No! I use that feature all the time. Together with vimium, it allows me to navigate while keeping my hands on the keyboard without having to reach for my mouse all the time.
I know alt+left arrow works too, but a chorded keyboard shortcut is a lot less convenient, and I'd still have to move my hand to the arrow cluster instead of staying close to home row.
Comprehensive reading is not your strong point I take it?
This person was already running Windows 10, but then Windows decided on its own that it was time to install some random updates and that this was more important than what the owner of the computer was doing with is computer at the time.
So if I want to install Oracle on a server, I'm supposed to fly over to a different country where the datacenter is located and sit at the console to do it?
What I've been wondering is... isn't that a bitch to maintain security patches? Because you now have all these potentially vulnerable libraries spread out over a bunch of docker containers, completely outside of the control of the package manager.
So when the next heartbleed bug comes around, you may think you have patched your system, while in fact the libraries you are exposing to the outside world via your docker apps are still vulnerable.
Except he is in fact a liar. As others have confirmed in this thread, removing sudoku via apt-get does not remove xfce. In fact it doesn't remove anything but the actual sudoku app.
So I'm sure he issued a bunch of other apt-get commands he has conveniently forgotten to mention here because he had no idea what the hell he was doing, and then he goes on to blame Linux and apt-get for his own willful ignorance.
Are you going to block rm -rf/sys/firmware/efi/efivars too? In fact are you going to add filters for everything that the rm command is not supposed to delete? How about the > command then. What if you did >/sys/firmware/efivars/* ? Would you block that too? How about the cp or mv command? dd? echo? cat? I could easily come up with some destructive stuff using those commands. Good luck with preventing all that.
And even if you could change all your shell utilities to block all potentially destructive modifications, it would still not prevent a rogue program or an attacker who gained root on your system to run their own code and permanently brick your system.
Read that carefully: permanently. brick. your system. Not: oh shit my linux is broken, I have to restore from backup or reinstall, but: oh shit, my motherboard is fried and I have to buy a new computer.
This is dangerous stuff, and it is something new to take into account when playing around with your computer. It used to be that nothing you did in software could damage your hardware, and there was something liberating about that idea. This has now changed.
> No, he's not an idiot. He's a normal person. Normal people click uninstall and expect their game to be uninstalled, not their OS's GUI
No he's not an idiot, a fucking liar is what he is. There is no way that in any package management system XFCE would have a dependency on a Sudoku app, if anything the dependency would be the other way around. So no, removing Sudoku would never result in XFCE being deleted. Not even Ubuntu would be that stupid.
Get a source port that works on Windows. Chocolate-doom for the most vanilla experience, but there's also zdoom, prboom, prboom-plus, doomsday, and plenty of others.
> How well do they work against EW countermeasures
S-300/400 SAMs are said to be very resistant to radar jamming. In the Ukraine crisis, they have inflicted huge losses to the Ukrainian air force.
> There are really not many countries (that we're likely to go to war with) that have the capabilities you're talking about
They may not have these capabilities yet, but systems like the S-400 exist and they will certainly proliferate in the coming years. It would be a mistake to plan for the present situation only. Iran for instance, is very interested in acquiring the S-400.
The A-10 was specifically designed to take out Russian tanks invading Western Europe through the Fulda gap. It's certainly tough, but it's not invincible. At the time, it was projected that the whole A-10 inventory would be lost to combat attrition in about a week if such an attack would actually take place, and this was against a 1970s state of the art air defense, not a modern one.
> It is probably worthwhile to develop strategies to attack and degrade enemy air defense systems
This is the so called Wild Weasel mission. They've been doing that since Vietnam. It's expensive, extremely dangerous, not foolproof and you lose any element of surprise.
> drones providing air defense
Escort fighters, drones and dragged decoys have been a thing for decades, but a drone isn't going to stop an incoming S-400, and the S-400 is clever enough not to go for the decoy but for the big juicy B-52 instead.
Yes, that's what they pretty much had to do out of necessity. Also, a rather high amount of combat attrition was calculated in.
This multi-tiered approach has distinct disadvantages though:
It speaks for itself that high attrition is bad. When B-52s were initially used as a nuclear deterrent, they weren't even expected to return if they would ever be used against the Soviet Union. The whole A-10 inventory was expected to be lost after about a week if the Soviets actually attacked through the Fulda gap.
It's a two step approach, so you first have to spend a significant amount of time and effort in dismantling an enemy's air defense before you can attack actual high value targets. Stealth bombers and fighters can bypass air defenses and go in on the first wave, when you still have the element of surprise.
Air defense systems, like the Russian S-400 SAMs, are becoming ever more sophisticated and deadly and they are affordable by countries like Iran and Syria. It looks like in the future wild weasel tactics are becoming more and more a suicide mission.
Finally, I think it's always a good idea to have a bigger stick than your potential adversaries. Even if you never use it, it gives you more leverage just by having it. You can hate all you want on the F-35, but you can be sure that the Russians and the Chinese are paying attention.
The thing that makes the B-52 work is that it's a simple bombtruck that can carry an insane amount of ordnance. It's achilles heel though is that it is not survivable in contested skies. It's a big lumbering airplane and if your enemy has a somewhat capable air defense, the B-52 is going to get shot down. This rules out use against countries like Russia and China, or even Iran, at least in first wave strikes. Even relatively simple SA-2 SAMs managed to take out several B-52s in Vietnam.
Its successors all tried to address the survivability issue. The B-1 did it by adding speed and low level flying to the equation, the B-2 by adding stealth.
Luckily, most of the US' conflicts since the Vietnam war have been with adversaries that are not technologically advanced, so the B-52 is still highly useful.
It has this in common with the A-10 by the way, very useful plane in the current context, but not usable against an adversary with an actual air defence system.
> Even the latest American jets had a hard time dog-fighting against the obsolete MIG-17
That was almost completely because of pilot training. American pilots in the 1960s didn't do dissimilar combat training, they only practiced basic fighter manoeuvres against the same type of aircraft and dog fighting in general wasn't emphasised at all because of an overreliance on missiles.
As a result, inexperienced F-4 pilots kept getting suckered into low speed turn-and-burn dogfights with MiGs, which is exactly where the MiG's strengths were and where the F-4 did poorly. Instead, they should have used their superior speed and thrust to take the fight into the vertical with zoom and boom tactics, in effect using their F-4 as the energy fighter that it is.
Because of this experience, the Navy started their Top Gun program and the USAF started using dissimilar combat aircraft to simulate small and nimble adversary aircraft in their training programs, the so called "aggressor" squadrons.
Slashdot Mirror
No! I use that feature all the time. Together with vimium, it allows me to navigate while keeping my hands on the keyboard without having to reach for my mouse all the time.
I know alt+left arrow works too, but a chorded keyboard shortcut is a lot less convenient, and I'd still have to move my hand to the arrow cluster instead of staying close to home row.
Comprehensive reading is not your strong point I take it?
This person was already running Windows 10, but then Windows decided on its own that it was time to install some random updates and that this was more important than what the owner of the computer was doing with is computer at the time.
This is bordering on malware practices.
Or you can pay like $3 a month for a good VPN service and be done with it.
Additional bonus is that it offers extra privacy and the ability to bypass silly regional restrictions on some websites.
So if I want to install Oracle on a server, I'm supposed to fly over to a different country where the datacenter is located and sit at the console to do it?
What I've been wondering is ... isn't that a bitch to maintain security patches? Because you now have all these potentially vulnerable libraries spread out over a bunch of docker containers, completely outside of the control of the package manager.
So when the next heartbleed bug comes around, you may think you have patched your system, while in fact the libraries you are exposing to the outside world via your docker apps are still vulnerable.
Except he is in fact a liar. As others have confirmed in this thread, removing sudoku via apt-get does not remove xfce. In fact it doesn't remove anything but the actual sudoku app.
So I'm sure he issued a bunch of other apt-get commands he has conveniently forgotten to mention here because he had no idea what the hell he was doing, and then he goes on to blame Linux and apt-get for his own willful ignorance.
Have you even read the article?
Are you going to block rm -rf /sys/firmware/efi/efivars too? In fact are you going to add filters for everything that the rm command is not supposed to delete? How about the > command then. What if you did > /sys/firmware/efivars/* ? Would you block that too? How about the cp or mv command? dd? echo? cat? I could easily come up with some destructive stuff using those commands. Good luck with preventing all that.
And even if you could change all your shell utilities to block all potentially destructive modifications, it would still not prevent a rogue program or an attacker who gained root on your system to run their own code and permanently brick your system.
Read that carefully: permanently. brick. your system. Not: oh shit my linux is broken, I have to restore from backup or reinstall, but: oh shit, my motherboard is fried and I have to buy a new computer.
This is dangerous stuff, and it is something new to take into account when playing around with your computer. It used to be that nothing you did in software could damage your hardware, and there was something liberating about that idea. This has now changed.
> No, he's not an idiot. He's a normal person. Normal people click uninstall and expect their game to be uninstalled, not their OS's GUI
No he's not an idiot, a fucking liar is what he is. There is no way that in any package management system XFCE would have a dependency on a Sudoku app, if anything the dependency would be the other way around. So no, removing Sudoku would never result in XFCE being deleted. Not even Ubuntu would be that stupid.
A word can have different meanings. One of the most common meanings of the word free is gratis.
Get a source port that works on Windows. Chocolate-doom for the most vanilla experience, but there's also zdoom, prboom, prboom-plus, doomsday, and plenty of others.
You used to hold a button down to strafe instead of turn
No, you didn't. You could bind dedicated strafe left and right buttons, just like in modern games. See: http://i.imgur.com/hRNHK43.png
Shouldn't the red line plateau at some point? It's not like a finite piece of software can contain an infinite amount of bugs.
> How well do they work against EW countermeasures
S-300/400 SAMs are said to be very resistant to radar jamming. In the Ukraine crisis, they have inflicted huge losses to the Ukrainian air force.
> There are really not many countries (that we're likely to go to war with) that have the capabilities you're talking about
They may not have these capabilities yet, but systems like the S-400 exist and they will certainly proliferate in the coming years. It would be a mistake to plan for the present situation only. Iran for instance, is very interested in acquiring the S-400.
The A-10 was specifically designed to take out Russian tanks invading Western Europe through the Fulda gap. It's certainly tough, but it's not invincible. At the time, it was projected that the whole A-10 inventory would be lost to combat attrition in about a week if such an attack would actually take place, and this was against a 1970s state of the art air defense, not a modern one.
Yes, but these SAMs are becoming more and more sophisticated. An S-400 can easily reach a B-52's cruising altitude.
There's no such thing as "out of reach" for an S-400. It can hit targets as high as 185km. That's 600,000 (six hundred thousand) feet.
A B-52 has a ceiling of 50,000 feet.
> It is probably worthwhile to develop strategies to attack and degrade enemy air defense systems
This is the so called Wild Weasel mission. They've been doing that since Vietnam. It's expensive, extremely dangerous, not foolproof and you lose any element of surprise.
> drones providing air defense
Escort fighters, drones and dragged decoys have been a thing for decades, but a drone isn't going to stop an incoming S-400, and the S-400 is clever enough not to go for the decoy but for the big juicy B-52 instead.
Yes, that's what they pretty much had to do out of necessity. Also, a rather high amount of combat attrition was calculated in.
This multi-tiered approach has distinct disadvantages though:
It speaks for itself that high attrition is bad. When B-52s were initially used as a nuclear deterrent, they weren't even expected to return if they would ever be used against the Soviet Union. The whole A-10 inventory was expected to be lost after about a week if the Soviets actually attacked through the Fulda gap.
It's a two step approach, so you first have to spend a significant amount of time and effort in dismantling an enemy's air defense before you can attack actual high value targets. Stealth bombers and fighters can bypass air defenses and go in on the first wave, when you still have the element of surprise.
Air defense systems, like the Russian S-400 SAMs, are becoming ever more sophisticated and deadly and they are affordable by countries like Iran and Syria. It looks like in the future wild weasel tactics are becoming more and more a suicide mission.
Finally, I think it's always a good idea to have a bigger stick than your potential adversaries. Even if you never use it, it gives you more leverage just by having it. You can hate all you want on the F-35, but you can be sure that the Russians and the Chinese are paying attention.
The thing that makes the B-52 work is that it's a simple bombtruck that can carry an insane amount of ordnance. It's achilles heel though is that it is not survivable in contested skies. It's a big lumbering airplane and if your enemy has a somewhat capable air defense, the B-52 is going to get shot down. This rules out use against countries like Russia and China, or even Iran, at least in first wave strikes. Even relatively simple SA-2 SAMs managed to take out several B-52s in Vietnam.
Its successors all tried to address the survivability issue. The B-1 did it by adding speed and low level flying to the equation, the B-2 by adding stealth.
Luckily, most of the US' conflicts since the Vietnam war have been with adversaries that are not technologically advanced, so the B-52 is still highly useful.
It has this in common with the A-10 by the way, very useful plane in the current context, but not usable against an adversary with an actual air defence system.
Occam's razor is not science. It's just a quick gut feeling rule to separate what's probable from what's improbable.
According to Occam's razor, quantum physics would be pretty improbable too.
> What if your Oracle RDMS takes a dive
As an Oracle DBA ... if my Oracle RDBMS takes a dive, the last thing I want is for systemd to try to do something about it.
Cool Retro Term (CRT ... get it?) is a similar program for Linux users.
https://github.com/Swordfish90...
> it also allows each tab to be split horizontally and vertically and then split each of those splits even further
Why not just use tmux then?
So you buy unsupported hardware with proprietary drivers, and it's somehow Linux's fault?
I will never understand some people...
> Even the latest American jets had a hard time dog-fighting against the obsolete MIG-17
That was almost completely because of pilot training. American pilots in the 1960s didn't do dissimilar combat training, they only practiced basic fighter manoeuvres against the same type of aircraft and dog fighting in general wasn't emphasised at all because of an overreliance on missiles.
As a result, inexperienced F-4 pilots kept getting suckered into low speed turn-and-burn dogfights with MiGs, which is exactly where the MiG's strengths were and where the F-4 did poorly. Instead, they should have used their superior speed and thrust to take the fight into the vertical with zoom and boom tactics, in effect using their F-4 as the energy fighter that it is.
Because of this experience, the Navy started their Top Gun program and the USAF started using dissimilar combat aircraft to simulate small and nimble adversary aircraft in their training programs, the so called "aggressor" squadrons.