I know pretty much all the newer SprintPCS phones have some tracking capability... they also have a "location on/off" option though, which can be used to disable the tracking on all but 911 calls.
Umm... dude. He admitted it. He said it was wrong. The more important part: He stopped doing it, and at that stopped a long time ago. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone of legal adult status who has not at some point committed a misdemeanor, if not a felony. Only difference is, most people don't get caught.
Now get over the whole "Bush did something stupid while he was young" kick already, mmmmkay? Or must I remind you that Gore claimed he invented the internet, and Clinton screwed around with an intern while in office (and married, I might add) and purjured himself when asked about it. And people are worried about Bush once driving drunk, many years ago. Sheesh.
Minor nitpick: a proper resolver will look in the search domains first, as these are expected to be the nearby, fast-resolving domains. It will then go through the normal lookup sequence. This is why it's recommended to have a very small search list, if indeed you have one at all.
Doing it in this order also has the benefit of reducing load (probably quite a lot of it) on the root servers. If the normal resolution process was used first for all these queries, you would have many machines asking the root servers about, say, the TLD "help."
I think their motive is fine and good (I worked in a uni IT department for a couple years, and have seen first-hand how bad p2p f's up the network). I think the problem is their implementation. I don't think there should be an automatic ban for p2p users, I think instead it should be something like a pyramid rate-limiting structure. So, those who actually have a legit use for p2p (who will often be downloading
For virii, I don't have a problem with instant removal from the network, so long as chance of false positives is somehow eliminated.
Not too bad... but then, with Sprint I'm paying $35 (after all taxes and fees and etc.) for 300 anytime, unlim. night/weekend (after 8pm), unlim. PCS to PCS, and unlim. vision service (their high-speed data stuff). Any time reps from other companies have tried to persuade me to switch to the dark side, I told them about the plan I have. The answer: "umm.. nope. there's no way we could come close to matching that for you, I'm afraid." True, the minutes don't rollover, but on the flip side the network doesn't either.
For a business class I took, the text came shrinkwrapped, completely unbound. It was hole-punched loose leaf pages. The shrinkwrap came with a big shiny sticker saying, "this text comes unbound, to SAVE YOU MONEY." It was $90. Ssve me money, my ass. It saved the publisher money, no doubt, but it was every bit as expensive as some bigger texts I've had to buy. Talk about a textbook case of cost-cutting.
Many of these unlisted ISBNs are (in my experience) special bundles of materials a publisher will put together for a school (or several schools), but the ISBN is not catalogued in any real "official" way (through however ISBNs are usually made available to bookstores, etc... I'm not sure how this normally works). These bundles will be made up of materials each with their own independent ISBN. I have occasionally been able to find out the contents of one of these bundles from a publisher's web site, but even this is often very difficult to find. I believe this is exactly why they do the bundling, but often if you can find the main materials (the main text and maybe a workbook), the other materials (CD-Roms, etc.) are not important or can be borrowed from a friend. And yes, follet is a bunch of f'ing ass-rapers.
At my former school, they had a policy that shrinkwrapped materials could not be returned once opened. They then proceeded to shrinkwrap most of the texts (even if it was only a book with no accompanying material). If you went to the first day of a class, unwrapped the book, then a few days later dropped the class, you couldn't return your (still brand new condition) book. Bastards.
What other features would you like to see in an instant messenger?
For starters, a better selection of "status" options to choose from, as ICQ has had for many years. Also, queing of messages when the other person isn't online would be nice (also something ICQ has had for years, and which used to work quite well and be quite useful. I think AOL has let this bitrot).
What bugs does it have?
Well, I was referring to the service more than the client (since I'm a gaim user myself). Specifically, I was referring to how often some part of the system seems to go down. I can't count how many times the login server has been in a pissy mood and taken 10 or 15 attempts to log in, or the service has been "down for maintenance" or some other such drivel.
As far as your comment about lacking features, I said "until recently lacked many features (and still lacks some)...." Taking things out of context is for trolls. And as far as the comment about black people... uncalled for, not to mention totally irrelevent.
I mean who really cares... MS IM in my opinion isnt even that great of a service, let them go.
I care. Not because it's that great of a service... it's not. It's buggy, unreliable, until recently lacked many features (and still lacks some) that have been in other chat programs for years. But, I care because many people i know have it, and only it. In many foreign countries, most people have hotmail, and they use MSN messenger. At cyber-cafes, it may be the only chat program installed. So yes, I care, not because it's a great service but because I want to be able to continue to talk to my friends in other countries.
From what I've read, this worm actually does use the same vulnerability. And why block port 135 completely? Doing that risks breaking ish. Breaking ish isn't a good thing. No, here's what a better worm would've done:
1) Once on a box, clean and patch said box.
2) Sit and listen to port 135, waiting for Blaster to rear its ugly pulsing-zit-like head.
3) In response to Blaster probe, install itself on Blaster-infested machine and start over at 1).
4) On some set date in future, or when number of Blaster-probes remains 0 for a predetermined time (say 1 month), remove itself from system.
By only loading itself onto machines which first probe it (trying to spread Blaster), it completely eliminates the stupid network scans. In that way, it only attempts contact with machines which have shown themselves to be Blaster-infested, while leaving the rest of the internet alone.
You also decide it is a good idea to list the months before they days (as in dd/mm/yyyy).
Now that is retarded.
I used to agree, but after much thought I no longer do. You see, if you ever have filenames with the date as a part of them, say file.mmddyyyy, they will alphabetize in quite a nice fashion. However, if they are named file.ddmmyyyy, you will end up with the first day of each month at the top of your list, followed by the second day of each month, etc. So it makes it much more difficult to select say, all files from June. And besides.... who actually says "I'm going on a vacation on 25 June 2397?" Wouldn't you rather say, "I'm going on a vacation on June 25th, 2397?"
Do a google already! DNA computing is not even particularly new, and you could damn well do your own research. Your diatribe is an embarrassment to the parent post, which was about a a field you apparently don't even know exists.
Congratulations on your very pathetically worded flamebait. I've heard better from my 1-year-old nephew.
Now on to the actual topic of DNA (which I really didn't feel like going to google for, since I happen to have a lot of better things to do with my time than read articles all day, interesting though they may be). But, just to enlighten myself, I went and read a couple articles. Now I can say with more certainty: "DNA in and of itself can't do calculations (well, that I know of... show me how and I'll believe you)." You see, as I said it and as I interpret the word "calculations," it refers more to basic (or complex) mathematical processes. The problem-solving going on using DNA is
1) not done by DNA, in and of itself. It requires heavy human intervention. Saying that the DNA is doing the calculations would be like saying that my paper and pencil do calculations. They can express problems and their solutions, but only with heavy intervention from me.
2) problem-solving, but not calculations. As was mentioned, the types of problems they are using DNA to solve are very difficult to express in mathematical terms (though not impossible). The way the problem is being solved using DNA is not what I would consider mathematical.
DNA in and of itself can't do calculations (well, that I know of... show me how and I'll believe you). The brain can do massively parallel computations (think facial/object/voice recognition in microseconds, and at the same time). Here's one big problem in taking advantage of that kind of thing (other than ethical issues). Say you have taken some head and hooked it up to a computer. It may recognize things just fine and many times faster than any normal computer, but how to get that information back to the computer? Sure you can interface with specific neurons, etc. but which ones? Do you tap into Wernicke's or Broca's area (the parts responsible for speech/word comprehension)? How do you interpret the signals coming from that area? If you interface anywhere else, you likely wouldn't have any kind of word/name/etc, because Wernicke's is responsible for all speech comprehension (without it there's no giving meaning to the words one hears or reads, and no putting words to actions, feelings, anything else).
So what biological computing has to offer in speed is basically countered by the difficulty in gaining access to the information, unless MAJOR advances are made. And for simple math-type computing problems, biological processing would probably never catch up to what we have now in electronic computers.
This article is a great start, and gives me some ideas on how to solve certain problems. The thing to remember, however, is this is still not secure in any way. Authentication wise it may be (what type of auth is going over the air? Chap? Pap?) but data wise it certainly isn't. A somewhat better solution security-wise is PPTP (which someone already mentioned), though it has plenty of problems of its own. The ultimate solution (while maintaining easy Windows compatibility) is IPSec over L2TP. Only problem is, last I checked this is a bitch to set up a Linux server for, if it is possible at all. The IPSec is possible enough (FreeSWAN, etc) but getting it working over L2TP gets rough real quick. Course, last I checked into this was about 6 months ago, so things may have progressed since then.
Problem: Starchunks (actually the wireless is run by T-Mobile) isn't really that locked down at all. Assuming there's one other person there with a paid account using it, it's quite trivial to freeload. I leave how as an exercise to the reader (not to be carried out, of course...). Also, T-Mobile last I heard does not filter certain types of packets, making other ways of freeloading possible. Again, this is all left as a mind-exercise to the reader though.
Haven't heard much about McD's wireless, as I and most people I know refuse to eat that slop.
Actually, the sound meter seems to me like it would be very useful, at least for some people. Anyone who ever does any work as a sound tech would LOVE this feature (at least if they're worth anything as a sound tech). I've often wished I had a small portable sound meter with me. This phone would be great. Now if only it comes out in a CDMA version...
lol. Well, as I said, I guess some are luckier than others. I think this board does have the brand of caps that are said to be piss-poor, but so far I've had no problem with them. And as far as netgear nics and SB lives, bullsh*t. I've used both. Have an SB live in there now, had netgear nics in it before. I've since replaced almost all my nics with 3c905b's, but never had a problem with anything else. Only time I started having serious stability problems was when I added the tuner card (I think that filled up my last PCI slot too... I've got a lot of crap in this box). And that was solved with a simple de-tweaking of my BIOS. Y'know... set it for stability, instead of speed. It's once again rock solid.
All that said, knowing about the caps on this board I wouldn't buy another one (I'm not usually lucky twice in a row), but I wouldn't hesitate to use one given to me. Nor would I hesitate to buy another Abit board.
Funny... I'm writing this on an Abit KT7-RAID (KT133 based) board with a 1Ghz athlon right now. Had it for I think 2 and a half years or so, it's been back and forth between Seattle and east Texas (both flying and driving) more times than I can count, and still running perfectly solid. Added a vid capture card a while back and shot stability all to hell till I turned down some of the optimizations in the BIOS, now it's rock solid once again. It would have an uptime of 3 or 4 months right now (however long it's been since the last power outage) if it weren't for the fact I accidently typed "poweroff" in an ssh session from my laptop the other night (meaning to turn off the laptop, killed the desktop instead). Ehh well, different people, different experiences I guess.
As far as this new celery, doesn't sound that cost effective to me. I just bought a Duron XP 1400+ or whatever they're called on an ECS board (onboard ethernet, video, sound, USB2, yadda yadda yadda) all for $90, and that was a few months ago. It's been up now 61 days, I think that was when I updated the kernel or something, don't remember.
Than you are hopelessly deluded. People like you hype remote X as if every instance of X in the world is on some corporate or university network using remote apps. You ignore the fact that desktop users outnumber you.
Funny, me being on neither a corporate nor a university network. Funny how I, being a desktop user, should somehow outnumber myself.
I'll skip your second comment, as it was just stupid and pointless.
Wow, such empirical evidence. Your Linux buddies use X over the network.
Who mentioned Linux? I certainly never did. I was talking about X. To be specific, that includes Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, AIX, Windows (with Exceed), and Mac OSX (with X added on top). Whoops, almost forgot Irix. I happen to know a LOT of users of X. Most use it on *nix systems, but not all. The majority actually aren't running Linux either.
And then there are the thousands upon thousands of normal desktop users who don't use remote X. Next.
Yes, these are the same thousands upon thousands who are not using X at all, no doubt.
And I know of very, very few applications where a gun WOULDN'T be fired. So what.
Are you serious about this, or just being stupid? Situations where a gun wouldn't be fired: Any time your life isn't being threatened, you're not target practicing, and you're not hunting. If you're ALWAYS having your life threatened, hunting, or target practicing, then how'd you find time to spout rubbish on/.?
Standalone desktop machines are the norm. Accept it and move on.
We have moved past the 80's, through the 90's, and all the way up to the year 2003. Somewhere in there this thing called "networking" became commonplace, along with the internet and households having multiple computers. Along about the same time, standalone desktop machines became less the norm (along with the electric typewriter) and were replaced with home networks. Witness the growth of Netgear, Linksys, et al. You may never fit into the networking revolution, but you must accept it has happened and move along.
Remote X is still not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be. You and I both know the majority of XFree86 users do not use that feature.
Actually, you're wrong. I would say it's probably MORE widely used than it's hyped to be.
You're also wrong to put words in my mouth and say I know the majority of XFree86 users do not use the feature. In all actuality, I know dozens who DO use X over the network, and none who do not. Corporations use it all the time. Home users with more than one machine (like me) use it all the time. Governments and organizations who want to run things off a central server (massively reducing cost and support problems) use it all the time. People who want to use a GUI to administer headless servers use it all the time. Now that I think of it, I know of very very few applications where one WOULDN'T want to use it. One would be a standalone desktop machine. The other would be a headless server where the admin only wants to use a remote console, for anything and everything.
I think most of those espousing the view that networking in X should be secondary, or could be replaced by something like RDP or VNC, are probably those who have never used it and seen how it simplifies things.
As long as I'm talking about RDP and VNC, let me mention one reason neither one could replace X as they stand now: Rootless mode. The most common mode for X, and one that RDP and VNC are incapable of. And for the less informed, rootless mode does not in this case mean running as a user other than root. It means transporting the window(s) of a single program across the network, making them appear as if they were launched on the local machine. This as opposed to RDP or VNC, where you are transporting the entire desktop across the network. Much more flexible. Much easier to cut/paste (ever tried to cut/paste between VNC and your other programs?). Much more cross-platform (name me a common OS with a GUI for which no x compatability exists...).
Slashdot Mirror
I know pretty much all the newer SprintPCS phones have some tracking capability... they also have a "location on/off" option though, which can be used to disable the tracking on all but 911 calls.
Umm... dude. He admitted it. He said it was wrong. The more important part: He stopped doing it, and at that stopped a long time ago. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anyone of legal adult status who has not at some point committed a misdemeanor, if not a felony. Only difference is, most people don't get caught.
Now get over the whole "Bush did something stupid while he was young" kick already, mmmmkay? Or must I remind you that Gore claimed he invented the internet, and Clinton screwed around with an intern while in office (and married, I might add) and purjured himself when asked about it. And people are worried about Bush once driving drunk, many years ago. Sheesh.
Minor nitpick: a proper resolver will look in the search domains first, as these are expected to be the nearby, fast-resolving domains. It will then go through the normal lookup sequence. This is why it's recommended to have a very small search list, if indeed you have one at all.
Doing it in this order also has the benefit of reducing load (probably quite a lot of it) on the root servers. If the normal resolution process was used first for all these queries, you would have many machines asking the root servers about, say, the TLD "help."
I think their motive is fine and good (I worked in a uni IT department for a couple years, and have seen first-hand how bad p2p f's up the network). I think the problem is their implementation. I don't think there should be an automatic ban for p2p users, I think instead it should be something like a pyramid rate-limiting structure. So, those who actually have a legit use for p2p (who will often be downloading
For virii, I don't have a problem with instant removal from the network, so long as chance of false positives is somehow eliminated.
Not too bad... but then, with Sprint I'm paying $35 (after all taxes and fees and etc.) for 300 anytime, unlim. night/weekend (after 8pm), unlim. PCS to PCS, and unlim. vision service (their high-speed data stuff). Any time reps from other companies have tried to persuade me to switch to the dark side, I told them about the plan I have. The answer: "umm.. nope. there's no way we could come close to matching that for you, I'm afraid." True, the minutes don't rollover, but on the flip side the network doesn't either.
Their service is great, and I have over 3000 anytime minutes rolled over.
But for many people, the whole network rolled over. Great. And how much do you (and all these other people) pay for the great service?
The worst thing I've ever seen a publisher do:
For a business class I took, the text came shrinkwrapped, completely unbound. It was hole-punched loose leaf pages. The shrinkwrap came with a big shiny sticker saying, "this text comes unbound, to SAVE YOU MONEY." It was $90. Ssve me money, my ass. It saved the publisher money, no doubt, but it was every bit as expensive as some bigger texts I've had to buy. Talk about a textbook case of cost-cutting.
Many of these unlisted ISBNs are (in my experience) special bundles of materials a publisher will put together for a school (or several schools), but the ISBN is not catalogued in any real "official" way (through however ISBNs are usually made available to bookstores, etc... I'm not sure how this normally works). These bundles will be made up of materials each with their own independent ISBN. I have occasionally been able to find out the contents of one of these bundles from a publisher's web site, but even this is often very difficult to find. I believe this is exactly why they do the bundling, but often if you can find the main materials (the main text and maybe a workbook), the other materials (CD-Roms, etc.) are not important or can be borrowed from a friend. And yes, follet is a bunch of f'ing ass-rapers.
At my former school, they had a policy that shrinkwrapped materials could not be returned once opened. They then proceeded to shrinkwrap most of the texts (even if it was only a book with no accompanying material). If you went to the first day of a class, unwrapped the book, then a few days later dropped the class, you couldn't return your (still brand new condition) book. Bastards.
What other features would you like to see in an instant messenger?
For starters, a better selection of "status" options to choose from, as ICQ has had for many years. Also, queing of messages when the other person isn't online would be nice (also something ICQ has had for years, and which used to work quite well and be quite useful. I think AOL has let this bitrot).
What bugs does it have?
Well, I was referring to the service more than the client (since I'm a gaim user myself). Specifically, I was referring to how often some part of the system seems to go down. I can't count how many times the login server has been in a pissy mood and taken 10 or 15 attempts to log in, or the service has been "down for maintenance" or some other such drivel.
As far as your comment about lacking features, I said "until recently lacked many features (and still lacks some)...." Taking things out of context is for trolls. And as far as the comment about black people... uncalled for, not to mention totally irrelevent.
Ummm... sorry. 2001 will always come before 2002 when sorted alphabetically. It matters not if the Jan 1 is before or after the 200x.
Does this DMCA business apply to Samba?
Not totally sure, but I would think not, since Samba is primarily developed in Australia. What are they going to do, sic the Kiwi's on 'em?
Gaim, on the other hand, is developed primarily in the US as far as I know. In which case, the DMCA might well apply.
I mean who really cares... MS IM in my opinion isnt even that great of a service, let them go.
I care. Not because it's that great of a service... it's not. It's buggy, unreliable, until recently lacked many features (and still lacks some) that have been in other chat programs for years. But, I care because many people i know have it, and only it. In many foreign countries, most people have hotmail, and they use MSN messenger. At cyber-cafes, it may be the only chat program installed. So yes, I care, not because it's a great service but because I want to be able to continue to talk to my friends in other countries.
From what I've read, this worm actually does use the same vulnerability. And why block port 135 completely? Doing that risks breaking ish. Breaking ish isn't a good thing. No, here's what a better worm would've done:
1) Once on a box, clean and patch said box.
2) Sit and listen to port 135, waiting for Blaster to rear its ugly pulsing-zit-like head.
3) In response to Blaster probe, install itself on Blaster-infested machine and start over at 1).
4) On some set date in future, or when number of Blaster-probes remains 0 for a predetermined time (say 1 month), remove itself from system.
By only loading itself onto machines which first probe it (trying to spread Blaster), it completely eliminates the stupid network scans. In that way, it only attempts contact with machines which have shown themselves to be Blaster-infested, while leaving the rest of the internet alone.
You also decide it is a good idea to list the months before they days (as in dd/mm/yyyy).
Now that is retarded.
I used to agree, but after much thought I no longer do. You see, if you ever have filenames with the date as a part of them, say file.mmddyyyy, they will alphabetize in quite a nice fashion. However, if they are named file.ddmmyyyy, you will end up with the first day of each month at the top of your list, followed by the second day of each month, etc. So it makes it much more difficult to select say, all files from June. And besides.... who actually says "I'm going on a vacation on 25 June 2397?" Wouldn't you rather say, "I'm going on a vacation on June 25th, 2397?"
Do a google already! DNA computing is not even particularly new, and you could damn well do your own research. Your diatribe is an embarrassment to the parent post, which was about a a field you apparently don't even know exists.
Congratulations on your very pathetically worded flamebait. I've heard better from my 1-year-old nephew.
Now on to the actual topic of DNA (which I really didn't feel like going to google for, since I happen to have a lot of better things to do with my time than read articles all day, interesting though they may be). But, just to enlighten myself, I went and read a couple articles. Now I can say with more certainty: "DNA in and of itself can't do calculations (well, that I know of... show me how and I'll believe you)." You see, as I said it and as I interpret the word "calculations," it refers more to basic (or complex) mathematical processes. The problem-solving going on using DNA is
1) not done by DNA, in and of itself. It requires heavy human intervention. Saying that the DNA is doing the calculations would be like saying that my paper and pencil do calculations. They can express problems and their solutions, but only with heavy intervention from me.
2) problem-solving, but not calculations. As was mentioned, the types of problems they are using DNA to solve are very difficult to express in mathematical terms (though not impossible). The way the problem is being solved using DNA is not what I would consider mathematical.
DNA in and of itself can't do calculations (well, that I know of... show me how and I'll believe you). The brain can do massively parallel computations (think facial/object/voice recognition in microseconds, and at the same time). Here's one big problem in taking advantage of that kind of thing (other than ethical issues). Say you have taken some head and hooked it up to a computer. It may recognize things just fine and many times faster than any normal computer, but how to get that information back to the computer? Sure you can interface with specific neurons, etc. but which ones? Do you tap into Wernicke's or Broca's area (the parts responsible for speech/word comprehension)? How do you interpret the signals coming from that area? If you interface anywhere else, you likely wouldn't have any kind of word/name/etc, because Wernicke's is responsible for all speech comprehension (without it there's no giving meaning to the words one hears or reads, and no putting words to actions, feelings, anything else).
So what biological computing has to offer in speed is basically countered by the difficulty in gaining access to the information, unless MAJOR advances are made. And for simple math-type computing problems, biological processing would probably never catch up to what we have now in electronic computers.
Just my 2 bits worth.
This article is a great start, and gives me some ideas on how to solve certain problems. The thing to remember, however, is this is still not secure in any way. Authentication wise it may be (what type of auth is going over the air? Chap? Pap?) but data wise it certainly isn't. A somewhat better solution security-wise is PPTP (which someone already mentioned), though it has plenty of problems of its own. The ultimate solution (while maintaining easy Windows compatibility) is IPSec over L2TP. Only problem is, last I checked this is a bitch to set up a Linux server for, if it is possible at all. The IPSec is possible enough (FreeSWAN, etc) but getting it working over L2TP gets rough real quick. Course, last I checked into this was about 6 months ago, so things may have progressed since then.
Problem: Starchunks (actually the wireless is run by T-Mobile) isn't really that locked down at all. Assuming there's one other person there with a paid account using it, it's quite trivial to freeload. I leave how as an exercise to the reader (not to be carried out, of course...). Also, T-Mobile last I heard does not filter certain types of packets, making other ways of freeloading possible. Again, this is all left as a mind-exercise to the reader though.
Haven't heard much about McD's wireless, as I and most people I know refuse to eat that slop.
Actually, the sound meter seems to me like it would be very useful, at least for some people. Anyone who ever does any work as a sound tech would LOVE this feature (at least if they're worth anything as a sound tech). I've often wished I had a small portable sound meter with me. This phone would be great. Now if only it comes out in a CDMA version...
Wow. What a funny lie.
Right you are. Not just near-daily, often more frequent than that. Sometimes approaching an average of twice daily over a one-week period.
lol. Well, as I said, I guess some are luckier than others. I think this board does have the brand of caps that are said to be piss-poor, but so far I've had no problem with them. And as far as netgear nics and SB lives, bullsh*t. I've used both. Have an SB live in there now, had netgear nics in it before. I've since replaced almost all my nics with 3c905b's, but never had a problem with anything else. Only time I started having serious stability problems was when I added the tuner card (I think that filled up my last PCI slot too... I've got a lot of crap in this box). And that was solved with a simple de-tweaking of my BIOS. Y'know... set it for stability, instead of speed. It's once again rock solid.
All that said, knowing about the caps on this board I wouldn't buy another one (I'm not usually lucky twice in a row), but I wouldn't hesitate to use one given to me. Nor would I hesitate to buy another Abit board.
Funny... I'm writing this on an Abit KT7-RAID (KT133 based) board with a 1Ghz athlon right now. Had it for I think 2 and a half years or so, it's been back and forth between Seattle and east Texas (both flying and driving) more times than I can count, and still running perfectly solid. Added a vid capture card a while back and shot stability all to hell till I turned down some of the optimizations in the BIOS, now it's rock solid once again. It would have an uptime of 3 or 4 months right now (however long it's been since the last power outage) if it weren't for the fact I accidently typed "poweroff" in an ssh session from my laptop the other night (meaning to turn off the laptop, killed the desktop instead). Ehh well, different people, different experiences I guess.
As far as this new celery, doesn't sound that cost effective to me. I just bought a Duron XP 1400+ or whatever they're called on an ECS board (onboard ethernet, video, sound, USB2, yadda yadda yadda) all for $90, and that was a few months ago. It's been up now 61 days, I think that was when I updated the kernel or something, don't remember.
No more time to feed the trolls today. Maybe you'll get some troll-chow tomorrow if you're lucky.
Than you are hopelessly deluded. People like you hype remote X as if every instance of X in the world is on some corporate or university network using remote apps. You ignore the fact that desktop users outnumber you.
/.?
Funny, me being on neither a corporate nor a university network. Funny how I, being a desktop user, should somehow outnumber myself.
I'll skip your second comment, as it was just stupid and pointless.
Wow, such empirical evidence. Your Linux buddies use X over the network.
Who mentioned Linux? I certainly never did. I was talking about X. To be specific, that includes Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, AIX, Windows (with Exceed), and Mac OSX (with X added on top). Whoops, almost forgot Irix. I happen to know a LOT of users of X. Most use it on *nix systems, but not all. The majority actually aren't running Linux either.
And then there are the thousands upon thousands of normal desktop users who don't use remote X. Next.
Yes, these are the same thousands upon thousands who are not using X at all, no doubt.
And I know of very, very few applications where a gun WOULDN'T be fired. So what.
Are you serious about this, or just being stupid? Situations where a gun wouldn't be fired: Any time your life isn't being threatened, you're not target practicing, and you're not hunting. If you're ALWAYS having your life threatened, hunting, or target practicing, then how'd you find time to spout rubbish on
Standalone desktop machines are the norm. Accept it and move on.
We have moved past the 80's, through the 90's, and all the way up to the year 2003. Somewhere in there this thing called "networking" became commonplace, along with the internet and households having multiple computers. Along about the same time, standalone desktop machines became less the norm (along with the electric typewriter) and were replaced with home networks. Witness the growth of Netgear, Linksys, et al. You may never fit into the networking revolution, but you must accept it has happened and move along.
Thanks for playing.
Remote X is still not as widely used as it is endlessly hyped to be. You and I both know the majority of XFree86 users do not use that feature.
Actually, you're wrong. I would say it's probably MORE widely used than it's hyped to be.
You're also wrong to put words in my mouth and say I know the majority of XFree86 users do not use the feature. In all actuality, I know dozens who DO use X over the network, and none who do not. Corporations use it all the time. Home users with more than one machine (like me) use it all the time. Governments and organizations who want to run things off a central server (massively reducing cost and support problems) use it all the time. People who want to use a GUI to administer headless servers use it all the time. Now that I think of it, I know of very very few applications where one WOULDN'T want to use it. One would be a standalone desktop machine. The other would be a headless server where the admin only wants to use a remote console, for anything and everything.
I think most of those espousing the view that networking in X should be secondary, or could be replaced by something like RDP or VNC, are probably those who have never used it and seen how it simplifies things.
As long as I'm talking about RDP and VNC, let me mention one reason neither one could replace X as they stand now: Rootless mode. The most common mode for X, and one that RDP and VNC are incapable of. And for the less informed, rootless mode does not in this case mean running as a user other than root. It means transporting the window(s) of a single program across the network, making them appear as if they were launched on the local machine. This as opposed to RDP or VNC, where you are transporting the entire desktop across the network. Much more flexible. Much easier to cut/paste (ever tried to cut/paste between VNC and your other programs?). Much more cross-platform (name me a common OS with a GUI for which no x compatability exists...).
I rest my case.