Doug was using the buttons on his "keypad" to type, as well as issue commands. It has a very limited input set, not as large as a standard keyboard. But, within that input set, some people have been able to get about 25 words per minute.
It works like this: each individual key has a value. And each combination of keys has a value. So, for example, pressing the button under your thumb may correspond to the letter "a". While your other fingers may be "b", "c", "d", and "e". Pressing both your first and second finger may input an "f". Pressing your first and third finger may input a "g".
If I remembered enough combinatorial mathematics, I could tell you how many combinations there are in 5 buttons. But, I'll just leave it as something between 26 (the alphabet) and 110 (a normal keyboard).
On a side note, I'm really glad to see that this video is getting such wide distribution. I haven't seen it in a while. But in case they don't mention it, this was done across a wireless network! The packets were transmitted between trucks parked on top of hills.
They gave some high school kids a bunch of these modules, and some lectures, and access to PARC people to bother with questions. The students came up with some pretty incredible stuff.
I don't have any urls for their work, but here is the PARC Forum announcement:
WIGGLEBOT, STRIKER, ARTBOT, ROAMER, AND NOX:
TEENAGE ADVENTURES IN MODULAR ROBOTICS
Apprentices from the Institute for Educational Advancement
Xerox PARC Forum
Thursday, August 09, 2001
4:00-5:00PM
George Pake Auditorium, Xerox PARC
Abstract:
This summer PARC participated in a project involving 10 exceptional high
school students from around the country, a few computers, a few PARC
scientists, and some advanced robotic modules. The program, one of several
sponsored by the Institute for Educational Advancement
(www.educationaladvancement.org), is based on an apprenticeship model for
learning, with mentors and hosts drawn from corporations, universities, fine
arts workshops, and other institutions.
In our two-week-long program, the students learned enough Java programming,
machining, and mechanical engineering skills to design and build 5 different
autonomous robots each made of up to 10 individually controlled "polybot"
modules. On the way, we lectured them, put them into discussion groups with
school administrators, took field trips to local robotics research labs, and
had them present their work alongside Ph.D candidate research projects.
There were many late night work sessions, and the robot designs that emerged
were surprising and exceptionally creative. It was all great fun for both
the students and the mentors.
At the forum, some of the students will return to present the results of
their work and their thoughts. We will also present, after brief (4 days)
reflection, some thoughts on the program and some thoughts on the
structuring of educational experiences of this kind.
Speakers:
Apprentices and Mentors from the Institute for Educational Advancement
(www.educationaladvancement.org)
I posted this to Bugtraq just before Aleph1 cut the thread off. I think it points out how much of a ignorant troll the original poster was.
To: rms@privacyfoundation.org (Richard M. Smith)
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Richard M. Smith (rms@privacyfoundation.org)wrote:
> However one thing is now crystal clear with Code Red: full-disclosure
> comes with one of hell of a price tag. There has to be a better way.
>
> Richard
Wrong. A blatant lie by omission.
Full-disclosure + inaction carries a price. Full disclosure, by itself,
helps anyone who acts on the information. It only hurts those who ignore
it.
Fact: On June 18, Eeye released a very clear and comprehensive warning about
this vulnerability. AND a link to the patch. That is to say, the
patch was available at the time of the warning. And a URL to the
patch was supplied *in* the warning.
Fact: According to Marc Maiffret (the writer of the original warning)
"the CodeRed worm and hsj.ida exploit were technically superior
to anything that we (eEye) discussed in our.ida advisory. They
did not use ANY technique that had anything to do with our advisory."
Fact: IIS is buggy, and a good sysadmin doesn't run a public IIS server
without good cause and some forethought. (which implies a plan for
frequent patching, and a way to stay informed about security bugs)
And, from these facts, I conclude that installation of a buggy webserver
followed by inattention to even the most common security practices carries
one hell of a price tag. Full disclosure, however, has given those of
us who were paying attention the opportunity to patch, filter, or shut down our servers long before most of the infections occurred.
The only better way to get this done would be to release a worm to all
of the machines in all of our router logs, which would patch the
vulnerability and mail the technical contact for the domain. But I'll
bet the lawyers would feast on the entrails of whatever martyr was kind
enough to do us all such a service.
This is the standard practice on Bugtraq. Give the vendor early warning, and some reasonable time to fix the problem (say at least two weeks, or two months or something). And then only post to Bugtraq AFTER the patch is released, or if the company ignores your warning.
In fact, Marc (the one who posted the original warning from Eeye) included a link to the already available patch in his warning. And he waited another three days to post the exploit code.
Full Disclosure is not about giving tools to script kiddies. It is about giving incentive to vendors, and peace of mind to White Hats.
--Rabid Mongoose Boy (very rabid over that shite which was posted on bugtraq)
I implemented pretty much the same thing in 96
or 97. Unfortunately, it was on a private (member login) site which has since died. However, I
may be able to scare up some backups if it becomes important.
I can't believe they thought this was a patentable idea. I mean, I almost used someone *else's* code
instead of writing my own. But theirs didn't have
all the features I wanted.
Makes me wonder if I shouldn't be filing for a patent every time I write a new perl script. Because it was at about that time that I did a mock up for someone of a video selling website
which could have easily been called One Click
Video Shopping.
They call this stuff Truly Innovative? Wankers!
--RMB
If I buy a CD, can I listen to only the third track, every time I play the CD?... Yes.
If I buy a DVD, can I watch only the third chapter, every time I play the DVD?... No. You're going to see the freakin intro whether you like it or not.
If I like track 2, but I don't like that annoying bit where she does that thing with her voice, can I edit it out on a 2nd gen copy?... Yes.
on SDMI or DVD?... you can't be serious.
Here's a simple one that DVD got right, but SDMI probably won't: "I fully intend to overplay this song like a bad top 40 station. My CD will play at home, in my car, and at work. Will the SDMI standard include inter-operability?"... Nope. You're at the mercy of the manufacturer. (1)
Etc. Etc. Etc.
This SDMI really is sounding as dumb as divx.
And if they want us to believe that they are doing all of this just to protect the rights of the artitsts, they obviously haven't figured out that they are no longer talking to a bunch of webtv addicts.
> the record company looses a lot of money on artists that don't go anywhere.
Sure. But if 9 out of 10 artist are a complete loss, and 9 out of 10 successful artists have all the musical quality and value of Britney Spears, then who's really getting screwed here?
<digression> Basically, when you pay 16.66 for a CD, you are paying the record company to market boring shit to you in an effort to fill their pockets. Do you really think anyone in the record companies (NOTE: not the artists, producers, etc., but the record companies) gives a shit about music? It's a product to them. A commodity! Not art. They wouldn't care if it was widgets or grapefruits, as long as they had the same monopoly over it; and could make the same profits from the monopoly.
From radio stations to retailers, the record companies have forcibly arranged things in order to maintain complete control of the way music is distributed in the US.
You wanna sell millions of CDs? You gotta be on radio.
You wanna be on radio? You gotta be on the radio programming company's list.
You wanna be on that list? You gotta be promoted by one of the big labels?.
You wanna be promoted by one of the big labels? You gotta sign a contract with them.
You wanna sign a contract? You gotta work your ass off for the privilege of giving up shitloads of rights.
The system sucks. The record companies know it. And they have no intention of changing it, because it favors them by a landslide.
So the record company loses alot of money on artists that don't get popular enough for the company to screw the artist out of 99.9 percent of the profits. So what? Let the record companies get bent over for once, instead of the consumer. See how they like it on the receiving end without the KY. We shouldn't care if the record companies (not the artists) get fleeced, and here's why. </digression>
If the record companies lose money on 9 of 10 bands, then they should think about promoting good bands instead of guessing what will be popular. I don't pretend to know how to fix their fucked up system. I don't intend to make any suggestions which will help them.
I suggest that we simply ignore them.
Think about this.
You read slashdot, so there's a pretty good chance that you have an internet connection which will support a reasonably-good music stream.
Do you listen to the radio? I mean really. You've got a cd player in your car, and at your house. You've got (or could have) a whole shitload of legal mp3s from your own cd collection. If you do listen to the radio, either you know of a great station that I've never heard of, or you secretly adore the BackDoor Boys and think to yourself "how talented that little Spears girl is".
If you listen to internet radio, have you EVER tuned in to a station run by a record company? (if not, don't bother they suck like radio with blinking ad banners)
The point is, record companies couldn't get away with selling their cruft for 16.66 a disc in an open market. Hell, they can barely get away with it in their current closed market. I want to buy a cd from them. And I can't because the radio station didn't even tell me the artist who did the ONE FUCKING SONG that I have liked on the radio in the last 3 months. Too busy wanking off to pictures of themselves in the DJ booth, I suppose.
Radio sucks. The internet is acquiring more users faster than it should (a rant for a different time). And maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to design a system where you can listen to new music that doesn't suck; then buy it for a reasonable price; and know that the artist is actually going to see more than a couple pennies of the money you paid.
Shoutcast is a start. great idea. Nearly great implementation. But this is the internet, people. I shouldn't have to sift through god knows how many channels just to find new music that I'll like. How about a search engine? What if I could tell some program that I like the bands X, Y, and Z; then the program says "these 6 channels which play X, Y, and Z. These other 4 channels contain at least one of X, Y, and Z listed as influences or related music." Of course, everyone's playlists would have to be online. But we're close to that alredy. And what if the admins of the channels not only had their playlists online, but the playlists included links to sites that would sell you that hard-2-find and yet killer track thay you heard on Channel Z? (thanks to those of you who got that reference.)
Mp3.com is a start. But they are falling prey to a bunch of crap that makes them less attractive to serious artist who want to be heard. I don't care who the top ten downloaded songs are. Popularity and rankings based on how many CDs you sold through mp3.com don't matter to me.
Conclusion:
The current promotion/distribution system is hopelessly broken. The net has a chance to relieve it of some of its usefullness. We (the informed, the loudmouthed anarchists, the hackers who helped make the net what it is) need to quit bitching and use the net to solve the problem instead of creating new ones.
Can moderators really remove a post from/. ? Or do they just moderate it down to a level where it falls below the radar all but the most masochistic of readers?
What do you mean "crippled like the Rio"? I've got a PMP300se, and I can copy to *or* from the rio... in linux, of course. I'll bet it can't be done in windows.:)
This approach DOES NOT require decompressing and recompressing. It is NOT a tap of the unencrypted stream.
The following is a copy of a later article on dmusic.com refuting the misconception created by the Wired Article. I'm posting it here to quiet the flames, and because dmusic looks like they've been nearly slashdotted to death.
Microsoft's response to UNFUCK.EXE by Angelo on August 18, 1999 Microsoft's attempt at an encrypted format has been broken, and that's truely unfortunate but really not their fault. As explained in our previous article, the CIA and the NSA put limitations on how encrypted a format may be.
To protect ourselves, and the integrity of our reports, we feel the need to respond to Microsoft when they say unfuck.exe is no different from a program named audiojacker or total recorder which takes audio from your sound card and converts it to a WAV file. This has nothing to do with what UNFUCK.EXE does! UNFUCK.EXE actaully breaks the protection on any file. There is no loss in quality, the file isn't re-recorded or captured in some way.
A crack is just that, a crack. It's not manipulating the audio in such a way that it can be captured, it is actaully destroying the protected [sic] on an already recorded audio file.
We just wanted to clear that up as to not cause any confusion and sustain our reputable name.
>> someone on/. is asking about large scale email handling. I was going to >> mention that you guys do this and use FreeBSD. I thought I'd ask you or let >> you post rather than getting your site slashdotted. --me > Large-scale in our terms means millions. Also, we use FreeBSD in some > places, but most of our service runs on Solaris. And, we sell service, > but not our software, so I don't think we'd suit this guy's needs. > >25,000 is (assuming typical usage patterns) within the capability of one >powerful Linux or *BSD box. Use NT, and you'll need a cluster. =) --he
I don't have the experience to comment on wanting XFS. But I'm personally not looking forward to XFS under linux, because it leads me to think of xfsdump, which leads me to think of xfsrestore, which brings me to tears.
I just went through two consecutive xfsrestore nighmares where it appeared that xfsdump had worked properly, but xfsrestore could not read the backup tape in one case, and only found some of the files in annother case.
To their credit, SGI's tech support worked *very* hard with us to recover the data. But we never got it back.
Drop record industry sites from search DB.
on
Lycos Mp3 Lawsuit?
·
· Score: 1
Here Here! This is a wonderfully subtle idea which makes excellent use of natural market forces!
Does anyone really believe that record sales have dropped as a result of mp3 dispersion? I, personally, am buying more cds now that I am exposed to so much new music on the net.
Suing the search engine is alot like suing a map maker for providing a map of a part of town where drug sales occur. I.E., a far strech for such a short-sighted group.
I use Redhat 5.2, and Have a Toshiba Somethingorother. Its got onboard sound and video. The video is S3Virge and the sound is Yamaha OPL(3?). Video drivers under Redhat are fine, and I just got sound working the other day *without* re-compiling the kernel.
I would't recommend that you get an integrated motherboard on a whim like I did. (I got lucky) But chipset support is getting much better, so if you do your homework, you should be able to get a motherboard with supported, integrated sound/video.
PS: x11amp ROX! Streaming mp3 was the only reason I bothered with sound in the first place.:]
Slashdot Mirror
Doug was using the buttons on his "keypad" to type, as well as issue commands. It has a very limited input set, not as large as a standard keyboard. But, within that input set, some people have been able to get about 25 words per minute.
It works like this: each individual key has a value. And each combination of keys has a value. So, for example, pressing the button under your thumb may correspond to the letter "a". While your other fingers may be "b", "c", "d", and "e".
Pressing both your first and second finger may input an "f". Pressing your first and third finger may input a "g".
If I remembered enough combinatorial mathematics, I could tell you how many combinations there are in 5 buttons. But, I'll just leave it as something between 26 (the alphabet) and 110 (a normal keyboard).
On a side note, I'm really glad to see that this video is getting such wide distribution. I haven't seen it in a while. But in case they don't mention it, this was done across a wireless network! The packets were transmitted between trucks parked on top of hills.
RMB
Forum about a month ago on this topic.
They gave some high school kids a bunch of these modules, and some lectures, and access to PARC people to bother with questions. The students came up with some pretty incredible stuff.
I don't have any urls for their work, but here is the PARC Forum announcement:
WIGGLEBOT, STRIKER, ARTBOT, ROAMER, AND NOX:
TEENAGE ADVENTURES IN MODULAR ROBOTICS
Apprentices from the Institute for Educational Advancement
Xerox PARC Forum
Thursday, August 09, 2001
4:00-5:00PM
George Pake Auditorium, Xerox PARC
Abstract:
This summer PARC participated in a project involving 10 exceptional high
school students from around the country, a few computers, a few PARC
scientists, and some advanced robotic modules. The program, one of several
sponsored by the Institute for Educational Advancement
(www.educationaladvancement.org), is based on an apprenticeship model for
learning, with mentors and hosts drawn from corporations, universities, fine
arts workshops, and other institutions.
In our two-week-long program, the students learned enough Java programming,
machining, and mechanical engineering skills to design and build 5 different
autonomous robots each made of up to 10 individually controlled "polybot"
modules. On the way, we lectured them, put them into discussion groups with
school administrators, took field trips to local robotics research labs, and
had them present their work alongside Ph.D candidate research projects.
There were many late night work sessions, and the robot designs that emerged
were surprising and exceptionally creative. It was all great fun for both
the students and the mentors.
At the forum, some of the students will return to present the results of
their work and their thoughts. We will also present, after brief (4 days)
reflection, some thoughts on the program and some thoughts on the
structuring of educational experiences of this kind.
Speakers:
Apprentices and Mentors from the Institute for Educational Advancement
(www.educationaladvancement.org)
To: rms@privacyfoundation.org (Richard M. Smith)
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Richard M. Smith (rms@privacyfoundation.org)wrote:
> However one thing is now crystal clear with Code Red: full-disclosure
> comes with one of hell of a price tag. There has to be a better way.
>
> Richard
Wrong. A blatant lie by omission.
Full-disclosure + inaction carries a price. Full disclosure, by itself,
helps anyone who acts on the information. It only hurts those who ignore
it.
Fact: On June 18, Eeye released a very clear and comprehensive warning about
this vulnerability. AND a link to the patch. That is to say, the
patch was available at the time of the warning. And a URL to the
patch was supplied *in* the warning.
Fact: According to Marc Maiffret (the writer of the original warning)
"the CodeRed worm and hsj
to anything that we (eEye) discussed in our
did not use ANY technique that had anything to do with our advisory."
Fact: IIS is buggy, and a good sysadmin doesn't run a public IIS server
without good cause and some forethought. (which implies a plan for
frequent patching, and a way to stay informed about security bugs)
And, from these facts, I conclude that installation of a buggy webserver
followed by inattention to even the most common security practices carries
one hell of a price tag. Full disclosure, however, has given those of
us who were paying attention the opportunity to patch, filter, or shut down our servers long before most of the infections occurred.
The only better way to get this done would be to release a worm to all
of the machines in all of our router logs, which would patch the
vulnerability and mail the technical contact for the domain. But I'll
bet the lawyers would feast on the entrails of whatever martyr was kind
enough to do us all such a service.
--RMB
In fact, Marc (the one who posted the original warning from Eeye) included a link to the already available patch in his warning. And he waited another three days to post the exploit code.
Full Disclosure is not about giving tools to script kiddies. It is about giving incentive to vendors, and peace of mind to White Hats. --Rabid Mongoose Boy (very rabid over that shite which was posted on bugtraq)
I can't believe they thought this was a patentable idea. I mean, I almost used someone *else's* code instead of writing my own. But theirs didn't have all the features I wanted.
Makes me wonder if I shouldn't be filing for a patent every time I write a new perl script. Because it was at about that time that I did a mock up for someone of a video selling website which could have easily been called One Click Video Shopping.
They call this stuff Truly Innovative? Wankers! --RMB
If I buy a DVD, can I watch only the third chapter, every time I play the DVD? ... No. You're going to see the freakin intro whether you like it or not.
If I like track 2, but I don't like that annoying bit where she does that thing with her voice, can I edit it out on a 2nd gen copy? ... Yes.
on SDMI or DVD? ... you can't be serious.
Here's a simple one that DVD got right, but SDMI probably won't: "I fully intend to overplay this song like a bad top 40 station. My CD will play at home, in my car, and at work. Will the SDMI standard include inter-operability?" ... Nope. You're at the mercy of the manufacturer. (1)
Etc. Etc. Etc.
This SDMI really is sounding as dumb as divx.
And if they want us to believe that they are doing all of this just to protect the rights of the artitsts, they obviously haven't figured out that they are no longer talking to a bunch of webtv addicts.
(1) http://slashdot.org/askslash dot/00/02/02/1124200.shtml
Sure.
But if 9 out of 10 artist are a complete loss, and 9 out of 10 successful artists have all the musical quality and value of Britney Spears, then who's really getting screwed here?
<digression>
Basically, when you pay 16.66 for a CD, you are paying the record company to market boring shit to you in an effort to fill their pockets. Do you really think anyone in the record companies (NOTE: not the artists, producers, etc., but the record companies) gives a shit about music? It's a product to them. A commodity! Not art. They wouldn't care if it was widgets or grapefruits, as long as they had the same monopoly over it; and could make the same profits from the monopoly.
From radio stations to retailers, the record companies have forcibly arranged things in order to maintain complete control of the way music is distributed in the US.
- You wanna sell millions of CDs? You gotta be on radio.
- You wanna be on radio? You gotta be on the radio programming company's list.
- You wanna be on that list? You gotta be promoted by one of the big labels?.
- You wanna be promoted by one of the big labels? You gotta sign a contract with them.
- You wanna sign a contract? You gotta work your ass off for the privilege of giving up shitloads of rights.
The system sucks.The record companies know it.
And they have no intention of changing it, because it favors them by a landslide.
So the record company loses alot of money on artists that don't get popular enough for the company to screw the artist out of 99.9 percent of the profits. So what? Let the record companies get bent over for once, instead of the consumer. See how they like it on the receiving end without the KY. We shouldn't care if the record companies (not the artists) get fleeced, and here's why.
</digression>
If the record companies lose money on 9 of 10 bands, then they should think about promoting good bands instead of guessing what will be popular. I don't pretend to know how to fix their fucked up system. I don't intend to make any suggestions which will help them.
I suggest that we simply ignore them.
Think about this.
- You read slashdot, so there's a pretty good chance that you have an internet connection which will support a reasonably-good music stream.
- Do you listen to the radio? I mean really. You've got a cd player in your car, and at your house. You've got (or could have) a whole shitload of legal mp3s from your own cd collection. If you do listen to the radio, either you know of a great station that I've never heard of, or you secretly adore the BackDoor Boys and think to yourself "how talented that little Spears girl is".
- If you listen to internet radio, have you EVER tuned in to a station run by a record company? (if not, don't bother they suck like radio with blinking ad banners)
The point is, record companies couldn't get away with selling their cruft for 16.66 a disc in an open market. Hell, they can barely get away with it in their current closed market. I want to buy a cd from them. And I can't because the radio station didn't even tell me the artist who did the ONE FUCKING SONG that I have liked on the radio in the last 3 months. Too busy wanking off to pictures of themselves in the DJ booth, I suppose.Radio sucks.
The internet is acquiring more users faster than it should (a rant for a different time).
And maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to design a system where you can listen to new music that doesn't suck; then buy it for a reasonable price; and know that the artist is actually going to see more than a couple pennies of the money you paid.
Shoutcast is a start. great idea. Nearly great implementation. But this is the internet, people. I shouldn't have to sift through god knows how many channels just to find new music that I'll like. How about a search engine? What if I could tell some program that I like the bands X, Y, and Z; then the program says "these 6 channels which play X, Y, and Z. These other 4 channels contain at least one of X, Y, and Z listed as influences or related music." Of course, everyone's playlists would have to be online. But we're close to that alredy. And what if the admins of the channels not only had their playlists online, but the playlists included links to sites that would sell you that hard-2-find and yet killer track thay you heard on Channel Z? (thanks to those of you who got that reference.)
Mp3.com is a start. But they are falling prey to a bunch of crap that makes them less attractive to serious artist who want to be heard. I don't care who the top ten downloaded songs are. Popularity and rankings based on how many CDs you sold through mp3.com don't matter to me.
Conclusion:
The current promotion/distribution system is hopelessly broken. The net has a chance to relieve it of some of its usefullness. We (the informed, the loudmouthed anarchists, the hackers who helped make the net what it is) need to quit bitching and use the net to solve the problem instead of creating new ones.
Can moderators really remove a post from /. ? Or do they just moderate it down to a level where it falls below the radar all but the most masochistic of readers?
What do you mean "crippled like the Rio"? I've got a PMP300se, and I can copy to *or* from the rio ... in linux, of course. I'll bet it can't be done in windows. :)
The Mongoose says.....CHOMP
This approach DOES NOT require decompressing and recompressing.
It is NOT a tap of the unencrypted stream.
The following is a copy of
a later article on dmusic.com refuting the misconception created by the Wired Article. I'm posting it here to quiet the flames, and because dmusic looks like they've been nearly slashdotted to death.
Microsoft's response to UNFUCK.EXE
by Angelo on August 18, 1999
Microsoft's attempt at an encrypted format has been broken, and that's
truely unfortunate but really not their fault. As explained in our previous
article, the CIA and the NSA put limitations on how encrypted a format may be.
To protect ourselves, and the integrity of our reports, we feel the need to
respond to Microsoft when they say unfuck.exe is no different from a program
named audiojacker or total recorder which takes audio from your sound card
and converts it to a WAV file. This has nothing to do with what UNFUCK.EXE
does! UNFUCK.EXE actaully breaks the protection on any file. There is no
loss in quality, the file isn't re-recorded or captured in some way.
A crack is just that, a crack. It's not manipulating the audio in such a
way that it can be captured, it is actaully destroying the protected [sic] on
an already recorded audio file.
We just wanted to clear that up as to not cause any confusion and sustain
our reputable name.
And if I didn't say that yet. I have now.
-RMB
To quote an email I just received:
/. is asking about large scale email handling. I was going to
>> someone on
>> mention that you guys do this and use FreeBSD. I thought I'd ask you or let
>> you post rather than getting your site slashdotted.
--me
> Large-scale in our terms means millions. Also, we use FreeBSD in some
> places, but most of our service runs on Solaris. And, we sell service,
> but not our software, so I don't think we'd suit this guy's needs.
>
>25,000 is (assuming typical usage patterns) within the capability of one
>powerful Linux or *BSD box. Use NT, and you'll need a cluster. =)
--he
I don't have the experience to comment on wanting XFS. But I'm personally not looking forward to XFS under linux, because it leads me to think of xfsdump, which leads me to think of xfsrestore, which brings me to tears.
I just went through two consecutive xfsrestore nighmares where it appeared that xfsdump had worked properly, but xfsrestore could not read the backup tape in one case, and only found some of the files in annother case.
To their credit, SGI's tech support worked *very* hard with us to recover the data. But we never got it back.
Here Here!
This is a wonderfully subtle idea which makes excellent use of natural market forces!
Does anyone really believe that record sales have dropped as a result of mp3 dispersion? I, personally, am buying more cds now that I am exposed to so much new music on the net.
Suing the search engine is alot like suing a map maker for providing a map of a part of town where drug sales occur. I.E., a far strech for such a short-sighted group.
I use Redhat 5.2, and Have a Toshiba Somethingorother. Its got onboard sound and video. The video is S3Virge and the sound is Yamaha OPL(3?). Video drivers under Redhat are fine, and I just got sound working the other day *without* re-compiling the kernel.
:]
I would't recommend that you get an integrated motherboard on a whim like I did. (I got lucky) But chipset support is getting much better, so if you do your homework, you should be able to get a motherboard with supported, integrated sound/video.
PS: x11amp ROX! Streaming mp3 was the only reason I bothered with sound in the first place.