Maybe I should have added 'free as in beer':-) I'm aware of several commercial solutions, and have tried some of them. Over the years I have also seen some free versions, but those did not seem to have the necessary quality.
And I suppose you know how managers are: "Why pay for an X-server when you can do the same things with VNC?"...
I mean, even by the standard of "a good hack" this one is just too crazy. If you want Linux, run it. If you want Windows, run it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Great if you have the option of choice. At work my desktop OS is NT, because work demands it. One of our gateways to a client's network is a linux server. I would prefer to connect to it with a X server instead of VNC. It looks like cygwin might do this for me, I'll try it anyway.
I was looking for an X server on windows platform to connect to several lower grade machines that run linux and openbsd. Until now I've only found commercial X-servers, didn't know about the cygwin Xfree86 port.
Why do I want to do this? My fastest machine, with the best monitor runs windows, for gaming mainly. And running X on your oldest VGA monitor is not something I would recommend:)
[karma saving statement:] I promise I'll switch to linux on the main machine Real Soon Now. I am running mozilla already:)
Don't judge the usefulness of transparancy by one single image that just shows how it could be used if you were an utter ididot.
Transparancy in some small floating windows would be quite nice, but I doubt I would use it for windows like wordprocessors, browsers, and such. Transparancy in all windows would indeed not be useful at all, at least IMHO.
eg. I would love to have a bit larger clock, always visible, but never obscuring underlying (non-transparant) windows. Or a IM contactlist, or winamp, or a (quake-)server monitoring app, or... anything you would like to keep half an eye on.
I'd love to see my icq contact list almost transparent, so I wouldn't have to muck with semi-working auto-hide settings to prevent it from obscuring my browser windows, and wouldn't have to move the mouse away just to see who's online.
But unfortunately they don't seem to be able to do this in nt and win98. Oh well... maybe the boss will pay for an upgrade to W2K:-)
There are some apps that I would like to run "always on top", but most of the time they get in the way. This would sure be a nice way to still sorta see them.
oh yes, this is the way to go. Hundreds of applications, each storing different versions of the same needed system or application dll's in one dir, overwriting the one version that worked....
</sarcasm>
There is a reason that binaries are spread over different partitions on Real Operating Systems....
btw, it's nice to see that html-formatting is actually making sense in my first line..: <br><br>:-)
I'll give you one reason: I'm a software developer, and one of those nasty hidden programs fucked up my system at work so bad that certain tools I have to use would not even start anymore.
It cost me 2 days to find that it was caused by something called newnet2_*.dll (IIRC), which appeared to do something with alternative TLD's. I was damned lucky to find it at that point because by chance I noticed this funny dll-name in the \winnt directory. It came with either Getright or Gozilla, programs that allowed me to resume a rather large download. More info on newnet at counterexploitation.
I did not know about ad-aware at that time. I now run it often, and I use Proxomitron as well. I found proxomitron here, 'official' site is here. Oh, and don't forget to get new definition files for Ad-Aware regularly!
Wrong, lots of smoke. There is a movie here that shows an aircraft being hit. Now tell me if I'm just imagining that smoketrail:-)
They *are* fast, and certainly undetectable before launch. They could be used against airliners, but my point was that someone would have noticed, and would have called CNN by now.
Ofcourse not. In such a big city at least one person, if not hundreds, would have seen or heard the launch, and contacted the news organisations to collect some money for that scoop. Speculation may be fun, but we're not idiots here:-P
A client of a lawyer has been arrested because he most probably broke the law. If the client somehow admits to breaking that law to his lawyer or to a jury, and because of that he gets punished for breaking the law, well, great. Justice being done. If client has a problem with that he should not have broken the law.
I do realise that statement is a little bit black and white. I think that some sort of rules would need to apply for this, e.g. only allowing it for really serious offenses, not for traffic violations.
I admit I haven't read the article yet, so maybe restrictions are already in place. If not, that is something that will probably be worked out later...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I should have added 'free as in beer' :-) I'm aware of several commercial solutions, and have tried some of them. Over the years I have also seen some free versions, but those did not seem to have the necessary quality. ...
And I suppose you know how managers are: "Why pay for an X-server when you can do the same things with VNC?"
Great if you have the option of choice. At work my desktop OS is NT, because work demands it. One of our gateways to a client's network is a linux server. I would prefer to connect to it with a X server instead of VNC. It looks like cygwin might do this for me, I'll try it anyway.
I was looking for an X server on windows platform to connect to several lower grade machines that run linux and openbsd. Until now I've only found commercial X-servers, didn't know about the cygwin Xfree86 port. :)
:)
Why do I want to do this? My fastest machine, with the best monitor runs windows, for gaming mainly. And running X on your oldest VGA monitor is not something I would recommend
[karma saving statement:] I promise I'll switch to linux on the main machine Real Soon Now. I am running mozilla already
I just *love* your spamproof'd email address
I'd also have to 'get' win2k :)
anyway, I tested miranda recently, and IIRC it only supports SOCKS 4/5 firewalls/proxies, not squid.
Quick! Patent it! :-)
Make that: were savvy enough.
Don't judge the usefulness of transparancy by one single image that just shows how it could be used if you were an utter ididot.
... anything you would like to keep half an eye on.
Transparancy in some small floating windows would be quite nice, but I doubt I would use it for windows like wordprocessors, browsers, and such. Transparancy in all windows would indeed not be useful at all, at least IMHO.
eg. I would love to have a bit larger clock, always visible, but never obscuring underlying (non-transparant) windows. Or a IM contactlist, or winamp, or a (quake-)server monitoring app, or
I'd love to see my icq contact list almost transparent, so I wouldn't have to muck with semi-working auto-hide settings to prevent it from obscuring my browser windows, and wouldn't have to move the mouse away just to see who's online.
:-)
But unfortunately they don't seem to be able to do this in nt and win98. Oh well... maybe the boss will pay for an upgrade to W2K
There are some apps that I would like to run "always on top", but most of the time they get in the way. This would sure be a nice way to still sorta see them .
:P
Great stuff, now implement it for NT4 and win98
that the moon is a harsh mistress...
Oh come on! I already started laughing when I saw MCSE :-)
Parent should have been modded Funny! Oh well, Americans and conspiracy theories... LOL
I bet we have more slashdot-trolls than they have monkeys. Oh wait, monkeys can be trained ...
Galoen doesn't have spellcheeking yet, does it? :P
Hrmpf.. I'd like to see you achieve 99.8% accuracy! :P
oh yes, this is the way to go. Hundreds of applications, each storing different versions of the same needed system or application dll's in one dir, overwriting the one version that worked....
</sarcasm>
There is a reason that binaries are spread over different partitions on Real Operating Systems....
:-)
btw, it's nice to see that html-formatting is actually making sense in my first line..: <br><br>
Noooo... Don't do it! this technique is patented by some company named "Reknob"!
If they keep promoting these servers as in this commercial then at least we'll get a couple of good laughs out of it :)
I'll give you one reason: I'm a software developer, and one of those nasty hidden programs fucked up my system at work so bad that certain tools I have to use would not even start anymore.
It cost me 2 days to find that it was caused by something called newnet2_*.dll (IIRC), which appeared to do something with alternative TLD's. I was damned lucky to find it at that point because by chance I noticed this funny dll-name in the \winnt directory. It came with either Getright or Gozilla, programs that allowed me to resume a rather large download. More info on newnet at counterexploitation.
I did not know about ad-aware at that time. I now run it often, and I use Proxomitron as well. I found proxomitron here, 'official' site is here. Oh, and don't forget to get new definition files for Ad-Aware regularly!
Wrong, lots of smoke. There is a movie here that shows an aircraft being hit. Now tell me if I'm just imagining that smoketrail :-)
They *are* fast, and certainly undetectable before launch. They could be used against airliners, but my point was that someone would have noticed, and would have called CNN by now.
Because noone has volunteered yet to don an asbestos suit and walk into the raging fires to retrieve a small box.
Ofcourse not. In such a big city at least one person, if not hundreds, would have seen or heard the launch, and contacted the news organisations to collect some money for that scoop. Speculation may be fun, but we're not idiots here :-P
Hmm... on second thought... this is slashdot...
I don't think those meteors are visible from within a cave. And clear skies might be a bit of a problem as well... :)
A client of a lawyer has been arrested because he most probably broke the law. If the client somehow admits to breaking that law to his lawyer or to a jury, and because of that he gets punished for breaking the law, well, great. Justice being done. If client has a problem with that he should not have broken the law.
I do realise that statement is a little bit black and white. I think that some sort of rules would need to apply for this, e.g. only allowing it for really serious offenses, not for traffic violations.
I admit I haven't read the article yet, so maybe restrictions are already in place. If not, that is something that will probably be worked out later...