We're planning to set up PHP Gallery when I can find the time. Depends what you want. There are lots of small PHP scripts that will generate a bunch of clickable thumbnails for you too.
Actually; here's a strange trend (perhaps it's just me) but every time someone wants some kind of application like photo archiving or any kind of database or mail or whatever, I immediately think and/or search for a web-based solution. Even for home stuff I install things like "Squirrel mail" and "PHP-donkey" on my main Linux box, then I can access them from anywhere with just a web browser.
Perhaps it's because I have to keep reinstalling Windows when it fscks up (Not my fault, Sue keeps installing those crappy Kewlbox games and assorted other flakeware!!) and this approach saves me from having to reconfigure mail and stuff..?
This is a very large stretch, assumption wise. evidence please.
peacefire.org (if you can get to it:) is a site that highlights the various shortcomings of censorware. They're constantly uncovering various sites being blocked for political reasons, and pushing for openness.
Most of the programs are sold as helping parents protect their kids. I'm a parent myself and I agree with peacefire; if any of these programs were protecting my kids, I'd want to know what they block and why so I can decide which package most closely matches what I would consider appropriate.
They're also their own best example; the peacefire site itself is blocked by most censorware.
OK it's not evidence, but it shows that the orignal assumption is probably justified.
Hey.. I can be ontopic now! When are the slashdot admins going to answer some of the questions raised during the "Great Karma Massacre?".. Is it justified for/. to consider itself a 'user-moderated' community when the editors have unlimited mod points, can (and do) bitchslap entire threads, and overturn metamoderation.
Sure, it's not censorship 'as such' since users can read at -1, but it makes posts far less obvious and there's also the 'chilling' effect of massive karma loss.
Speaking of karma loss.. I'm really half-inclined to post this anonymously but what the hell, karma is easily regained:-)
Same goes for mozilla. The recent 0.9.7 build was pretty damn good and quite stable. Some of the recent nightly builds have been excellent (and some have been pretty flakey, but you get that). Netscape releases are based on the more stable Mozilla builds, but they're a bit behind and have various marketing crap added.
I had mistakenly understood that AOL were already using netscape, seems I was wrong. That's a pity because it's (imao) just as good as IE now, perhaps better in some areas, and a lot of sites might consider supporting NS better if it had all of AOL's market-share behind it. Perhaps when mozilla gets to 1.0.0 they'll take another look at it?
Exactly it. A single large machine capable of running 20 linux images is cheaper to buy -and- run (power, admin, etc) than 20 identical Intel boxes. And it's the whole 'better use of resources' taken to the next level; at any one time most of your servers are under minimal load so you can give the CPU time and disk access to servers that need it.
We went to an IBM presentation on this 6mo ago, which was aimed at marketing types but still pretty interesting. It only takes minutes to image a new server and put it online. I'm guessing that if you ever needed to reboot one it would take seconds.
Everyone keeps saying "but look what AOL did to Netscape..". My guess is that -none- of those people have tried mozilla lately. We've been running nightly builds for about the last 6 months and mozilla is starting to get very nice.
So how do AOL benefit? They wanted an alternative browser that they can give away with AOL and now they have one, without having had to pay the full cost of development themselves. Being GPL'd isn't a huge problem because they planned to give it away free anyhow; they're competing against IE which is also being given away. So if they could somehow un-GPL'd mozilla they would lose all of the 'free developer' advantage and gain -what-?
Now they want an OS they can give away free with AOL. If they could somehow un-GPL it (presumably by throwing millions into lawsuits) then they lose all of the 'free developer' advantage of the GPL, can't call it "Linux" anymore because Linus still owns the (tm), probably cripple their 'free-developer' support for Mozilla, compete against still-GPL'd distro's such as Mandrake, Debian and the rest..
.. and gain -what-?
Sure they might be evil, but I don't think they're stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot if there's virtually nothing they might gain from doing it.
And much faster that capped ADSL. 650M takes basically a whole day at 128Kbps, It's much easier to burn a CD and mail it; total cost about $2 which is about what ADSL costs anyway. If you burn a bunch of CD's at a time it's even better value!
OK, I read that entire site and here's my comment in brief;
"It's a firewall"
OK, I'll start by letting you know that I have no involvement with smoothwall or the developers and I can't really speak for them, but here's a paraphrasing of what they appear to be saying;
smoothwall (like any other firewall product) is not a general-purpose distribution that includes things such as GCC or a publically accessable webserver, because that would make it less secure as a firewall. If you want apache and/or gcc and/or any other services, install them by all means on a box behind your firewall. Hell, even install smoothwall and then -add- the packages if you want and if you're happy with the slightly reduced security that this represents. Or if you feel that you don't need the level of security smoothwall aims to provide, use a general purpose install with ipchains or iptables. Sure the developers were a little harsh, but only because the original suggestion was both stupid and presumptuious.
If it comes to a tradeoff between 'professional conduct' and damn solid code written from an uncompromising position, I know what I'd rather have on my firewall.
Well, there are firewall-only distros (LRP, etc) but I've not heard of any DNS-only or other single-service distributions.
I think the problem here is that MS has got a lot of people into the "one service, one server" mentality because under NT different services tend to 'leak' and interact with each other causing problems. And perhaps also because it suits them financially (one more server, one more NT license).
Linux doesn't work that way. Most of us are quite happy to run dns+http+smtp+imap+sql all on one box and if the load average gets too high we get a faster box. The only real exception to this is firewalls; it's usually a good idea to run a separate firewall box with as little as possible installed on it, and a lot of people use an otherwise-obsolete PC for the job which is why there are one-disk-firewall distro's.
If you really want to install just one service most distributions will happily let you do it, for example with RedHat select a custom install and uncheck all but the "DNS server" option, and you'll get a very minimal GUI install with a DNS server and the tools you need to admin it, and not much else. If you want a really light install you can even select individual packages and remove the GUI too, but then you have to set up stuff in textmode which will make your PHB unhappy again..
Phones are intrusive, and phone spam is the worst of all.
How is this a troll? It's quite possible that the original question was asked with budget telemarketing in mind, and perhaps this should be addressed
1; I believe there are laws against unsolicited automatic messages in the USA.
2; Even if there aren't (there are no laws in New Zealand against it) it's far more obnoxous than regular telemarketing. I've only ever recieved two such calls, one from the Fire Service promoting smoke alarms and one from a citizens group concerned about local government spending. Both groups got such a large and hostile response that they almost immediately abandoned the technique.
I hope that's not what the original question-asker had in mind, and if it was I strongly advise them to rethink their position..
Towards the end of the dialup BBS scene I hacked up "Cherrybomb", which was a fairly complete voicemail BBS written mostly as BASH script. I ran it for two years and at one time it was answering 200 calls a day on two lines. Just recently I dug out the old code and used it for one of our clients to call their tech's when things break down. It's been surprisingly reliable considering that it runs on a P133 and a very old Elcon 14k4 voice modem.
The key part was a small C program that played and recorded modem-format audio and interpreted the keypresses, which I wrote because vgetty (at that time) didn't support my modem and lacked several other features I wanted. I set up a project on sourceforge for it here. Please don't mail me to tell me how bad my code is, I'm well aware already:).
True; we use https a lot, and SSH all the time (none of our boxes allow a plain telnet connection)
What I meant was encrypted mail; almost nobody uses it even though almost everybody agrees that it's a good idea.
I'll be more specific next time.
And I agree with your point, I don't send encrypted mail because it's usually too much effort to track down the appropriate public key an so on. If it were as easy and automated as https then I would probably use it a lot more.
This should probably be a slashdot poll. Everyone agrees that encryption is a good idea and we should all be using it, but do you actually know anyone who does? Have YOU generated a key, had it signed by some trusted friends, and submitted it to a keyserver or put it on your web page? When you send mail, do you first check if the recipient has a public key and encrypt it if they do?
Julian Angelo also springs to mind.. I don't know if he's still actively spamming, but he's tried several times to have NZNOG archives purged of his name. The large number of references to him in the NZNOG mailing list somewhat ironically results in google ranking it even higher!
That's how I read it too.. if some asshole sent out 45,000 email promoting Herbal Viagra or Make Money Fast, the slahsdot community would be calling for their heads on a spike. But when it's 45,000 emails slamming someone's former employee.. oh, that's -freedom of Speech-.. get real!
And I am really going to -laugh- when this gets modded down by someone who doesn't agree with it and can't see the hypocracy!
Redmond Linux looks pretty nice too; dunno how it is to install, but they've made it look like windows and apparently added stuff to make it network easily into a windows environment.
Mod it down as a troll if you must, but 'd like to point out that Eric Raymond said basically the
same thing a long time ago, and AFAIK hasn't changed his position either..
Or perhaps "like the rabbits and foxes and dogs of New Zealand" really. Well, perhaps not foxes and dogs, but rabbits, opossums, and feral cats are a big issue here already.
There are other precedents (ragwort, for example) which we manage to keep in check. I don't imagine it'll be a huge problem, just one more long-term nusance we could've lived without!
What prick modded this down as offtopic?
IR doesn't use wires, therefore it is wireless, it's just not RF. The question didn't -say- RF specifically.
The circuit I mentioned shows both an IR diode and a photodetector, therefore it -is- also two-way.
For communicating between two devices in the same room this might be perfectly adequate, and it's likely to be much cheaper than a radio link. Also since IR doesn't go through walls and is greatly attenuated by ordinary glass, it's inherently less of security risk than a radio link.
Well, detecting it is easy; it's a big purple gorilla that pops up as soon as you try to do basically anything.
Removing it is damned near impossible; If the machine doesn't have too much installed on it I would highly recommend making a backup of all your data and completely reinstalling windows.
I've manually removed it three times; the last time worked and left the computer reasonably OK, but it took me over an hour and I can't remember exactly what I did. A complete reinstall of everything usually takes less time and effort.
What happens when we've all marked "egg troll" as a foe, for example, and nobody's replying or modding him down.
People without a login will come here and see his MSFUD comments at '0', with no opposing comments, and assume that they might therefore have some validity? god help us..!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually; here's a strange trend (perhaps it's just me) but every time someone wants some kind of application like photo archiving or any kind of database or mail or whatever, I immediately think and/or search for a web-based solution. Even for home stuff I install things like "Squirrel mail" and "PHP-donkey" on my main Linux box, then I can access them from anywhere with just a web browser.
Perhaps it's because I have to keep reinstalling Windows when it fscks up (Not my fault, Sue keeps installing those crappy Kewlbox games and assorted other flakeware!!) and this approach saves me from having to reconfigure mail and stuff..?
peacefire.org (if you can get to it :) is a site that highlights the various shortcomings of censorware. They're constantly uncovering various sites being blocked for political reasons, and pushing for openness.
Most of the programs are sold as helping parents protect their kids. I'm a parent myself and I agree with peacefire; if any of these programs were protecting my kids, I'd want to know what they block and why so I can decide which package most closely matches what I would consider appropriate.
They're also their own best example; the peacefire site itself is blocked by most censorware.
OK it's not evidence, but it shows that the orignal assumption is probably justified.
Sure, it's not censorship 'as such' since users can read at -1, but it makes posts far less obvious and there's also the 'chilling' effect of massive karma loss.
Speaking of karma loss.. I'm really half-inclined to post this anonymously but what the hell, karma is easily regained :-)
I had mistakenly understood that AOL were already using netscape, seems I was wrong. That's a pity because it's (imao) just as good as IE now, perhaps better in some areas, and a lot of sites might consider supporting NS better if it had all of AOL's market-share behind it. Perhaps when mozilla gets to 1.0.0 they'll take another look at it?
We went to an IBM presentation on this 6mo ago, which was aimed at marketing types but still pretty interesting. It only takes minutes to image a new server and put it online. I'm guessing that if you ever needed to reboot one it would take seconds.
So how do AOL benefit? They wanted an alternative browser that they can give away with AOL and now they have one, without having had to pay the full cost of development themselves. Being GPL'd isn't a huge problem because they planned to give it away free anyhow; they're competing against IE which is also being given away. So if they could somehow un-GPL'd mozilla they would lose all of the 'free developer' advantage and gain -what-?
Now they want an OS they can give away free with AOL. If they could somehow un-GPL it (presumably by throwing millions into lawsuits) then they lose all of the 'free developer' advantage of the GPL, can't call it "Linux" anymore because Linus still owns the (tm), probably cripple their 'free-developer' support for Mozilla, compete against still-GPL'd distro's such as Mandrake, Debian and the rest..
Sure they might be evil, but I don't think they're stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot if there's virtually nothing they might gain from doing it.
I currently have +25 karma.. I'm expecting to find it somewhere in the negatives by tomorrow morning.
"It's a firewall"
OK, I'll start by letting you know that I have no involvement with smoothwall or the developers and I can't really speak for them, but here's a paraphrasing of what they appear to be saying;
smoothwall (like any other firewall product) is not a general-purpose distribution that includes things such as GCC or a publically accessable webserver, because that would make it less secure as a firewall. If you want apache and/or gcc and/or any other services, install them by all means on a box behind your firewall. Hell, even install smoothwall and then -add- the packages if you want and if you're happy with the slightly reduced security that this represents. Or if you feel that you don't need the level of security smoothwall aims to provide, use a general purpose install with ipchains or iptables. Sure the developers were a little harsh, but only because the original suggestion was both stupid and presumptuious.
If it comes to a tradeoff between 'professional conduct' and damn solid code written from an uncompromising position, I know what I'd rather have on my firewall.
I think the problem here is that MS has got a lot of people into the "one service, one server" mentality because under NT different services tend to 'leak' and interact with each other causing problems. And perhaps also because it suits them financially (one more server, one more NT license).
Linux doesn't work that way. Most of us are quite happy to run dns+http+smtp+imap+sql all on one box and if the load average gets too high we get a faster box. The only real exception to this is firewalls; it's usually a good idea to run a separate firewall box with as little as possible installed on it, and a lot of people use an otherwise-obsolete PC for the job which is why there are one-disk-firewall distro's.
If you really want to install just one service most distributions will happily let you do it, for example with RedHat select a custom install and uncheck all but the "DNS server" option, and you'll get a very minimal GUI install with a DNS server and the tools you need to admin it, and not much else. If you want a really light install you can even select individual packages and remove the GUI too, but then you have to set up stuff in textmode which will make your PHB unhappy again..
How is this a troll? It's quite possible that the original question was asked with budget telemarketing in mind, and perhaps this should be addressed
1; I believe there are laws against unsolicited automatic messages in the USA.
2; Even if there aren't (there are no laws in New Zealand against it) it's far more obnoxous than regular telemarketing. I've only ever recieved two such calls, one from the Fire Service promoting smoke alarms and one from a citizens group concerned about local government spending. Both groups got such a large and hostile response that they almost immediately abandoned the technique.
I hope that's not what the original question-asker had in mind, and if it was I strongly advise them to rethink their position..
The key part was a small C program that played and recorded modem-format audio and interpreted the keypresses, which I wrote because vgetty (at that time) didn't support my modem and lacked several other features I wanted. I set up a project on sourceforge for it here. Please don't mail me to tell me how bad my code is, I'm well aware already :).
I'll be more specific next time.
And I agree with your point, I don't send encrypted mail because it's usually too much effort to track down the appropriate public key an so on. If it were as easy and automated as https then I would probably use it a lot more.
I know I don't.. :)
Julian Angelo also springs to mind.. I don't know if he's still actively spamming, but he's tried several times to have NZNOG archives purged of his name. The large number of references to him in the NZNOG mailing list somewhat ironically results in google ranking it even higher!
dd if=seti.txt bs=1 skip=69 | fold -w127 | sed -es"/0/ /g"| less
I can recognise the circle, pythagoras, pictures of DNA and stuff. Also the message loops around.
Ahh shit, someone's posted an image already, my cow-orker just printed it off..
And I am really going to -laugh- when this gets modded down by someone who doesn't agree with it and can't see the hypocracy!
Redmond Linux looks pretty nice too; dunno how it is to install, but they've made it look like windows and apparently added stuff to make it network easily into a windows environment.
Links not provided.. use google..!
There are other precedents (ragwort, for example) which we manage to keep in check. I don't imagine it'll be a huge problem, just one more long-term nusance we could've lived without!
The circuit I mentioned shows both an IR diode and a photodetector, therefore it -is- also two-way.
For communicating between two devices in the same room this might be perfectly adequate, and it's likely to be much cheaper than a radio link. Also since IR doesn't go through walls and is greatly attenuated by ordinary glass, it's inherently less of security risk than a radio link.
Removing it is damned near impossible; If the machine doesn't have too much installed on it I would highly recommend making a backup of all your data and completely reinstalling windows.
I've manually removed it three times; the last time worked and left the computer reasonably OK, but it took me over an hour and I can't remember exactly what I did. A complete reinstall of everything usually takes less time and effort.
People without a login will come here and see his MSFUD comments at '0', with no opposing comments, and assume that they might therefore have some validity? god help us..!
You mean something like this?