Get off your butt and rent it. Better yet, buy it. It's been out on VHS for the better part of ten years. Shouldn't be too hard to find a local video store where you could buy it. Plus, the DVD should be coming out soon. Why wait for it to hit TV with all the commercials??:)
And... why would that matter?? All of the claims against any AT&T code in BSD was settled many, many, many years ago, including a nice little clause saying "You can't come after us later regarding issues like this."
It's legal as long as you are the only one with access to it. You are not providing it for distribution, you are just installing it on multiple systems.
The current license from SUN prevents distributing the binaries to others. IOW, each person that wants to use it must build their own copy. Since you are the only one using it, there's no issues with you creating binaries for installation on the other systems you are using.
Heh, now there is a truly novel innovation. Maybe that's nVidia's plan for the next generation GeForce?? They are prepping people on expecting dual-slot graphics cards now, so that next year they can release a dual-slot card where the second card is a GPU powered by the heat from the first GPU. See, buying 3Dfx will actually pay off.:)
Depends on the person, the method of typing they learned, and which finger was last used to type a word.
Me, I usually use my right thumb. Sometimes, I'll use my left, but not often.
Granted, I don't do standard touch typing using all 10 fingers. I use three fingers on my left hand, three fingers on my right hand, and my right thumb. My pinkies are generally unused. And I can still attain 60-90 corrected wpm.:)
It really depends on your typing style, the style of keyboard you are used to, and what your muscles are used to doing. There is no real "standard" for which thumb to use for space.
Ah, but it's not just computers that need IPs. There's all the embedded controllers that need IPs, and the phones, PDAs, pocket PCs, tablets, monitoring equipment, and so on. A single person could require half a dozen or more IPs.
And don't forget the public kiosks, the commercial networks, and so on. Not all of these can be placed on a private network (although most can).
Even with sensible NAT setups, it's very easy to run out of IPs before every person has a computer.
It's easy to do so, and has been done before. What is not possible is to have the virus/worm survive a reboot. However, if the CD distro is configured to save data to a floppy or the harddrive, then reads that data during the boot sequence (like Knoppix does), then you can make the virus/worm survive a reboot.
Deep Freeze for Windows touts its system as virus proof as well, as the harddrive is restored after each boot.
However, these systems can still be infected, and can even spread the infection, as they have access to RAM.
Actually, WordPerfect uses SGML for it's file format. It even comes with its own DTD and everything. You can also use WordPerfect to create SGML documents, or to create your own DTDs.
If using WP as a wordprocessor, though, you are using an SGML application. That's the beauty of WP, and the wonder of the "Reveal Codes" function. It makes document editing so much easier, because you see the formatting tags, and you can manipulate the tags themselves. I can't stand using a wordprocessor that doesn't let me see and manipulate the formatting tags, now.
Sometimes it's nice to be able to print out a {document, tax form, source code, etc} and spread the sheets across the floor or desk. That way, you can quickly cross-reference various pages a *hell* or a lot easier than you can onscreen.
Especially with tax forms. You can compare one form to another without having to constantly flick back and forth between windows. (Especially in apps that don't have handy keyboard shortcuts for doing so.)
Granted, printing out the same tax form multiple times is a little excessive. I only had to print mine out twice due to a missing decimal point I completely missed onscreen.:)
command.com is in all version of Windows, from 1.0 through XP, including the NT branch. On NT/2K/XP, this is part of the WoW (Windows-on-Windows) sub-system that allows you to run DOS and Win16 apps on NT.
cmd.exe is the 32-bit Win32 command-line interpreter... and enhanced, more functional replacement/reimplementation of command.com.
Yeah, there have been problems here, but that's hardly limited to MS. Apple has released apps with the same problems, and they've fixed them just like MS did. No, in general you can't get Word'95 to read a WordXP document. So what? You can't possibly expect forward compatibility to hold true - if it did we'd all be stuck using EBCDIC still.
If WordPerfect could do it, why couldn't Microsoft? A WordPerfect document is nothing more than an SGML document. Create a document in WordPerfect 2002, save it, open it in WordPerfect 6, 7, 8, 2000, or 2002. You don't lose all that much formatting info, and you don't lose any of the content.
After using WordPerfect since version 7, I am appalled at the lack of consitency in Word. Why the hell can't they make a.doc format that is compatible across versions??
Afterall, XML is nothing more than a subset/extension of SGML... why has it taken them so long to take advantage of it?? And why won't it work back to Word 95?? Somebody made a big mistake a long time ago, and they won't be fixing it anytime soon. Afterall, if they don't change the file format, what incentive is there to upgrade??
IPChains had masquerading, where all outgoing packets were given a single source IP, thus allowing for a LAN of computers to appear as one. However, it didn't do NAT in that you couldn't have multiple external IPs for that same LAN, and you couldn't NAT incoming traffic to create a DMZ with each computer having it's own (or sharing a couple) or public IP addresses. There were a few other NAT situations that couldn't be done using Linux packet filters.
IPTables was the first to support NAT, incoming, outgoing, and all combinations. However, the syntax for it is horrible (IMO).
As for speed, IPFilter and PF are the speed champs when NAT and/or stateful filtering is used. All packet filtering for these is done in-kernel and is optimised out the yin-yang. IPFW is just as fast as these two for simple packet filtering, but is a little slower when stateful filtering is enabled. And, because the natd daemon works in userland, enabling NAT really slows things down, due all the context switching and copying of data from kernel to userland. However, IPFW/NATd is plenty fast enough for most situation (small to medium LANs numbering into the hundreds). For enterprise-wide filtering (thousands of clients) you definitely want to use IPF or PF.
Personally, I just don't like the syntax of IPChains and IPTables. I also don't like the lack of features, or the fact that everything changes with each new kernel release.
If Linux-land, the analogy is: 2.0 had vi and all was well. 2.2 removed vi and added emacs. 2.4 removed emacs and added pico. Three kernel releases, three new editors to learn. Sure, each editor includes a very rudimentary command emulator for the previous editors, but nobody can use them for real work.
In BSD-land, the analogy is: vi was added. A few releases later, emacs was added as an option. A few releases later, pico was added as an option. Users have the choice of using any of the three editors, as they please.
Notice the difference??
There are 4 packet filters to choose from: IPFW, IPF, PF, and whichever filter your Linux kernel uses. At least in BSD-land, you don't have to throw away your prior knowledge when a new OS release is made.
The syntax for ipchains / iptables is just horrible. It doesn't read anything close to English. The nice thing about IPFW / IPF / PF is that you can read a rule and udnerstand exactly what it is designed to do. I have yet to be find someone who can look at a NAT rule in IPTables and tell me exactly what it does without resorting to scrounging through manuals.
The beauty of IPFW (or IPF or PF) is that the syntax hasn't changed all that much, even though new features have been added. The syntax for the Linux packet filter has changed 3 times in 3 releases.
The other horrible thing about Linux packet filtering is that it only *just* got NAT figured out. Only took them 3 releases (and how many years??) to get that one. IPFW / IPF / PF have had that for several years now.
I administer 12 FreeBSD IPFW firewalls, and 11 Linux IPChains firewalls. Can't wait until the summer when I can move those Linux boxes to FreeBSD with either IPFW or IPF. One less headache to worry about.
Actually, this is nothing like in Linux. In Linux-land, each new kernel brought out a brand-new, almost compeltely incompatible packet filter. ipfwadm, ipchains, iptables. The syntax changed. The features changed. There was no way to use the old filter. There were wrapper scripts to try and simulate this, but they are crud. Heck, the packet filters themselves are crud.
In FreeBSD, there's IPFW *or* IPFilter *or* Packet Filter. IPFW has been around a long time, and the syntax has changed very little. New features have been added, though, but all the old features still work. Same with IPF. Nobody is forced to switch from IPFW to IPF or PF. They can continue to use IPFW.
It's much nicer to be able to continue to use the same packet filter across minor *and* major versions of an OS. It's also nice to have a choice of two or three packet filters.
I'll definitely stick to BSD for packet filtering. Linux is nothing more than a toy.
Read the Porter's Handbook and start creating your own custom ports, or editing the existing ones to work the way you want. Then you'll be proficient in both source compiles and port installs.:) And you'll get your name on the FreeBSD Contributors list if your new port gets accepted into the tree.
You need to fix the DPI (dots per inch) setting on your monitor, then.
A 12pt font should be the same size across all screens and all resolutions.
If you vid. card's drivers don't come with the ability to change the DPI setting, then it's time to get a better vid. card (or possibly OS). Shoot, even my ancient ATI Rage 128 Pro drivers let me do this.
At home I have a 20" IBM P202 monitor running off an ATI Rage 128 Pro card at 1280x1024 and the fonts are set at standard 12pt -- I just cranked the DPI up to around 133. Now everything is the same size as before, just a heck of a lot clearer, cleaner, and sharper.
IPF / PF syntax is fairly easy to read, but nowhere near as clear as IPFW. Using your example:
allow tcp from any to any via le0 keep-state allow udp from any to any via le0 keep-state (I'm not sure if IPFW supports multiple protocols on a single line.)
I mean, does it get any closer to English than that??
That's what I'd like to know. How they tout espn.com as a standards-compliant website when they use such non-standard things as Flash??
Just because 96.1% of their "regular" viewers have the Flash plugin installed does not make it a web standard.
And here I was expecting something new and exciting, using XHTML, CSS, and all the other nifty new standards that have been approved over the past few years.
The problem is with Linux distributions -- there is no standard for Linux. Sure, there's the FHS, but there are so many optional bits to the LSB that none of the distros have changed their layout, and they are all "FHS-compliant".
You need to find a real OS that uses a real standard FS layout. Something like the BSDs.:) For instance, on FreeBSD:
/ is for the operating system itself/usr is for third-party apps bundled with the OS/usr/local is for all locally installed apps/etc is for system-wide configuration files/usr/local/etc is for local app configuration files/var is for all logs, spools, and the like
Each of the following directories exist under/,/usr, and/usr/local: bin/ is for user binaries sbin/ is for system binaries lib/ is for libraries share/ is for shared data
So, you know exactly where everything is.
Install a new app? Then the config is/usr/local/etc/ and the binaries are in/usr/local/bin and/or/usr/local/sbin. Nothing else changes.
Update to a newer version of the OS? Then the files in / and/usr are changed, but everything under/usr/local stays the same.
Now, your PATH statement is just:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
Works like a charm.:) If only Windows would do something as logical and organised as that. I mean, why does installing Office update my Windows system DLLs?? Why does installing a day-planner put files into the OS directory? Why does updating my web browser upate the OS itself?? Seriously!
We, my friend, had to input our code using dip switches, 1 byte at a time. And heaven forbid that you make a mistake near the end of the program, 'cause then we had to start all over.
Linux is not UNIX. Linux is a UNIX clone, a workalike. It shares no source code with any prior version of UNIX.
*BSD on the other hand, is UNIX. It can't use the UNIX trademark as none of the projects possess the cash to pay for the certification tests, but it has a direct link to the BSD distributions of old, and the AT&T releases of UNIX before that.
Clone != the real thing. Workalike != the real thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Get off your butt and rent it. Better yet, buy it. It's been out on VHS for the better part of ten years. Shouldn't be too hard to find a local video store where you could buy it. Plus, the DVD should be coming out soon. Why wait for it to hit TV with all the commercials?? :)
The default shell for root is actually tcsh (csh symlinked to tcsh).
/usr/sbin/adduser Note the line: DEFAULTSHELL=/bin/sh
The default shell for normal users is sh.
When in doubt, read the source:
Boot the mini-ISO CD-ROM, then. Or, use an external floppy.
And ... why would that matter?? All of the claims against any AT&T code in BSD was settled many, many, many years ago, including a nice little clause saying "You can't come after us later regarding issues like this."
BSD has nothing to fear from SCO.
It's legal as long as you are the only one with access to it. You are not providing it for distribution, you are just installing it on multiple systems.
The current license from SUN prevents distributing the binaries to others. IOW, each person that wants to use it must build their own copy. Since you are the only one using it, there's no issues with you creating binaries for installation on the other systems you are using.
Heh, now there is a truly novel innovation. Maybe that's nVidia's plan for the next generation GeForce?? They are prepping people on expecting dual-slot graphics cards now, so that next year they can release a dual-slot card where the second card is a GPU powered by the heat from the first GPU. See, buying 3Dfx will actually pay off. :)
Depends on the person, the method of typing they learned, and which finger was last used to type a word.
:)
Me, I usually use my right thumb. Sometimes, I'll use my left, but not often.
Granted, I don't do standard touch typing using all 10 fingers. I use three fingers on my left hand, three fingers on my right hand, and my right thumb. My pinkies are generally unused. And I can still attain 60-90 corrected wpm.
It really depends on your typing style, the style of keyboard you are used to, and what your muscles are used to doing. There is no real "standard" for which thumb to use for space.
Ah, but it's not just computers that need IPs. There's all the embedded controllers that need IPs, and the phones, PDAs, pocket PCs, tablets, monitoring equipment, and so on. A single person could require half a dozen or more IPs.
And don't forget the public kiosks, the commercial networks, and so on. Not all of these can be placed on a private network (although most can).
Even with sensible NAT setups, it's very easy to run out of IPs before every person has a computer.
# pkg_add -r world-peace
Works like a charm here.
It's easy to do so, and has been done before. What is not possible is to have the virus/worm survive a reboot. However, if the CD distro is configured to save data to a floppy or the harddrive, then reads that data during the boot sequence (like Knoppix does), then you can make the virus/worm survive a reboot.
Deep Freeze for Windows touts its system as virus proof as well, as the harddrive is restored after each boot.
However, these systems can still be infected, and can even spread the infection, as they have access to RAM.
Actually, WordPerfect uses SGML for it's file format. It even comes with its own DTD and everything. You can also use WordPerfect to create SGML documents, or to create your own DTDs.
If using WP as a wordprocessor, though, you are using an SGML application. That's the beauty of WP, and the wonder of the "Reveal Codes" function. It makes document editing so much easier, because you see the formatting tags, and you can manipulate the tags themselves. I can't stand using a wordprocessor that doesn't let me see and manipulate the formatting tags, now.
Sometimes it's nice to be able to print out a {document, tax form, source code, etc} and spread the sheets across the floor or desk. That way, you can quickly cross-reference various pages a *hell* or a lot easier than you can onscreen.
:)
Especially with tax forms. You can compare one form to another without having to constantly flick back and forth between windows. (Especially in apps that don't have handy keyboard shortcuts for doing so.)
Granted, printing out the same tax form multiple times is a little excessive. I only had to print mine out twice due to a missing decimal point I completely missed onscreen.
command.com is in all version of Windows, from 1.0 through XP, including the NT branch. On NT/2K/XP, this is part of the WoW (Windows-on-Windows) sub-system that allows you to run DOS and Win16 apps on NT.
... and enhanced, more functional replacement/reimplementation of command.com.
cmd.exe is the 32-bit Win32 command-line interpreter
If WordPerfect could do it, why couldn't Microsoft? A WordPerfect document is nothing more than an SGML document. Create a document in WordPerfect 2002, save it, open it in WordPerfect 6, 7, 8, 2000, or 2002. You don't lose all that much formatting info, and you don't lose any of the content.
After using WordPerfect since version 7, I am appalled at the lack of consitency in Word. Why the hell can't they make a .doc format that is compatible across versions??
Afterall, XML is nothing more than a subset/extension of SGML ... why has it taken them so long to take advantage of it?? And why won't it work back to Word 95?? Somebody made a big mistake a long time ago, and they won't be fixing it anytime soon. Afterall, if they don't change the file format, what incentive is there to upgrade??
IPChains had masquerading, where all outgoing packets were given a single source IP, thus allowing for a LAN of computers to appear as one. However, it didn't do NAT in that you couldn't have multiple external IPs for that same LAN, and you couldn't NAT incoming traffic to create a DMZ with each computer having it's own (or sharing a couple) or public IP addresses. There were a few other NAT situations that couldn't be done using Linux packet filters.
IPTables was the first to support NAT, incoming, outgoing, and all combinations. However, the syntax for it is horrible (IMO).
As for speed, IPFilter and PF are the speed champs when NAT and/or stateful filtering is used. All packet filtering for these is done in-kernel and is optimised out the yin-yang. IPFW is just as fast as these two for simple packet filtering, but is a little slower when stateful filtering is enabled. And, because the natd daemon works in userland, enabling NAT really slows things down, due all the context switching and copying of data from kernel to userland. However, IPFW/NATd is plenty fast enough for most situation (small to medium LANs numbering into the hundreds). For enterprise-wide filtering (thousands of clients) you definitely want to use IPF or PF.
Personally, I just don't like the syntax of IPChains and IPTables. I also don't like the lack of features, or the fact that everything changes with each new kernel release.
Actually, your analogy is off.
If Linux-land, the analogy is: 2.0 had vi and all was well. 2.2 removed vi and added emacs. 2.4 removed emacs and added pico. Three kernel releases, three new editors to learn. Sure, each editor includes a very rudimentary command emulator for the previous editors, but nobody can use them for real work.
In BSD-land, the analogy is: vi was added. A few releases later, emacs was added as an option. A few releases later, pico was added as an option. Users have the choice of using any of the three editors, as they please.
Notice the difference??
There are 4 packet filters to choose from: IPFW, IPF, PF, and whichever filter your Linux kernel uses. At least in BSD-land, you don't have to throw away your prior knowledge when a new OS release is made.
The syntax for ipchains / iptables is just horrible. It doesn't read anything close to English. The nice thing about IPFW / IPF / PF is that you can read a rule and udnerstand exactly what it is designed to do. I have yet to be find someone who can look at a NAT rule in IPTables and tell me exactly what it does without resorting to scrounging through manuals.
The beauty of IPFW (or IPF or PF) is that the syntax hasn't changed all that much, even though new features have been added. The syntax for the Linux packet filter has changed 3 times in 3 releases.
The other horrible thing about Linux packet filtering is that it only *just* got NAT figured out. Only took them 3 releases (and how many years??) to get that one. IPFW / IPF / PF have had that for several years now.
I administer 12 FreeBSD IPFW firewalls, and 11 Linux IPChains firewalls. Can't wait until the summer when I can move those Linux boxes to FreeBSD with either IPFW or IPF. One less headache to worry about.
Actually, this is nothing like in Linux. In Linux-land, each new kernel brought out a brand-new, almost compeltely incompatible packet filter. ipfwadm, ipchains, iptables. The syntax changed. The features changed. There was no way to use the old filter. There were wrapper scripts to try and simulate this, but they are crud. Heck, the packet filters themselves are crud.
In FreeBSD, there's IPFW *or* IPFilter *or* Packet Filter. IPFW has been around a long time, and the syntax has changed very little. New features have been added, though, but all the old features still work. Same with IPF. Nobody is forced to switch from IPFW to IPF or PF. They can continue to use IPFW.
It's much nicer to be able to continue to use the same packet filter across minor *and* major versions of an OS. It's also nice to have a choice of two or three packet filters.
I'll definitely stick to BSD for packet filtering. Linux is nothing more than a toy.
Read the Porter's Handbook and start creating your own custom ports, or editing the existing ones to work the way you want. Then you'll be proficient in both source compiles and port installs. :) And you'll get your name on the FreeBSD Contributors list if your new port gets accepted into the tree.
You need to fix the DPI (dots per inch) setting on your monitor, then.
A 12pt font should be the same size across all screens and all resolutions.
If you vid. card's drivers don't come with the ability to change the DPI setting, then it's time to get a better vid. card (or possibly OS). Shoot, even my ancient ATI Rage 128 Pro drivers let me do this.
At home I have a 20" IBM P202 monitor running off an ATI Rage 128 Pro card at 1280x1024 and the fonts are set at standard 12pt -- I just cranked the DPI up to around 133. Now everything is the same size as before, just a heck of a lot clearer, cleaner, and sharper.
IPF / PF syntax is fairly easy to read, but nowhere near as clear as IPFW. Using your example:
allow tcp from any to any via le0 keep-state
allow udp from any to any via le0 keep-state
(I'm not sure if IPFW supports multiple protocols on a single line.)
I mean, does it get any closer to English than that??
That's what I'd like to know. How they tout espn.com as a standards-compliant website when they use such non-standard things as Flash??
Just because 96.1% of their "regular" viewers have the Flash plugin installed does not make it a web standard.
And here I was expecting something new and exciting, using XHTML, CSS, and all the other nifty new standards that have been approved over the past few years.
The problem is with Linux distributions -- there is no standard for Linux. Sure, there's the FHS, but there are so many optional bits to the LSB that none of the distros have changed their layout, and they are all "FHS-compliant".
:) For instance, on FreeBSD:
/usr is for third-party apps bundled with the OS /usr/local is for all locally installed apps /etc is for system-wide configuration files /usr/local/etc is for local app configuration files /var is for all logs, spools, and the like
/, /usr, and /usr/local:
/usr/local/etc/ and the binaries are in /usr/local/bin and/or /usr/local/sbin. Nothing else changes.
/usr are changed, but everything under /usr/local stays the same.
/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr /local/bin
:) If only Windows would do something as logical and organised as that. I mean, why does installing Office update my Windows system DLLs?? Why does installing a day-planner put files into the OS directory? Why does updating my web browser upate the OS itself?? Seriously!
You need to find a real OS that uses a real standard FS layout. Something like the BSDs.
/ is for the operating system itself
Each of the following directories exist under
bin/ is for user binaries
sbin/ is for system binaries
lib/ is for libraries
share/ is for shared data
So, you know exactly where everything is.
Install a new app? Then the config is
Update to a newer version of the OS? Then the files in / and
Now, your PATH statement is just:
Works like a charm.
You had punch cards? Talk about spoiled.
We, my friend, had to input our code using dip switches, 1 byte at a time. And heaven forbid that you make a mistake near the end of the program, 'cause then we had to start all over.
Linux is not UNIX. Linux is a UNIX clone, a workalike. It shares no source code with any prior version of UNIX.
*BSD on the other hand, is UNIX. It can't use the UNIX trademark as none of the projects possess the cash to pay for the certification tests, but it has a direct link to the BSD distributions of old, and the AT&T releases of UNIX before that.
Clone != the real thing.
Workalike != the real thing.
Linux != UNIX. (Thankfully.)