1. Yep. I leave my work machine on all the time, but I log in each morning, and log out each night.
2. The writer should definitely have been more specific about cron useage, but I think you're supposed to run a script from cron, then run keychain from the script.
Perhaps it would help if you read the article. Under "Limitations of ssh-agent", it lists the problems that Keychain solves.
The advantages of Keychain are
1. You only need to do it once each time you start your computer. For those of us who leave our boxes running for months or more, there is a significant difference between boots and sessions.
2. you can use it for cron jobs. That means you can securely perform remote operations without using unencrypted keys.
Yeah, if all you want is ssh-agent, ssh-agent might be easier. But for people who need it, keychain is key.
And by the way, I run Debian, and I don't even have an.xsession file.
Possible, yes. But the removal of all comments by that user is quite suspicious, isn't it?
That does sound suspicious.
If it isn't true, they shouldn't pretend it is. Is that a new concept to you?
No, the concept isn't new to me, but there are plenty of situations in which we pretend that things are true when they are not.
Still, you must understand that I was pointing out that "should" usually reflects an opinion, rather than a fact. If they have changed their policy, I don't think changing their FAQ is sufficient.
Ah, but a book is a book is a book. A toaster is a toaster is a toaster.
And while you think that this is a case where they're lying, it could be a mistake. It could be a problem with their database It could be that they don't know how to rephrase the FAQ so it says what you feel it should say. Or maybe they've forgotten about the FAQ. (God knows, I have.)
And why "should" they remove that section from the FAQ? Why do you say that's an acceptable remedy? Wouldn't anonymous cowards start complaining about its mysterious removal? Perhaps they should make a news story about it. Perhaps they should go a day without banner ads and penance. Perhaps they should close down slashdot. And perhaps they should start treating Anonymous Coward as just another account with karma, so the assholes who post goatse.cx get moderated into a smoking pile of ash.
I suppose. I know they've deleted DeCSS and scientology documents that were posted, too. Somehow, I just can't get upset at them protecting themselves.
No, the lesson is "Don't try to screw over the OSS community, because they're better at it than you."
People beta-tested this code and may have contributed patches, under the belief that the final product would be gpled. Now, they may be within their rights to change the license. But others are within their rights to fork.
On the other hand, driver quality has a huge effect on performance. Until you see benchmarks for your platform, you don't know which card has the highest performance.
Well, it's sure not to replace Windows on the desktop. Despite their embrace of "peace, love and Linux", IBM refuses to port its desktop apps to Linux.
Re:Not bad, but not as big as one might think.
on
NYSE Goes To Linux
·
· Score: 2
They were running Solaris before, but that doesn't necessarily mean Linux hurt Solaris here. It may mean that they were getting rid of Solaris anyway, and switched to Linux instead of Windows.
I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
They say 320 hours is enough to store "full seasons of a dozen shows"
You say 320 hours isn't enough to store a whole season.
But you're talking about your TV viewing season, not a television show's season. They're talking about a television show's season.
You can store whole season of Star Trek:Enterprise, and a season of The X Files, and a season of Earth: Final Conflict, and a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a season of Roswell, and a season of Dark Angel-- that's only six, and it takes about 150 hours. 12 will take about 300 hours.
That's how you store full seasons of a dozen shows on the thing.
TV dramas typically have 25 unique episodes per season and a 1-hour duration. That's 25 hours/season.
Or if it's a 1 hour show on every day except Sunday, that's about 313 days. Again, 313 hours/season. But I think only news programming is close to that.
And of course, if it's on every day of the year, that's up to 366 hours/season.
And if you sleep 8 hours a day and watch TV the rest of the time, that's 20 straight days of TV.
The estates of the dead people may be able to sue for "libel" I suppose.
Re:what a predicament ...
on
Linux Turns 10
·
· Score: 2
I'd say the last time I interfaced with the kernel was when I ran top. Or maybe it was the last time I looked at the/proc filesystem. Or maybe it was when I mounted a filesystem. It was pretty recent, nonetheless.
Those systems COULD use a better interface. You're right, but you're wrong.
The difference between napster and apache is one of degree.
I can run an http client on the same machine as an http server. (and I do: wget) But the client/server paradigm is valid. There are many machines whose primary purpose is providing a resource. And there are many machines whose primary purpose is accessing a resource.
It seems p2p just means client and server services reside on a single machine.
Of course, you could also create a separate napster client and napster server.
Re:IRC doesn't need security..
on
Secure IRC?
·
· Score: 2
Does it support ip-masquarading firewalls? Looks like the forwarding feature redirects the sender to a different machine. If the new receiving machine has a private IP, you're hosed.
Reminds me of Back to the Future II and III. IIRC, they were making one movie (working title: "Paradox"), and realized they had too much material, so they made two.
There are certainly advantages:
budget: there are some things you only have to do once, like sets and costumes.
continuity: no one's going to look incongruously old in the third one.
writing: you can tell one good story instead of trying to tell two good stories.
box office: you have two sequels to a well loved movie. On only that basis, they should do fine.
You're also right about being "Matrix-like". I hope they focus more on making a good "brothers W" film than being like the original.
However, for continuity, many things will have to be the same: we'll likely need bullet-time, wire fight scenes, and most of the same characters. (Doesn't mean the characters can't grow/change.)
Re:IRC doesn't need security..
on
Secure IRC?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
As discussed recently on bugtraq. . .
The IRC protocol is a badly designed protocol. Permitting DCC connections is a security risk to your computer or network, because DCC is even stupider than active ftp.
It *is* broken and *should* be fixed.
Re:don't use the net for broadcast
on
HDTV Over IP
·
· Score: 2
Ah, but it isn't broadcast. It only goes where it's wanted, and two connections on the same subnet use about as much bandwidth as one connection.
Yes, it may eat bandwidth, but only the same amount as downloading a big patch or video file. (not the same number of bytes, but we're talking bits-per-second here)
If it's pushing the limits of the IP infrastructure,
a. there's something wrong with the infrascructure-- let's light some dark fiber
b. it's unwatchable, and its effects will be limited.
You know, I used to think it was dumb to try and merge computers and TV sets. Now I don't own a TV-- I watch everything on my video capture card.
See, when I think Quality of Service, I think that it's basically about establishing a connection-based infrastructure over a packet-based infrastructure.
And the scenario I envision is typically media. Audio or video.
You try to watch a video, and your player requests a 300-kbps connection. If all the routers along the way figure they can deliver that, then you get your connection, and everything runs smoothly. If not, you get a busy signal.
Bursty data doesn't benefit from abusing this sort of QoS, because if router policy is sane, bursty data will arrive on average more quickly than QoS data-- just not as regularly. And asking for a high-speed QoS connection will frequently be denied, while bursty data continues to flow.
But it sounds like this approach is kinda different from what everyone here is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Yep. I leave my work machine on all the time, but I log in each morning, and log out each night.
2. The writer should definitely have been more specific about cron useage, but I think you're supposed to run a script from cron, then run keychain from the script.
Perhaps it would help if you read the article. Under "Limitations of ssh-agent", it lists the problems that Keychain solves.
.xsession file.
The advantages of Keychain are
1. You only need to do it once each time you start your computer. For those of us who leave our boxes running for months or more, there is a significant difference between boots and sessions.
2. you can use it for cron jobs. That means you can securely perform remote operations without using unencrypted keys.
Yeah, if all you want is ssh-agent, ssh-agent might be easier. But for people who need it, keychain is key.
And by the way, I run Debian, and I don't even have an
So far, it's even. Someone actually modded me up!
That does sound suspicious.
No, the concept isn't new to me, but there are plenty of situations in which we pretend that things are true when they are not.
Still, you must understand that I was pointing out that "should" usually reflects an opinion, rather than a fact. If they have changed their policy, I don't think changing their FAQ is sufficient.
Ah, but a book is a book is a book. A toaster is a toaster is a toaster.
And while you think that this is a case where they're lying, it could be a mistake. It could be a problem with their database It could be that they don't know how to rephrase the FAQ so it says what you feel it should say. Or maybe they've forgotten about the FAQ. (God knows, I have.)
And why "should" they remove that section from the FAQ? Why do you say that's an acceptable remedy? Wouldn't anonymous cowards start complaining about its mysterious removal? Perhaps they should make a news story about it. Perhaps they should go a day without banner ads and penance. Perhaps they should close down slashdot. And perhaps they should start treating Anonymous Coward as just another account with karma, so the assholes who post goatse.cx get moderated into a smoking pile of ash.
I suppose. I know they've deleted DeCSS and scientology documents that were posted, too. Somehow, I just can't get upset at them protecting themselves.
Yes, but that makes it (extremely lame) porn, and Slashdot is not an adult site. It could get sued for leaving that there.
No, the lesson is "Don't try to screw over the OSS community, because they're better at it than you."
People beta-tested this code and may have contributed patches, under the belief that the final product would be gpled. Now, they may be within their rights to change the license. But others are within their rights to fork.
On the other hand, driver quality has a huge effect on performance. Until you see benchmarks for your platform, you don't know which card has the highest performance.
Is there a good reason you don't mention debian? It is the choice of Taco et al. . .
Well, it's sure not to replace Windows on the desktop. Despite their embrace of "peace, love and Linux", IBM refuses to port its desktop apps to Linux.
They were running Solaris before, but that doesn't necessarily mean Linux hurt Solaris here. It may mean that they were getting rid of Solaris anyway, and switched to Linux instead of Windows.
I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
They say 320 hours is enough to store "full seasons of a dozen shows"
You say 320 hours isn't enough to store a whole season.
But you're talking about your TV viewing season, not a television show's season. They're talking about a television show's season.
You can store whole season of Star Trek:Enterprise, and a season of The X Files, and a season of Earth: Final Conflict, and a season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and a season of Roswell, and a season of Dark Angel-- that's only six, and it takes about 150 hours. 12 will take about 300 hours.
That's how you store full seasons of a dozen shows on the thing.
TV dramas typically have 25 unique episodes per season and a 1-hour duration. That's 25 hours/season.
Or if it's a 1 hour show on every day except Sunday, that's about 313 days. Again, 313 hours/season. But I think only news programming is close to that.
And of course, if it's on every day of the year, that's up to 366 hours/season.
And if you sleep 8 hours a day and watch TV the rest of the time, that's 20 straight days of TV.
Agree, or disagree, but when you're in jail you lose many rights. Why shouldn't they lose the right to release .net?
The problem I have with this idea is that it's a Consent Decree, and that didn't work out so well last time.
Well, their actions could get worse. I mean legally, they're a criminal organization, but I would say they're not as bad as the Mafia.
The estates of the dead people may be able to sue for "libel" I suppose.
I'd say the last time I interfaced with the kernel was when I ran top. Or maybe it was the last time I looked at the /proc filesystem. Or maybe it was when I mounted a filesystem. It was pretty recent, nonetheless.
Those systems COULD use a better interface. You're right, but you're wrong.
There are so many versions out there that I'm not going to guess which is original.
This troll seems to be based on this version because it mentions space-age material.
Amusingly the identities of the three guys keep changing, but it's always Cindy Crawford who comes for the last one. ('Cept here, of course.)
I agree about the net being inherently p2p.
The difference between napster and apache is one of degree.
I can run an http client on the same machine as an http server. (and I do: wget) But the client/server paradigm is valid. There are many machines whose primary purpose is providing a resource. And there are many machines whose primary purpose is accessing a resource.
It seems p2p just means client and server services reside on a single machine.
Of course, you could also create a separate napster client and napster server.
Does it support ip-masquarading firewalls? Looks like the forwarding feature redirects the sender to a different machine. If the new receiving machine has a private IP, you're hosed.
Reminds me of Back to the Future II and III. IIRC, they were making one movie (working title: "Paradox"), and realized they had too much material, so they made two.
There are certainly advantages:
budget: there are some things you only have to do once, like sets and costumes.
continuity: no one's going to look incongruously old in the third one.
writing: you can tell one good story instead of trying to tell two good stories.
box office: you have two sequels to a well loved movie. On only that basis, they should do fine.
You're also right about being "Matrix-like". I hope they focus more on making a good "brothers W" film than being like the original.
However, for continuity, many things will have to be the same: we'll likely need bullet-time, wire fight scenes, and most of the same characters. (Doesn't mean the characters can't grow/change.)
As discussed recently on bugtraq. . .
The IRC protocol is a badly designed protocol. Permitting DCC connections is a security risk to your computer or network, because DCC is even stupider than active ftp.
It *is* broken and *should* be fixed.
Ah, but it isn't broadcast. It only goes where it's wanted, and two connections on the same subnet use about as much bandwidth as one connection.
Yes, it may eat bandwidth, but only the same amount as downloading a big patch or video file. (not the same number of bytes, but we're talking bits-per-second here)
If it's pushing the limits of the IP infrastructure,
a. there's something wrong with the infrascructure-- let's light some dark fiber
b. it's unwatchable, and its effects will be limited.
You know, I used to think it was dumb to try and merge computers and TV sets. Now I don't own a TV-- I watch everything on my video capture card.
I'm not saying it's coming soon. But it's coming.
Ah. I can see how that makes sense.
See, when I think Quality of Service, I think that it's basically about establishing a connection-based infrastructure over a packet-based infrastructure.
And the scenario I envision is typically media. Audio or video.
You try to watch a video, and your player requests a 300-kbps connection. If all the routers along the way figure they can deliver that, then you get your connection, and everything runs smoothly. If not, you get a busy signal.
Bursty data doesn't benefit from abusing this sort of QoS, because if router policy is sane, bursty data will arrive on average more quickly than QoS data-- just not as regularly. And asking for a high-speed QoS connection will frequently be denied, while bursty data continues to flow.
But it sounds like this approach is kinda different from what everyone here is talking about.