I think that is exactly what their leadership wants. The idea that outsiders' cell phones won't work there -- and their citizens' cell phones won't work elsewhere -- has great appeal to a totalitarian government.
More to the point, they changed their name because they lost some trademark suits outside the USA.
If Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" is invalidated in the USA, will that affect their trademark elsewhere? Is this all based upon an international "we'll honor yours if you honor ours" system? In other words, is their "Windows" trademark in, say, the EU simply based upon their USA trademark, and will it then be invalid in the EU if it's ruled invalid in the USA?
Wouldn't that be ironic, if they lost the "Windows" trademark in the USA but kept it everywhere else. How can those other jurisdictions argue that "windows" is not a generic term?
there are plenty of places you can download Suse ISOs, just not directly from them
Like where, exactly? A Google search for "SuSE ISO" turns up dozens of pages of people looking for them, but no actual ISOs (other than the "eval" and "ftp" ISOs).
I want a CD install. SuSE has an ISO that let's you play with it, but not install it.
Current Knoppix is debian with a both kernel 2.4.6 & 2.6.6
Red herring. I didn't mention Knoppix. I've not tried it. Are you recommending it?
I think the only damn person being political here is you. As you won't go with what the better product is, but only be againist what someone else thinks is better. A completely political view.
This implies that you claim Debian is the better product. Did you claim that somewhere and I missed it? I'm claiming that FreeBSD is a better Unix-like OS than Linux, and that of the Linux distros I recommend avoiding those with an ax to grind and sticking with those that just try to put out a good product. However, in my personal experience, I have not found one Linux distro that worked well enough to keep it on my computer. Maybe it's my computer. I dunno. FreeBSD and OpenBSD work great for me, but I wouldn't recommend OpenBSD for a beginner.
A unix beginner really shouldn't be building a firewall, at least not a production one. Use something else that somebody else set up instead. Firewalls can be tricky to get right.
A beginner shouldn't build a production anything. That said, I built my household firewall using Coyote Linux when I was a Unix beginner, and it worked fine. There's enough information out on the internet for any reasonably intelligent person to build their own firewall. I switched to OpenBSD because it's more secure and it's easier to configure (you really should try pf sometime). I didn't have "somebody else" to set it up for me, but if I did I'd still want to be able to maintain it myself. Rolling your own is a great way to go; if you're not up for that, then you should just buy something from Linksys.
If you think FreeBSD is going to be too difficult for a Unix novice, then why would you recommend they try any Unix? It's hard to be more Unix-like than the BSDs. Are you advocating Linux over BSD because it's more Windows-like? If that's what you want, try Lindows, or Lindos or whatever they're calling themselves today.
Free BSD. I don't recommend OpenBSD for a Unix beginner, unless you're building a firewall.
As for Linux, well, you did ask for ease of use. I've tried several Linux distros, and they all failed in one way or another. RedHat was the worst -- the installer got into a nice graphics mode just fine, but somehow couldn't tell XFree86 what settings it used, and subsequently XWindows was a pain in the ass. Perhaps Fedora is better, but somehow I doubt it. Mandrake couldn't recognize my network card to save it's ass (but RedHat could, so a driver is available). SuSE wouldn't let me try without buy (no ISO), so forget them. I wouldn't touch Debian with a 20 foot pole because 1) they're so damn political, and I don't need that crap I just need an OS; 2) they're way behind on the kernel releases; and 3) they're so damn political.
Basically, I'd stay away from any distro that calls itself "GNU/Linux" because their political statement is their #1 priority, and you want the distro to be their #1 priority.
Opening up your network is probably a violation of your agreement with your ISP. "The fact that you did this opening up by stupidity or on purpose does not change that fact." My ISP clearly states that only I and members of my household may use my connection. In other words, my neighbors must buy their own service, they can't piggyback on mine. I doubt any ISP has more liberal terms.
if you can browse to the printer it can get back to you.
And if I can't "browse to the printer," as you say, then what?
I'm not making this up. When I turn on the Microsoft firewall on all our PCs, we can't see each other anymore. It's like we're each the only PC in the workgroup - I can't see the PC with the printer, so I can't print. I'm sure there's a way to "fix" this, but why bother when I'm going to use Zone Alarm anyway? This is just another reason why I prefer ZA.
You read the thread again. There's a 20 second to 2 minute window where Windows XP is connected to the network but the firewall has not yet started. This window of vulnerability is there every time you boot, not just on the initial install. If you think it's OK to leave your computer connected to the internet without a firewall for 2 minutes, then why do you run a firewall at all? How is that 2 minutes safer than any other time of the day?
Sorry, Windows isn't that stable. I could hibernate it, but it doesn't like to go to sleep docked and wake up undocked. It's best to just shut it down at the end of the day before I undock it. Sometimes I power it up 3 or more times in one day (1 at home; 2 at the office; 3 back at home again).
I didn't say I wasn't going to use Windows Update anymore. I'll still get the security patches. No, the issue is SP2 itself. I've heard some scary shit about it, and I'm going to go over it with a fine-tooth comb before I install it. From what I understand it changes some things I don't want changed, forces some "upgrades" that I don't want, and revises your license to terms even more favorable toward Microsoft (if that's even possible -- I thought Passport's "we own all your data" clause was over the top even for them).
People who click any old "OK" button that pops up are part of the problem; I understand what they're proposing before I agree to it. I consider that doing what I should to not be part of the problem.
If what you say is true, then why bother running a firewall at all? You're claiming that we only need a firewall when running Windows Update. If that's true, then Windows Update is really broken.
Leave ethernet disconnected right up until the moment you're ready to hit Windows Update. You're already booted up with the firewall enabled. Connect cable, wait a few seconds for XP to notice it, hit update. Voila.
Uh, huh. And then, the next day, you have to crawl under the desk and disconnect the NIC until you've booted up for the day, then plug it back in. And the day after that. And the day after that. And the day after that.
You see, it takes 20 seconds to 2 minutes from the network activation to the firewall start every time you turn on the PC, not just when you're getting the latest update. And if you think you only need a firewall when you're running Windows Update, then you're missing the whole point of having a firewall.
No shit. When I turn on the Windows firewall I cannot see/be seen on my network. Zone Alarm has no problem letting me print to my network printer (on another PC), but with Windows firewall I don't even see it. Sorry, but I just don't have time to figure out the settings needed to fix this when Zone Alarm is the real fix.
I don't care how good XP SP2 is, I'm not letting it near my PC.
My library'scatalog is online. In fact, if you want to use the catalog at the library you go to a library computer and access the same online catalog you can reach from home. And it's up 24/7.
We are offended that you would try to apply you limiting concept of gender on us.
Hey, pal, join the club. Most languages slap a gender form on all nouns, including inanimate objects like rocks. "Limiting concept" indeed, but that's the way those languages work. Teach humans to speak binary and then we'll talk (pun intended). In most (all?) latin languages, the word for computer is male -- I looked it up once. I don't know about the equivalent of "robot," but I'd bet it's also male.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what I'd do: Sell it on eBay.
WTF else am I going to do with it? Use it as a doorstop?
I think that is exactly what their leadership wants. The idea that outsiders' cell phones won't work there -- and their citizens' cell phones won't work elsewhere -- has great appeal to a totalitarian government.
If Microsoft's trademark on "Windows" is invalidated in the USA, will that affect their trademark elsewhere? Is this all based upon an international "we'll honor yours if you honor ours" system? In other words, is their "Windows" trademark in, say, the EU simply based upon their USA trademark, and will it then be invalid in the EU if it's ruled invalid in the USA?
Wouldn't that be ironic, if they lost the "Windows" trademark in the USA but kept it everywhere else. How can those other jurisdictions argue that "windows" is not a generic term?
b) Is there some problem with the Xbox Gateway? Perhaps it hasn't been updated in 3 years because it still works. I haven't had any problem with it.
If you think FreeBSD is going to be too difficult for a Unix novice, then why would you recommend they try any Unix? It's hard to be more Unix-like than the BSDs. Are you advocating Linux over BSD because it's more Windows-like? If that's what you want, try Lindows, or Lindos or whatever they're calling themselves today.
I dont' want to separate the kernel from the whole OS, which is why I recommend *BSD. Just not OpenBSD for a Unix newcomer.
1) Patent a plant.
2) Spread the plant on unsuspecting farms.
3) Profit!
As for Linux, well, you did ask for ease of use. I've tried several Linux distros, and they all failed in one way or another. RedHat was the worst -- the installer got into a nice graphics mode just fine, but somehow couldn't tell XFree86 what settings it used, and subsequently XWindows was a pain in the ass. Perhaps Fedora is better, but somehow I doubt it. Mandrake couldn't recognize my network card to save it's ass (but RedHat could, so a driver is available). SuSE wouldn't let me try without buy (no ISO), so forget them. I wouldn't touch Debian with a 20 foot pole because 1) they're so damn political, and I don't need that crap I just need an OS; 2) they're way behind on the kernel releases; and 3) they're so damn political.
Basically, I'd stay away from any distro that calls itself "GNU/Linux" because their political statement is their #1 priority, and you want the distro to be their #1 priority.
The fact that Flash is not installed when I first install Windows is one of the few things I like about Windows.
How does this compare to the Xbox Gateway?
The porn industry is way ahead of this.
Opening up your network is probably a violation of your agreement with your ISP. "The fact that you did this opening up by stupidity or on purpose does not change that fact." My ISP clearly states that only I and members of my household may use my connection. In other words, my neighbors must buy their own service, they can't piggyback on mine. I doubt any ISP has more liberal terms.
I'm not making this up. When I turn on the Microsoft firewall on all our PCs, we can't see each other anymore. It's like we're each the only PC in the workgroup - I can't see the PC with the printer, so I can't print. I'm sure there's a way to "fix" this, but why bother when I'm going to use Zone Alarm anyway? This is just another reason why I prefer ZA.
You read the thread again. There's a 20 second to 2 minute window where Windows XP is connected to the network but the firewall has not yet started. This window of vulnerability is there every time you boot, not just on the initial install. If you think it's OK to leave your computer connected to the internet without a firewall for 2 minutes, then why do you run a firewall at all? How is that 2 minutes safer than any other time of the day?
Sorry, Windows isn't that stable. I could hibernate it, but it doesn't like to go to sleep docked and wake up undocked. It's best to just shut it down at the end of the day before I undock it. Sometimes I power it up 3 or more times in one day (1 at home; 2 at the office; 3 back at home again).
People who click any old "OK" button that pops up are part of the problem; I understand what they're proposing before I agree to it. I consider that doing what I should to not be part of the problem.
If what you say is true, then why bother running a firewall at all? You're claiming that we only need a firewall when running Windows Update. If that's true, then Windows Update is really broken.
You see, it takes 20 seconds to 2 minutes from the network activation to the firewall start every time you turn on the PC, not just when you're getting the latest update. And if you think you only need a firewall when you're running Windows Update, then you're missing the whole point of having a firewall.
I don't care how good XP SP2 is, I'm not letting it near my PC.
My library's catalog is online. In fact, if you want to use the catalog at the library you go to a library computer and access the same online catalog you can reach from home. And it's up 24/7.
New business model: If there's no demand for your product, sue your customers.