Slackware 8 came with 2.2.something and 2.4.5, your choice which to install, but defaulting to the more stable 2.2.x kernel. This is no different, really. I used 2.4.5, because I wanted to use ReiserFS:)
Good to know. I guess I won't be upgrading if/when my current unit dies, I will just look around for another old used one somewhere, and replace the battery if nessicary.
I agree totally on your second paragraph. I know I won't upgrade, becuase I have just about everything I need in my current PDA, and the only thing I can afford of the modern offerings is an absolute bottom of the line model with a tiny screen.
Yeah, I think this is the problem. Not enough innovation, and the older devices were better. I still have my Vx (actually, an IBM Workpad C3, which is the same thing only painted black) and it works great. I use it constantly. The battery recently went tits up, so I replaced it rather than buying a new PDA. I see no reason to upgrade. The new ones offer no functionality that I do not already have in other devices (that is, unless I can find a PDA with an organizer that organizes me better than my Vx, an mp3 player better than my iPod and a camera better than my Powershot A75?) and sacrifice stability and battery life for fancy useless dodads like colour screens.
I'll stick with my Palm Vx, and when it finally gives up the ghost, I MIGHT replace it with an m505. PALM: If you are reading this, go back to the good old devices. The ones that WORKED and didn't waste time and battery life and money on things like colour screens and sound beyond BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP. Make me a Palm Vx with Bluetooth and I will be happy.
You should be able to do anything you can do with Bluetooth normally just fine. That is verizon that cripples things, not Apple. I can set up a network over Bluetooth on my iBook. I haven't used it at all, but I bought Bluetooth BTO so I could have the internal module when I get a bt mouse instead of a USB dongle.
Its sold as a "router", but what it really is is a little plastic box with a 200MHz MIPS embedded computer running Linux. You can replace the firmware with something like Sveasoft's modified version, that allows you to SSH into it, and run something like Snort on it. You can turn off the onboard wireless card if you don't need it, and disconnect the antennas for an even more compact device. Without the radio going, it probably won't even put out much heat.
I am pretty much in the same boat as you, except they turned my port 80 back on after Nimda pretty much died out. I also run a web server, but don't get enough traffic to make much of a difference. I figure as long as I don't have hundreds of megs of traffic a day, they aren't going to care.
Oh, I never meant it was GOOD coffee. I do indeed cut my Starbucks with cream and sugar. Black is reserved for the few times I manage to get a really good espresso somewhere, or am at home in Ann Arbor where I actually CAN get good beans, and use a presspot to brew them. The house blend, like everything else Starbucks sells, is roasted too darkly for my taste, but it is enough better than their French Toast that it is actually drinkable with enough cream and sugar.
Dunkin Donuts recently "improved" their coffee. I have not had any of their "new" coffee, but I have heard it is actually suprisingly good.
Starbucks, while not really great coffee, is certainly better than anything instant, or anything made by companies such as Folgers, which is what people here are used to. I can't stand Folgers, but Starbucks, at least their lighter roasts (House Blend and Breakfast Blend, to some extent Columbian) are quite decent. Not up to the beans I can get at a good local roaster, and I can certainly find better beans if I look hard enough, but they are definately the best you can get in many places around the country.
Starbucks, while it is not great coffee, is significantly better than the brown water that most of us Americans are used to drinking at home. Remember that the average cup of coffee in America is still made with coffee from companies such as Folgers or Maxwell House. The coffee is purchased preground, in a one kilo tin, and sits on the counter kept nice and warm by sunlight for the six months it takes to be finished off by people that brew coffee with one teaspoon of grounds to every cup of water.
I'm addicted now, though. But I still love the taste, and moving from the halfway-decent coffee I usually drink to shitty cheapass Folgers coffee would be more torture than the money I would save would be worth.
Not to mention his "7-Zip: Unspecified Error [OK]" box, which has nothing to do with either Mozilla Foundation OR Microsoft, but rather a third-party decompression utility that he is using.
I was trying to get around the problem of not "taking advantage" of a large window. The only way I can think to do this is to have the text fill up the space, rather than have large blank areas.
If text could be made to use fixed-width colums, but use MORE columns placed side-by-side when the window was made extremely wide, it could continue to have the relatively short length of text in each line that makes it comfortable to read, but still use up the avaliable screen area by placing more columns of text next to each other like a newspaper.
Making columns is not the problem. I know how to do that. The problem is getting there to be MORE columns when the user has a very wide window, and FEWER columns when the user has a very narrow window. I cannot think of a way to do that without resorting to client-side scripting, which I like to avoid in anything to do with layout or navigation.
How do you suggest I make the columns in pure XHTML/CSS? I cannot think of a way to make these in a way that they would be useful without using Javascript. If I set up fixed columns, you have the same problem in a different direction: people with small screens will have three or four one-word wide columns of text. To use your column idea, it would have to somehow create more columns or less columns depending on how wide the window is. I do not see a way to do this without client-side scripting, which in my opinion have no place in layout or navigation.
It is very difficult to create a design that looks good at any resolution. I design so it looks good at 1024x768, but requires no horizontal scrolling at lower resolutions, and is still comfortable to read at higher resolutions. If this means not filling up the entire screen with text, then too bad. I would rather everyone can read it comfortbly.
Besides, the user has plenty of control over it. Don't like my layout? Use a user-supplied stylesheet. No formatting rules mixed into the content means that it will be very easy for you to change it in whatever way you like.
This is not always possible, especially with pictures of people. Easy solution: separate the flash from your camera, and hold it over your head and a bit to the side when taking the picture. The different angle of light falling on the subject will bring your shadows back. Oh, and tape a couple facial tissues over the flash's lens. It will disperse the light significantly, softening shadows. Bouncing the flash off a nearby object is also very beneficial.
Would you rather have lines of text that go all the way across your 1600x1200 monitor? I make my web site scale up to a point, but when you start getting past a certian width of text, it becomes hard to read. That is why I limit the width of text to 30em. That ends up with about 12-14 words per line, which is much more comfortable to read than 50 or 60 words per line that you would see if I let it "take advantage" of your 1600x1200 display.
There is nothing wrong with using print design on a web page. You do not have to design for a fixed-size box to use print design on the web. You can quite easily make that "fixed size box" be a "fixed proportion box" and scale up or down to whatever size the user is displaying it at. The key is to make it so it is still comfortable to read at high or low resolutions, or anything in between.
I would not shove my site into a fixed-sized box in the middle of your screen, I would make it take up whatever amount of space it needs to have a comfortable 12-14 words per line, in a font that is a reasonable size for you to read, without looking huge.
Slashdot Mirror
Slackware 8 came with 2.2.something and 2.4.5, your choice which to install, but defaulting to the more stable 2.2.x kernel. This is no different, really. I used 2.4.5, because I wanted to use ReiserFS :)
Good to know. I guess I won't be upgrading if/when my current unit dies, I will just look around for another old used one somewhere, and replace the battery if nessicary.
I agree totally on your second paragraph. I know I won't upgrade, becuase I have just about everything I need in my current PDA, and the only thing I can afford of the modern offerings is an absolute bottom of the line model with a tiny screen.
Yeah, I think this is the problem. Not enough innovation, and the older devices were better. I still have my Vx (actually, an IBM Workpad C3, which is the same thing only painted black) and it works great. I use it constantly. The battery recently went tits up, so I replaced it rather than buying a new PDA. I see no reason to upgrade. The new ones offer no functionality that I do not already have in other devices (that is, unless I can find a PDA with an organizer that organizes me better than my Vx, an mp3 player better than my iPod and a camera better than my Powershot A75?) and sacrifice stability and battery life for fancy useless dodads like colour screens.
I'll stick with my Palm Vx, and when it finally gives up the ghost, I MIGHT replace it with an m505. PALM: If you are reading this, go back to the good old devices. The ones that WORKED and didn't waste time and battery life and money on things like colour screens and sound beyond BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP. Make me a Palm Vx with Bluetooth and I will be happy.
No... more... reflow bug? IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!! Certainly took long enough.
Except that Firefox does not do ActiveX, so writing malware for it is that much more difficult. Possible, sure, but quite a bit more difficult.
You should be able to do anything you can do with Bluetooth normally just fine. That is verizon that cripples things, not Apple. I can set up a network over Bluetooth on my iBook. I haven't used it at all, but I bought Bluetooth BTO so I could have the internal module when I get a bt mouse instead of a USB dongle.
Screw PCI. I want to be able to use my MCA cards that I bought. Nobody supports them anymore.
Too bad they didn't upgrade minimum RAM to 512MiB. That would be the best.
The GS has twice the RAM and NVRAM of the regular WRT54G. This can be helpful as far as running packet sniffing apps on it is concerned.
Its sold as a "router", but what it really is is a little plastic box with a 200MHz MIPS embedded computer running Linux. You can replace the firmware with something like Sveasoft's modified version, that allows you to SSH into it, and run something like Snort on it. You can turn off the onboard wireless card if you don't need it, and disconnect the antennas for an even more compact device. Without the radio going, it probably won't even put out much heat.
I am pretty much in the same boat as you, except they turned my port 80 back on after Nimda pretty much died out. I also run a web server, but don't get enough traffic to make much of a difference. I figure as long as I don't have hundreds of megs of traffic a day, they aren't going to care.
Freezer? Better idea: don't buy more than you can drink in a week. Two weeks at the most.
Oh, I never meant it was GOOD coffee. I do indeed cut my Starbucks with cream and sugar. Black is reserved for the few times I manage to get a really good espresso somewhere, or am at home in Ann Arbor where I actually CAN get good beans, and use a presspot to brew them. The house blend, like everything else Starbucks sells, is roasted too darkly for my taste, but it is enough better than their French Toast that it is actually drinkable with enough cream and sugar.
Bah. I could care less.
Ugh. Why did they not warm their mugs? Not exactly difficult to keep them on top of the espresso machine, or in a bath of hot water.
Dunkin Donuts recently "improved" their coffee. I have not had any of their "new" coffee, but I have heard it is actually suprisingly good.
Starbucks, while not really great coffee, is certainly better than anything instant, or anything made by companies such as Folgers, which is what people here are used to. I can't stand Folgers, but Starbucks, at least their lighter roasts (House Blend and Breakfast Blend, to some extent Columbian) are quite decent. Not up to the beans I can get at a good local roaster, and I can certainly find better beans if I look hard enough, but they are definately the best you can get in many places around the country.
Starbucks, while it is not great coffee, is significantly better than the brown water that most of us Americans are used to drinking at home. Remember that the average cup of coffee in America is still made with coffee from companies such as Folgers or Maxwell House. The coffee is purchased preground, in a one kilo tin, and sits on the counter kept nice and warm by sunlight for the six months it takes to be finished off by people that brew coffee with one teaspoon of grounds to every cup of water.
*raises hand*
I'm addicted now, though. But I still love the taste, and moving from the halfway-decent coffee I usually drink to shitty cheapass Folgers coffee would be more torture than the money I would save would be worth.
Not to mention his "7-Zip: Unspecified Error [OK]" box, which has nothing to do with either Mozilla Foundation OR Microsoft, but rather a third-party decompression utility that he is using.
I was trying to get around the problem of not "taking advantage" of a large window. The only way I can think to do this is to have the text fill up the space, rather than have large blank areas.
If text could be made to use fixed-width colums, but use MORE columns placed side-by-side when the window was made extremely wide, it could continue to have the relatively short length of text in each line that makes it comfortable to read, but still use up the avaliable screen area by placing more columns of text next to each other like a newspaper.
Making columns is not the problem. I know how to do that. The problem is getting there to be MORE columns when the user has a very wide window, and FEWER columns when the user has a very narrow window. I cannot think of a way to do that without resorting to client-side scripting, which I like to avoid in anything to do with layout or navigation.
How do you suggest I make the columns in pure XHTML/CSS? I cannot think of a way to make these in a way that they would be useful without using Javascript. If I set up fixed columns, you have the same problem in a different direction: people with small screens will have three or four one-word wide columns of text. To use your column idea, it would have to somehow create more columns or less columns depending on how wide the window is. I do not see a way to do this without client-side scripting, which in my opinion have no place in layout or navigation.
It is very difficult to create a design that looks good at any resolution. I design so it looks good at 1024x768, but requires no horizontal scrolling at lower resolutions, and is still comfortable to read at higher resolutions. If this means not filling up the entire screen with text, then too bad. I would rather everyone can read it comfortbly.
Besides, the user has plenty of control over it. Don't like my layout? Use a user-supplied stylesheet. No formatting rules mixed into the content means that it will be very easy for you to change it in whatever way you like.
30em is not a fixed size. It depends on the size of your text. One em is the width of an 'm' in the current font.
This is not always possible, especially with pictures of people. Easy solution: separate the flash from your camera, and hold it over your head and a bit to the side when taking the picture. The different angle of light falling on the subject will bring your shadows back. Oh, and tape a couple facial tissues over the flash's lens. It will disperse the light significantly, softening shadows. Bouncing the flash off a nearby object is also very beneficial.
Would you rather have lines of text that go all the way across your 1600x1200 monitor? I make my web site scale up to a point, but when you start getting past a certian width of text, it becomes hard to read. That is why I limit the width of text to 30em. That ends up with about 12-14 words per line, which is much more comfortable to read than 50 or 60 words per line that you would see if I let it "take advantage" of your 1600x1200 display.
There is nothing wrong with using print design on a web page. You do not have to design for a fixed-size box to use print design on the web. You can quite easily make that "fixed size box" be a "fixed proportion box" and scale up or down to whatever size the user is displaying it at. The key is to make it so it is still comfortable to read at high or low resolutions, or anything in between.
I would not shove my site into a fixed-sized box in the middle of your screen, I would make it take up whatever amount of space it needs to have a comfortable 12-14 words per line, in a font that is a reasonable size for you to read, without looking huge.