Zillions of bugs, huh? With ls, rm, mv, getty, etc?
I highly doubt it. Even Microsoft has not been faulted for having low level tools that don't work (such as move, copy, del, and a bunch of others).
The basic programs of a shell are simple enough that you can actually try pretty much all possible states of them to get rid of bugs before shipping them. Someone else could have just as easily done all of the coding parts that RMS did in the beginning.
HOWEVER, I'm sure that his zeal did something to convince other coders to write more complicated pieces of code that are quite important, complex, and difficult to duplicate.
There are some cities where it just wouldn't work. Boston and New York come to mind. Aggressive doesn't begin to describe driving in those two cities.
People will threaten to use their points to cut YOU off. Everyone in those cities would get tickets simply because everyone on the road treats everyone else like dirt (and even if you didn't, you'd still have to be on the losing end of somebody else's rage at being cut off/hit by another car/stopping at the yellow light, etc). Not to mention that the more "important" people would get more points (because that's how laws work - they give privelege to the wealthy and powerful). There are no abuse safeguards if the entire system is already corrupt.
There are now a large quantity of sites out there that use slashcode for their news-distribution.
So about your points: 1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature. Same code=same method of determining ratings. 2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
Right. Karma isn't an indication of how smart you are. Its more like e-bay's seller ratings - it's an indication that people think you've been a decent chap for a while, as the name "karma" would indicate. This is specifically true because mostly you don't get much moderation DOWN unless you've been nasty, though moderation UP is a matter of time. Same principal, it might be a good idea to make the bonus based upon percentage of good versus bad scores rather than just using addition and subtraction.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO. Things like this are built into database systems, and the exploit would have to be in that, as would the collective nature of it. Do you think this hasn't been done? There are ready-made database solutions that can be destributed which are not very susceptable to exploits.
Even if you don't do this, do you know how difficult it is to break public key encryption when you don't have the private or the public key? Because that's what it would be like for anyone who wasn't a part of the trusted network of karma distributers. This idea is quite feasable. It's not even close to as complicated, as say, creating a p2p network.
prompt> ping www.google.com PING www.google.com (216.239.33.101): 56 octets data 64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=44 time=90.3 ms 64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=44 time=91.2 ms 64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=97.4 ms - odd data message "HELP ME! I'M TRAPPED IN THE INTERNET" 64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=92.8 ms --- www.google.com ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss May be possessed by lost soul round-trip min/avg/max = 90.3/90.7/91.2 ms
The RIAA doesn't have that many illegal immigrants for you to steal. They only pretend to have that many so that they can tell the government how much they're losing in illegal immigrant sales. Plus, it's really hard to get a truckload of immigrants through p2p because the copy protection on illegal immigrants (DNA) is a lot more difficult to bypass than traditional forms of media.
Source code would be nice. Knoppix seems to be doing a good job in hardware autoconfiguration, and like most other good projects, Gentoo is stealing it (in fact, there are three different hardware detection libraries available in Gentoo right now).:)
Seriously, when one project manages to get something Right, shouldn't everybody benefit from it? I'm quite sure that any improvements they've made in either MAME or hardware detection can benefit the entire OS community - or at least the part of it that has a flexible enough distribution to absorb it.
With every new Linux innovation I'm always thinking, "GREAT! Gimmie source! I want that it my distro!"
Win4Lin is much faster than the other emulation layers. On my machine it runs faster than native Windows ever did. Also, you should keep in mind that the maximum amount of memory that Win4lin will allow is 128MB.
Even if this wasn't the case, the memory space for Windows programs is separate for the one for Linux, so it pays to have an OS that is slim. Win2k and XP AREN'T that. Windows 2000 and XP are arguably the best, but because of stability, not performance. In this case, the underlying OS can be stable.
Is it crashes you're worried about? It doesn't seem like as much of an issue when a "reboot" takes three seconds.
I just wish they'd do message passing between DirectX and DRI. Right now Win4Lin 5.0 has directX, but it's software based. I'm sure they're saving that for version 5.0 so that they can make more money.
Of course the precursor to the chip-manufacturing tariffs was the chimp-manufacturing tariffs.
It is a little known fact that chimps and other small simians actually play a large role in all industries. Chip manufacturing, for instance, is normally done in labs by trained chimps. This allows Korean manufactoring companies to cut the labor costs, as well as making a building floors half as tall, since only chimps need to enter.
This move, as well as the tariff on chimps, was one that was obviously on its way. Already, many American businesses had begun replacing key portions of its labor force with Korean-made chimps. Most notable in this effort is SCO, who went so far as replacing their entire executive board with chimps (it should be noted, however, that these chimps are not ordinary chimps, but rather 1/8th size chimps who have evolved a crude yet effective system of writing based upon the Korean language. Apparently these mini-chimps have been sending their nearly-random messages to IBM, which have then been interpreted as claims to own Unix).
I'm thinking of starting an anti-chimp initiative, to push congress to keep bad chimps from stealing jobs from hard-working Americans. Who's with me?
SCO upps damages to 6 billion - citing IBM's illegal use of 'international business machines' acroynm which they thought up first.
Damages go up to 15 trillion when SCO discovers that gravity and other basic laws of the Universe which IBM has been using to build servers formed a basis for SCO's machines first.
Finally, SCO ups damages to (quoting here) "forty bazillion-kabillion" for "having a successful business," which is what SCO was planning to do but couldn't because of IBM.
It should be noted that this last figure was given just before the Executive board collectively passed out after coming down dangerously from a hallucenagic high caused by dry-erase markers, non-dairy creamer, pez, and possibly other office-related recreational drugs.
Re:Well...perhaps it isn't.
on
Palmtop NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
Well if you can get that to compile, I'm all for it. I couldn't under Linux.
I learned BASIC the summer after second grade from a school program. That year, because of the computers, I learned flowcharting, the order of operations, and the nice flavors of conditional logic that where available in BASIC. I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who gave me one of the sample programming workbooks (which the school didn't buy a set of), and let me work on a computer for the year when we didn't have anything else that was pressing. I learned how to write animations the next summer.
All that was when my school had one computer in each classroom, and with teachers who knew nothing about them. Read up. Bill Gates had a similar start.
Unfortunately after that I moved into a school with your obtuseness and had to wait until seventh grade so that I could sit in on the eighth grade programming elective and learn LOGO.
My high school was even worse and required taking three useless electives before getting to the only programming class, and no one was allowed to use any of the schools computers outside of class time.
I could have learned so much during those early years, and I was SO eager to do so.
Computers offer pearls of knowledge when teachers are unable to illuminate, and the brightest minds can take them.
Also, why deny poor students the opportunity to learn from the wealth of knowledge on the internet?
The letters are supposed to tilt slightly to the right when you write in cursive. If you're left-handed and you have good penmanship, this means that you must curve your hand nearly 90 degrees more than right-handers, which means more muscles are used, and, more importantly, it takes longer.
Printing COULD be about the same, except that the tendency is towards cursive-print - habits that exist for one exist for the other - so that lefties tend to always curve their hands around if they learned good penmanship. "Working harder" and "improvising on your own" should have produced this result - a slower hand. Once again, I know this because I'm left-handed (and have very good penmanship). Even among those who don't have good penmanship, this trait is common among lefties and is why they commonly write slowly. You may be an exception. As far as keyboard accuracy...your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much sway.
Letters where chosen which may perhaps slightly favor right-handed individuals, but mostly chosen to favor the index and middle fingers of both hands. Besides, this is an area where it is likely that left-handers should excel because left handers tend to more often exhibit ambidexterity towards new tasks than right-handers. With something like a keyboard that requires both hands so much, someone who is ambidextrous is the most likely to excel.
Another handicap when writing is left-handedness. Because our language is written left-to-right, left-handed people tend to require much more time to write than right handed people do (and I should know because I am one). Does this mean that we should require all left-handed people to start writing with their right hands? (I'm assuming that you will think this is as absurd as I do, otherwise you're going to have to tell me why it makes sense).
A lot of people can write more legibly when printing, and this is often more important in creating the impression of a good writer (and when you're writing for someone who is grading 90 papers, the impression can be as important as the writing itself - especially if the actual writing isn't that good), just as good grammar and spelling do.
Not that this particularly will matter. Typing is more efficient and easier to read. I can't think of any reason why computers won't replace pen and paper for essay examinations; it would certainly make it easier on everybody. Possibly the only reason that this has not yet happened is because the cost isn't low enough - but it will certainly be low enough in the fullness of time.
Any attempt to hack into the link must not be passive as it alters the quantum state of the intercepted photons.
If the sender is capable of generating photons with an arbitrary quantum state, so is the hacker. Obviously this will block attempt to merely split the signal, but why not just observe and then retransmit new photons with the original state?
I'm sure it's just an oversimplification by people who don't know what the researchers where talking about...why does this help anything?
A good test of foolishness is if one is soon parted with their money, after all. This sounds like something to hear from a carnival barker.
"Step right up! Ladies and gentlemen! Buy our mystical psychic banana! Only $199!
Buy now! Our electronic fish can be yours for only $3000!
Become a cyborg for a mere $484,000! That's right, you can own your very own wearable computer-vest!"
I think I'd go for the banana instead. Maybe they can sell it for slightly less than that, but still...I can't see it being cheap enough to justify the price anytime soon.
Well...perhaps it isn't.
on
Palmtop NetBSD
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But I don't see how it's as portable as it claims. It's nearly impossible to build a cross-compiler for Linux from netbsd, especially if you don't have the libraries and headers already compiled for you. I've been trying fruitlessly for several years now.
Palmtop NetBSD isn't that desirable for me, because I'd have to sacrifice using a Linux distro if I wanted to do cross-compiles. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'd love to know it.:)
While I doubt that the changes will be made, some could certainly be.
I don't know about where you're living, but where I am the spectrum is only reaching the incrediblly urban areas. If you live four miles from an incredibly large city, you get nothing in my state. Perhaps licenses should be more range restricted...or a license should perhaps require a station to broadcast to their entire audience.
And why should broadcast licenses only be given to television and radio companies? What if someone else has a viable business plan that can benefit the public?
The main reason I can see that the other idea is still useful is when you don't have control of the server. If you can put your own binaries on the server (which happens much more frequently), you can still install rz and sz in your home directory, but you can't usually keep an scp server unless they've already got one running. So there are more times when this may be useable than an scp-enabled ssh app.
Tell me, can it be activated by the "preview" feature of Eudora or Mozilla?
Will they open up attachments that you don't want them to? No?
I'd say that makes it a lot less susceptable to this worm, and a lot of others.
In fact, this is usually the case. E-mail programs normally shield execution of binaries from the user entirely until they say otherwise.
So as I see it, for MOST clients, there are only two ways to be subverted: 1) Rendering leads to hackability. However, most can only render html or plain text. Perhaps a vulnerability can be made on the html. Because of HTML's unbelievable simplicity (and the sandbox that is inherently placed upon it), though, that would be extremely difficult. Plain text should be impossible to exploit, unless the designers are very stupid.
2) Client could be attacked through it's connections to the internet A buffer overflow attack via SMTP, IMAP or POP? Their simplicity makes it easy to write in such a way that the user can't exploit (besides sending billions of unwanted e-mails). Once again, the lack of complexity means that to produce an exploit the designers would have to be very stupid.
Essentially its the extra ability to render a complex programming language that makes Outlook uniquely vulnerable without user intervention (user stupidity for opening unknown executables); other readers do not suffer from this. Perhaps if more people knew this we could stop living in fear of viruses that could have no teeth.
There are already commodity DSPs for mp3 decoding. Making an OGG decoder would require either a faster general purpose CPU (more expensive) or an ASIC chip for it (also more expensive), even though it's easy to actually do either case from the R&D standpoint, since the algorithm is well known.
I have seen a lot of logic among mere mortals that they want to own stuff - software, music, etc, and do whatever they want with it other than copying.
When I explained the "one computer, one copy of Windows" to a friend of mine, he thought Microsoft was nuts.
Why? I think it comes down mostly to tradition - an unwritten rule.
Ever since we've had recording devices, people have been able to BUY (not rent) a version of whatever it was that they had, and use it however they want. Things have only changed in the last decade - and they changed without telling anyone. The industries are trying to sneak the changes in without anyone really noticing until it's a part of the culture.
I don't think this will pan out at all. On the other hand, it's a way to get more people pissed at microsoft (for suggesting it).:)
Slashdot Mirror
Zillions of bugs, huh? With ls, rm, mv, getty, etc?
I highly doubt it. Even Microsoft has not been faulted for having low level tools that don't work (such as move, copy, del, and a bunch of others).
The basic programs of a shell are simple enough that you can actually try pretty much all possible states of them to get rid of bugs before shipping them. Someone else could have just as easily done all of the coding parts that RMS did in the beginning.
HOWEVER, I'm sure that his zeal did something to convince other coders to write more complicated pieces of code that are quite important, complex, and difficult to duplicate.
There are some cities where it just wouldn't work. Boston and New York come to mind. Aggressive doesn't begin to describe driving in those two cities.
People will threaten to use their points to cut YOU off. Everyone in those cities would get tickets simply because everyone on the road treats everyone else like dirt (and even if you didn't, you'd still have to be on the losing end of somebody else's rage at being cut off/hit by another car/stopping at the yellow light, etc). Not to mention that the more "important" people would get more points (because that's how laws work - they give privelege to the wealthy and powerful). There are no abuse safeguards if the entire system is already corrupt.
There are now a large quantity of sites out there that use slashcode for their news-distribution.
So about your points:
1. most sites don't use a comparable method to rate karma. the slashdot staff describes how the karma system was homegrown in the article, and i'm sure that's true of each site's analogous feature.
Same code=same method of determining ratings.
2. even if these systems used some kind of standard rating system for users, i strongly suspect that user behavior and reliability might vary from site to site. f'rex: i'm not really an IT guy, which shows in the comments i make. however, i'm a serious movie fiend. accordingly, users here should not necessarily take my thoughts on technology matters, but i can speak w/ much greater authority on IMDB.
Right. Karma isn't an indication of how smart you are. Its more like e-bay's seller ratings - it's an indication that people think you've been a decent chap for a while, as the name "karma" would indicate. This is specifically true because mostly you don't get much moderation DOWN unless you've been nasty, though moderation UP is a matter of time. Same principal, it might be a good idea to make the bonus based upon percentage of good versus bad scores rather than just using addition and subtraction.
3. let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all the various sites whose user opinions are well regarded (slashdot, et al) agree to develop a method such as you propose. there would still be 2 separate and mutually exclusive methods: either a highly decentralized method (likely to be the favored tool here) or a highly centralized method. naturally, the latter would be susceptible to exploits, etc., and the interested site operators would therefore split into (at least) 2 camps, thereby rendering the universal solution impossible, IMHO.
Things like this are built into database systems, and the exploit would have to be in that, as would the collective nature of it. Do you think this hasn't been done? There are ready-made database solutions that can be destributed which are not very susceptable to exploits.
Even if you don't do this, do you know how difficult it is to break public key encryption when you don't have the private or the public key? Because that's what it would be like for anyone who wasn't a part of the trusted network of karma distributers. This idea is quite feasable. It's not even close to as complicated, as say, creating a p2p network.
prompt> ping www.google.com
PING www.google.com (216.239.33.101): 56 octets data
64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=44 time=90.3 ms
64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=44 time=91.2 ms
64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=97.4 ms - odd data message "HELP ME! I'M TRAPPED IN THE INTERNET"
64 octets from 216.239.33.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=92.8 ms
--- www.google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
May be possessed by lost soul
round-trip min/avg/max = 90.3/90.7/91.2 ms
The RIAA doesn't have that many illegal immigrants for you to steal. They only pretend to have that many so that they can tell the government how much they're losing in illegal immigrant sales. Plus, it's really hard to get a truckload of immigrants through p2p because the copy protection on illegal immigrants (DNA) is a lot more difficult to bypass than traditional forms of media.
You'll have to keep pirating songs instead.
Source code would be nice. Knoppix seems to be doing a good job in hardware autoconfiguration, and like most other good projects, Gentoo is stealing it (in fact, there are three different hardware detection libraries available in Gentoo right now). :)
Seriously, when one project manages to get something Right, shouldn't everybody benefit from it? I'm quite sure that any improvements they've made in either MAME or hardware detection can benefit the entire OS community - or at least the part of it that has a flexible enough distribution to absorb it.
With every new Linux innovation I'm always thinking, "GREAT! Gimmie source! I want that it my distro!"
Relatively unknown but quite funny webcomic.
Be sure to keep going. It's got a lot more to the story than just the slingshot.
...because they can work quickly.
Win4Lin is much faster than the other emulation layers. On my machine it runs faster than native Windows ever did. Also, you should keep in mind that the maximum amount of memory that Win4lin will allow is 128MB.
Even if this wasn't the case, the memory space for Windows programs is separate for the one for Linux, so it pays to have an OS that is slim. Win2k and XP AREN'T that. Windows 2000 and XP are arguably the best, but because of stability, not performance. In this case, the underlying OS can be stable.
Is it crashes you're worried about? It doesn't seem like as much of an issue when a "reboot" takes three seconds.
I just wish they'd do message passing between DirectX and DRI. Right now Win4Lin 5.0 has directX, but it's software based. I'm sure they're saving that for version 5.0 so that they can make more money.
Of course the precursor to the chip-manufacturing tariffs was the chimp-manufacturing tariffs.
It is a little known fact that chimps and other small simians actually play a large role in all industries. Chip manufacturing, for instance, is normally done in labs by trained chimps. This allows Korean manufactoring companies to cut the labor costs, as well as making a building floors half as tall, since only chimps need to enter.
This move, as well as the tariff on chimps, was one that was obviously on its way. Already, many American businesses had begun replacing key portions of its labor force with Korean-made chimps. Most notable in this effort is SCO, who went so far as replacing their entire executive board with chimps (it should be noted, however, that these chimps are not ordinary chimps, but rather 1/8th size chimps who have evolved a crude yet effective system of writing based upon the Korean language. Apparently these mini-chimps have been sending their nearly-random messages to IBM, which have then been interpreted as claims to own Unix).
I'm thinking of starting an anti-chimp initiative, to push congress to keep bad chimps from stealing jobs from hard-working Americans. Who's with me?
SCO upps damages to 6 billion - citing IBM's illegal use of 'international business machines' acroynm which they thought up first.
Damages go up to 15 trillion when SCO discovers that gravity and other basic laws of the Universe which IBM has been using to build servers formed a basis for SCO's machines first.
Finally, SCO ups damages to (quoting here) "forty bazillion-kabillion" for "having a successful business," which is what SCO was planning to do but couldn't because of IBM.
It should be noted that this last figure was given just before the Executive board collectively passed out after coming down dangerously from a hallucenagic high caused by dry-erase markers, non-dairy creamer, pez, and possibly other office-related recreational drugs.
Well if you can get that to compile, I'm all for it. I couldn't under Linux.
I learned BASIC the summer after second grade from a school program. That year, because of the computers, I learned flowcharting, the order of operations, and the nice flavors of conditional logic that where available in BASIC. I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who gave me one of the sample programming workbooks (which the school didn't buy a set of), and let me work on a computer for the year when we didn't have anything else that was pressing.
I learned how to write animations the next summer.
All that was when my school had one computer in each classroom, and with teachers who knew nothing about them. Read up. Bill Gates had a similar start.
Unfortunately after that I moved into a school with your obtuseness and had to wait until seventh grade so that I could sit in on the eighth grade programming elective and learn LOGO.
My high school was even worse and required taking three useless electives before getting to the only programming class, and no one was allowed to use any of the schools computers outside of class time.
I could have learned so much during those early years, and I was SO eager to do so.
Computers offer pearls of knowledge when teachers are unable to illuminate, and the brightest minds can take them.
Also, why deny poor students the opportunity to learn from the wealth of knowledge on the internet?
The letters are supposed to tilt slightly to the right when you write in cursive. If you're left-handed and you have good penmanship, this means that you must curve your hand nearly 90 degrees more than right-handers, which means more muscles are used, and, more importantly, it takes longer.
Printing COULD be about the same, except that the tendency is towards cursive-print - habits that exist for one exist for the other - so that lefties tend to always curve their hands around if they learned good penmanship. "Working harder" and "improvising on your own" should have produced this result - a slower hand. Once again, I know this because I'm left-handed (and have very good penmanship). Even among those who don't have good penmanship, this trait is common among lefties and is why they commonly write slowly. You may be an exception. As far as keyboard accuracy...your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold much sway.
Letters where chosen which may perhaps slightly favor right-handed individuals, but mostly chosen to favor the index and middle fingers of both hands. Besides, this is an area where it is likely that left-handers should excel because left handers tend to more often exhibit ambidexterity towards new tasks than right-handers. With something like a keyboard that requires both hands so much, someone who is ambidextrous is the most likely to excel.
Another handicap when writing is left-handedness. Because our language is written left-to-right, left-handed people tend to require much more time to write than right handed people do (and I should know because I am one). Does this mean that we should require all left-handed people to start writing with their right hands? (I'm assuming that you will think this is as absurd as I do, otherwise you're going to have to tell me why it makes sense).
A lot of people can write more legibly when printing, and this is often more important in creating the impression of a good writer (and when you're writing for someone who is grading 90 papers, the impression can be as important as the writing itself - especially if the actual writing isn't that good), just as good grammar and spelling do.
Not that this particularly will matter. Typing is more efficient and easier to read. I can't think of any reason why computers won't replace pen and paper for essay examinations; it would certainly make it easier on everybody. Possibly the only reason that this has not yet happened is because the cost isn't low enough - but it will certainly be low enough in the fullness of time.
Any attempt to hack into the link must not be passive as it alters the quantum state of the intercepted photons.
If the sender is capable of generating photons with an arbitrary quantum state, so is the hacker. Obviously this will block attempt to merely split the signal, but why not just observe and then retransmit new photons with the original state?
I'm sure it's just an oversimplification by people who don't know what the researchers where talking about...why does this help anything?
...if you buy that jacket. 484k for a jacket?
A good test of foolishness is if one is soon parted with their money, after all. This sounds like something to hear from a carnival barker.
"Step right up! Ladies and gentlemen! Buy our mystical psychic banana! Only $199!
Buy now! Our electronic fish can be yours for only $3000!
Become a cyborg for a mere $484,000! That's right, you can own your very own wearable computer-vest!"
I think I'd go for the banana instead. Maybe they can sell it for slightly less than that, but still...I can't see it being cheap enough to justify the price anytime soon.
But I don't see how it's as portable as it claims. It's nearly impossible to build a cross-compiler for Linux from netbsd, especially if you don't have the libraries and headers already compiled for you. I've been trying fruitlessly for several years now.
:)
Palmtop NetBSD isn't that desirable for me, because I'd have to sacrifice using a Linux distro if I wanted to do cross-compiles. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'd love to know it.
While I doubt that the changes will be made, some could certainly be.
I don't know about where you're living, but where I am the spectrum is only reaching the incrediblly urban areas. If you live four miles from an incredibly large city, you get nothing in my state. Perhaps licenses should be more range restricted...or a license should perhaps require a station to broadcast to their entire audience.
And why should broadcast licenses only be given to television and radio companies? What if someone else has a viable business plan that can benefit the public?
I may be ignorant, but not of this. You should practice reading for comprehension. Please stop posting when you don't know what you're talking about.
See enumerated point #1 from my previous post.
The difference is that MS Outlook has a lot more rendering capability, as I have already mentioned.
Do it. I'll use it. :)
The main reason I can see that the other idea is still useful is when you don't have control of the server. If you can put your own binaries on the server (which happens much more frequently), you can still install rz and sz in your home directory, but you can't usually keep an scp server unless they've already got one running. So there are more times when this may be useable than an scp-enabled ssh app.
Tell me, can it be activated by the "preview" feature of Eudora or Mozilla?
Will they open up attachments that you don't want them to? No?
I'd say that makes it a lot less susceptable to this worm, and a lot of others.
In fact, this is usually the case. E-mail programs normally shield execution of binaries from the user entirely until they say otherwise.
So as I see it, for MOST clients, there are only two ways to be subverted:
1) Rendering leads to hackability. However, most can only render html or plain text. Perhaps a vulnerability can be made on the html. Because of HTML's unbelievable simplicity (and the sandbox that is inherently placed upon it), though, that would be extremely difficult. Plain text should be impossible to exploit, unless the designers are very stupid.
2) Client could be attacked through it's connections to the internet
A buffer overflow attack via SMTP, IMAP or POP? Their simplicity makes it easy to write in such a way that the user can't exploit (besides sending billions of unwanted e-mails). Once again, the lack of complexity means that to produce an exploit the designers would have to be very stupid.
Essentially its the extra ability to render a complex programming language that makes Outlook uniquely vulnerable without user intervention (user stupidity for opening unknown executables); other readers do not suffer from this. Perhaps if more people knew this we could stop living in fear of viruses that could have no teeth.
It comes with Solaris right now. You can also get it for Linux. Why?
It's useful when the ssh client has it built in because you get pretty much the same speed and the ability to download between clients.
By the way, I know about two zmodem-enabled ssh clients:
1) SecureCRT - nonfree/Windows only.
2) Zssh - open-source, cross-platform.
The actual applications which initiate the transfer are called "rz" and "sz."
There are already commodity DSPs for mp3 decoding. Making an OGG decoder would require either a faster general purpose CPU (more expensive) or an ASIC chip for it (also more expensive), even though it's easy to actually do either case from the R&D standpoint, since the algorithm is well known.
I have seen a lot of logic among mere mortals that they want to own stuff - software, music, etc, and do whatever they want with it other than copying.
:)
When I explained the "one computer, one copy of Windows" to a friend of mine, he thought Microsoft was nuts.
Why? I think it comes down mostly to tradition - an unwritten rule.
Ever since we've had recording devices, people have been able to BUY (not rent) a version of whatever it was that they had, and use it however they want. Things have only changed in the last decade - and they changed without telling anyone. The industries are trying to sneak the changes in without anyone really noticing until it's a part of the culture.
I don't think this will pan out at all. On the other hand, it's a way to get more people pissed at microsoft (for suggesting it).
Do you perhaps mean scrumtrelescent?
What you said would most likely be pronounced
"scrum-tree-less-cant" not
"scrum-tree-less-sent"