more than 10. I have one colleague who often opens as many as 30; he doesn't complain about CPU usage, although he does frequently complain about Mozilla's memory usage when he does that.
2. Most people still use IE. IE does seem to use less resources when idle than Mozilla.
3. Very few people would _notice_ 10% cpu usage. You must be executing some demanding apps for that to be a problem.
Until it was adopted by enough sites that it was necessary to have one.
Of course, few people would want to be early adopters, because the potential market would be small.
It is an idea I've considered before. I don't think the world's ready for it yet.
having AV software & keeping it up to date is even MORE of an integral part of the experience
Me, I always thought that getting viruses was an integral part of it.
The bottom line is that if you could trick users into running a Perl script that came through email, which wouldn't be that difficult for a certain percentage of them
The more complicated the instructions, the smaller that percentage, I'd be willing to bet. Why? Because the more text there is, the more chance there is that you'd like at it and say, "But xxx who sent it to me wouldn't write that."
While "Could you look at this and let me know what you think?" is something maybe 70% of English speakers would write, and of the other 30% very few would be spotted, a list of technical instructions is much more likely to seem wrong.
Unfortunately there isn't a program to stop the user being stupid. No matter which e-mail client is used, they all allow attachments, and without a virus scanner screening those attachments, computer illiterate users are going to get virii.
.vbs file it will be executed).
This all comes back to one design flaw in DOS, and one in the Windows shell.
DOS used filename extensions to distinguish between executable programs and documents, rather than a filesystem flag. At the time, this wasn't recognised as a flaw, despite the fact that other systems (eg Unix) used the flag approach. DOS wasn't designed for use in the kind of environment Unix was designed for. But, it did mean that any form of file transfer that preserves the name can create an executable file.
Windows multiplied this error by having a single function, ShellOpen, which is used to perform two distinctly different actions: open a document, and execute a program. Of course it followed the DOS convention of using the filename to work out which to do.
This tempted extensions to windows where code was executed using the mechanism intended for opening documents (eg, if you call ShellOpen with a
These two actions should have been kept separate. And under Unix-style systems they are. I'll admit that Unix by default doesn't provide a document open facility, but there are various common extensions that do, and most of them avoid the mistake in question.
This means:
1. It is _impossible_ for a Windows application to tell if opening a file will cause it to be displayed or executed unless it has knowledge about the file type in question. This means that in order to prevent an attachment from executing, the only feasible way forward is to maintain a list of 'known safe' extensions. While these _could_ be subverted by the user installing unusual applications, this is a side case that is probably not worth worrying about.
This, I believe, is the approach taken by recent versions of Outlook Express. Most users switch the behaviour off. Why? Because the file type list is incomplete, and prevents them from receiving certain types of file that are safe and that they want to be able to receive.
2. Unix-based mail clients don't have the same problem. When they receive an executable attachment, they either (a) don't have an associated document open facility, so just save the file, following which the user would have to explicitly make it executable before it could be executed, or (b) have the file associated to a text editor if it is written in a scripting language. Some applications could install document open facilities that execute, but this is unusual and is effectively the same as the side case dismissed in (1) anyway.
In recent versions of Outlook, executable attachments cannot be opened or saved without messing with the registry. There is nowhere in the configuration interface to alter this behaviour.
While I admit that I don't have the _most_ recent version, my version has an option under Tools/Options/Security labelled "Do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus". It is checked by default, but it is easy to switch off. And its definition of "could potentially be a virus" seems to extend to file types that I regularly exchange via e-mail, including PDF documents.
Yes. The problem is, that they don't let you open _any_ attachments. So, when somebody e-mails you a PDF and you can't open it, what do you do? You switch the feature off, because it's the only damned way of getting to the document.
Err... no. XDAs run wince.
No, a double fault is an exception in a kernel-level exception handler, and as such would probably cause a panic. A triple fault causes instant reboot.
Photographers are, in my experience, often ignorant of IP law.
If you hire a photographer to take photographs for you, unless you are informed by the photographer before he takes them then that is a work for hire. The copyright is automatically assigned to you when you pay him.
I did some work (for a firm of IP lawyers no less!) where the photographer basically said 'screw you, these photos were taken for web use, you can't print copies of them'. We told him what he could do, and that if he wanted to sue the firm he could try if he thought he was hard enough. He didn't.
Sometimes a company may cease distributing a product because they want to focus consumer attention on their new offerings.
However, I definately support returning the ownership of IP to the employees that authored it...assuming their employer went out of business.
Apparently, it is common in the book publishing industry for the copyright to remain with the author, who just grants an exclusive license to the publisher. This license has terms that allow it to be revoked if the book is out of print for a long period (about 5 years, I think), at which point the author can try to sell it to another publisher.
Some publishers are trying to work around this using print-on-demand technologies to keep books "in print" all the time.
Given that Pascal 7 doesn't work any more (it gives a runtime error when you try to run the install program on anything > about 300MHz processor, because it calibrates a delay loop and gets a zero), there's not a lot of point in Borland selling it.
Yes, I have an original copy of BP7 with all disks still working, and tried to install it last year. There's a hack you can download that makes programs you compiled with it work, but that doesn't help you install the damned thing.
And also note that if they ever want to sue anybody for copying them, they'll need to register.
;)
Not that anyone would want to, but hell, there's a principle at stake
Some people have suggested a system where the loser pays the winner's legal fees, but there are problems with that also. Someone with a legitimate but hard-to-prove claim may not have the financial resources to risk losing.
We have a system a little like this in the UK, and I think it works very well. Cost awards aren't _always_ given, but they usually are if the case is very onesided. Like the ones in question would be; it essentially means you can't get away with threatening legal action on a case that has no merit whatsoever. But if there's any real contest, both parties usually end up paying their own costs.
Small claims ( GBP 5,000 = about $8,000 US) have limited costs which most people should be able to afford, and there is state aid for those who can't.
What's toothing? Or do I not want to know?
I wrote: Anti-money laundering regulations.
Actually, that should be anti-money-laundering regulations. I've never even considered laundering anti-money before now. Although that does coincide quite nicely with credit cards, as originally discussed.
I'm rambling. I'll stop now.
You can't get a UK credit card without a UK address, and probably an entry on the UK electoral register.
Anti-money laundering regulations.
Seriously, does anyone have experience with trying to use MPlayer on the site with the windows codecs installed?
I'm not certain, I use a very old version of mplayer myself, but I don't believe it implements the DRM aspects of the more recent versions of media player, so probably not.
OD2 is an accredited Microsoft Solutions Provider
Well, I'm impressed. What does this mean, that they've got a few MCSEs working for them?
why only UK, France, Germany and Italy? What about us in the rest of Europe?
Interesting question. Did you know that offering a product with restrictions based on residence in a particular country in Europe is illegal under EU regulations? The EU Ombudsman may be interested in this case.
The article states that OD2 is "Europe's leading music download firm", and I've never heard of the company - which might explain why the service will not be available in my country...
It seems from the Register's story that they've been operating a service that's co-branded with Coca Cola (I think I remember seeing something about it somewhere before, never paid much attention), so they've probably not used their own name to market it before.
All ISPs have a techy that constantly reads slashdot. He looks for articles that link to sites on their servers, and when he spots one, he pulls the plug.
Hell, you can crash NT without the benefit of a compiler.