How... puzzling. The very first card I tried was just that: an nVidia GeForce Ti 4600. It didn't work at all -- the monitor powered up, blinked a cursor once, then nothing at all during the PC's power-up sequence. I fiddled with various BIOS settings, all to no avail. It would drive a standard monitor off the VGA port, but no joy from the DVI port.
But, nVidia doesn't make their own cards, right? They sell the chips to card makers. So perhaps it's some card difference -- exactly what brand of card are you using?
No -- as is clear from my post, I already have an ADC/DVI adapter; I need a card that works. Also, all the Dr. Bott products explicity do not mention support for the 23" HD display; only the 22".
Since I wrote that I am already happily using the HD display with my TiBook, it should be clear that I already have the adapter. That's not the problem.
It was a well executed movie, but there was some obviously biased
left-wing exaggerations. Anyone who says this movie was realistic or
"could happen" is a paranoid alarmist.
Also, if you think the American public would be cool with prisoners being
plugged into the Matrix and sealed off, you're a moron.
... If you think they would, you too are a paranoid alarmist idiot.
In your obviously biased right-wing screed, you presumptively call anyone
who disagrees with you "paranoid," "alarmist," "moron," and "idiot." If
you have actual reasons why you think these various parts of the movie's
future vision are too extreme to be taken seriously as a cautionary tale,
then by all means let's hear them. Merely calling other people names is
childish, content-free, and not at all convincing or interesting.
I looked at this book in the bookstore, and everything was either obvious or useless.
How fortunate that your amazing speed-reading powers allowed you to fully digest, analyze, and dismiss the entire 550-page book while "looking at" it in a store. It's a shame the several tens of thousands of people who actually bought and read the book, gave it a 4.5-star rating on Amazon, and made it one of the top 10 best-selling books in the O'Reilly catalog last year, did not have the benefit of your astounding mental powers.
The answer of this book is that you shouldn't send keepalive packets because if "the sysadmin" configured a firewall to kill idle connections, you should just accept this restriction...
The book does not say this; it says something similar but different, which you have misquoted and presented out of context. The text first points out that it is not a good idea to just blindly start overriding the firewall/NAT restrictions put in place by your networking people. For instance, if your gateway is sharing a limited number of outbound TCP connections over a large set of internal clients, then the connection timeout may serve a necessary purpose which you should not just be ignoring without thought or permission. Just because you can do a thing, does not mean that you should.
The text then goes on to say, "For the occasions when it's really necessary, the right way to accomplish this sort of keepalive behavior is...", and discusses some solutions.
One of the book's authors responds to this question on Usenet with the same unhelpful answer found in the book.
Inasmuch as it helps people to actually understand what they're proposing to do, and its possible consequences (including being reprimanded or fired for deliberately flouting corporate network policy), I think my responses on the topic have been quite helpful. In addition, I have also made practical suggestions on how to defeat such timeouts if the situation warrants it, as well as relevant features that have appeared since the book's publication (such as the OpenSSH ClientAliveInterval mechanism).
Slashdot Mirror
How... puzzling. The very first card I tried was just that: an nVidia
GeForce Ti 4600. It didn't work at all -- the monitor powered up, blinked
a cursor once, then nothing at all during the PC's power-up sequence. I
fiddled with various BIOS settings, all to no avail. It would drive a
standard monitor off the VGA port, but no joy from the DVI port.
But, nVidia doesn't make their own cards, right? They sell the chips to
card makers. So perhaps it's some card difference -- exactly what brand
of card are you using?
Thanks, - Richard
No -- as is clear from my post, I already have an ADC/DVI adapter; I need a card that works. Also, all the Dr. Bott products explicity do not mention support for the 23" HD display; only the 22".
Since I wrote that I am already happily using the HD display with my TiBook, it should be clear that I already have the adapter. That's not the problem.
Also, if you think the American public would be cool with prisoners being plugged into the Matrix and sealed off, you're a moron.
In your obviously biased right-wing screed, you presumptively call anyone who disagrees with you "paranoid," "alarmist," "moron," and "idiot." If you have actual reasons why you think these various parts of the movie's future vision are too extreme to be taken seriously as a cautionary tale, then by all means let's hear them. Merely calling other people names is childish, content-free, and not at all convincing or interesting.
I looked at this book in the bookstore, and everything was either obvious or useless.
How fortunate that your amazing speed-reading powers allowed you to fully digest, analyze, and dismiss the entire 550-page book while "looking at" it in a store. It's a shame the several tens of thousands of people who actually bought and read the book, gave it a 4.5-star rating on Amazon, and made it one of the top 10 best-selling books in the O'Reilly catalog last year, did not have the benefit of your astounding mental powers.
The answer of this book is that you shouldn't send keepalive packets because if "the sysadmin" configured a firewall to kill idle connections, you should just accept this restriction...
The book does not say this; it says something similar but different, which you have misquoted and presented out of context. The text first points out that it is not a good idea to just blindly start overriding the firewall/NAT restrictions put in place by your networking people. For instance, if your gateway is sharing a limited number of outbound TCP connections over a large set of internal clients, then the connection timeout may serve a necessary purpose which you should not just be ignoring without thought or permission. Just because you can do a thing, does not mean that you should.
The text then goes on to say, "For the occasions when it's really necessary, the right way to accomplish this sort of keepalive behavior is...", and discusses some solutions.
One of the book's authors responds to this question on Usenet with the same unhelpful answer found in the book.
Inasmuch as it helps people to actually understand what they're proposing to do, and its possible consequences (including being reprimanded or fired for deliberately flouting corporate network policy), I think my responses on the topic have been quite helpful. In addition, I have also made practical suggestions on how to defeat such timeouts if the situation warrants it, as well as relevant features that have appeared since the book's publication (such as the OpenSSH ClientAliveInterval mechanism).