OK, interesting - but how do you get it to go back to normal?
Here's what happened to me on your site:
You click on it, read the links, then decide that you don't want to go to any of them. Now you have a bunch of text (that you don't want) obscuring part of the page and making it impossible to read. The only way I could think of to get rid of them was to click on another "multi-link" (which means just obscuring a different part of the page), or to reload (which wastes bandwidth and time.)
Even worse - if someone decides to open the new link in a new tab or window, the link doesn't go back to normal - it sticks around (again) obscuring the text on the site.
Considering that people can't know what's in the hidden part of the link before they click on it, it seems a little silly to me to prevent them from undoing the menu when they go to find out.
Perhaps a better idea would be to display the links when the mouse is hovering over the link, instead of when they click on it? (And you could probably do that with simple CSS, rather than using Javascript.)
If you gain access to any account used to su to root, you've effectively gotten root.
Pure, unmitigated bullshit.
As most machines don't restrict access to su, you're effectively saying that having *ANY* access to a machine will effectively give you root access. If that's true, why have separate accounts at all?
Here's a test for you: what's *MY* root password? If I gave you an account on my system, you claim that you will *EFFECTIVELY* have root - in order to do that, you must know my root password. You have my permission to post it here - go ahead, I dare you.
Since root usually has the best password, I'm not sure that's really important.
You're wrong - it's important because it's ROOT. If they bruteforce root, they have complete control of your system.
why is it said not to login as root over SSH?
Because it provides an audit trail. If you disallow root logins, you can see who is logging in before they become root (assuming you're doing secure logging.)
The only plausible reason I've ever heard is that the encryption is stronger after the login is complete
If you think this is plausible, then you really need to learn a little bit more about security.
Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. This was on everywhere in the holiday season until then, but since is exclusively on NBC. Capra chose not to renew the copyright on that film, so it was his wish that it be public domain.
As I heard it, the film is still public domain, but the music in it was still under copyright; NBC bought the rights to the music, and is therefore able to control copyright of the film.
Theoretically, anyone could play it if they replaced the music (or cut the scenes which contain copyrighted music.)
Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write. His reasoning leads him to believe that if "one guy" did it, but one guy really couldn't have done it, then he must have copied it.
No, Darl McBride is a sociopath who thinks that he's smarter than everybody else.
Like most other sociopaths, he justifies his behaviour by thinking "Everybody else is crooked, so I have to be too. I would have no problem engaging in copyright infringement, so therefore the Linux guys must not either, because they're just like me."
Whether he understands OS development is irrelevant - he simply doesn't care. What he cares about is justifying his position.
... is nail McBride's hide to the wall WRT IBM's Lanham Act counterclaims.
This email clearly shows that McBride knew in August 2002 - well before he began his "millions of lines" and "truckloads" tirade - that the claims he was going to make were false.
That is what Directory Services Repair mode is for
Which only works if your AD is still working. If you can't log in as administrator, you can't log in to fix it. A reinstall was the only way to fix it.
I really think AD is easy to use for 90% of people and installs out there.
But not for people using Linux or UNIX.
Naturally it won't work for everybody because some people have truly unique needs.
If by "truly unique" you mean "following the instructions on a bog-standard install" then yeah, you're right.
You're correct, RH's page is pretty misleading (maybe because they want you to buy a support contract from them?) - I had to hunt around for quite awhile before I found the source.
Is this the reincarnation of Netscape Directory Server?
Yes, although it's now known as "Fedora Directory Server"
For something more complex (like specifying unix UIDs, login shells, home directories, etc) you need to look at Microsoft Services for Unix (to extend the AD schema)
Which (in my experience) just tanks your AD server.
I've tried it twice, and both times turned my AD server into a doorstop - the AD service locks hard, and there's no way to bring it back.. which makes the entire machine useless (as you can't log in without AD running) - a reinstall was required to fix it.
Web developers only need to cater to those devices in which they expect their content to be viewed.
Bullshit. Web developers need to be
I do not expect, nor do I desire for someone to use my company's web apps from a cellphone or PDA.
Then you're asking your company to be put out of business.
Would your boss like it if your store rejected people who drove up in something *other* than a Ford or GM car? The answer is (quite obviously) "NO". (Why does the car one drives have any bearing on how good their money is? Would you intentionally restrict your business to people who drive a car that you don't know about?)
Web pages are no different. You make them accessible to as many people as you can, because you don't want to alienate your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh, no. Try again.
It clearly states that it's run *BY* code, not *ON* code.
Unless you're suggesting that in your car, the gasoline performs the navigation?
funny huh? a race with a speed limit.
:o)
Maybe it's being sponsored by C. Montgomery Burns?
in the USA camels were also introduced as pack animals, but they soon disappeared.
:o)
So maybe they didn't dissapear completely?
Cool - semi-transparent camels! (Stealth Camels?)
Sorry, couldn't resist
You can get fifty cent candies. They taste like shit though...
Well never mind then. I can get stuff for free that tastes like shit.
This line seems to imply that CC somehow limits the fair use that you get under normal copyright law
Where did he say anything about the Creative Commons in the bit you quoted? All he mentions is copyright law, and his assertion is entirely correct.
am I just reading this wrong?
You're just reading it wrong. He's not saying anything remotely like what you believe he's saying.
I'd hardly call Greasemonkey "mainstream" :o)
Isn't the whole point of an operating system to allow programmers to make that assumption?
No, the whole point of an operating system is to provide a stable programming target and perform resource management.
OK, interesting - but how do you get it to go back to normal?
Here's what happened to me on your site:
You click on it, read the links, then decide that you don't want to go to any of them. Now you have a bunch of text (that you don't want) obscuring part of the page and making it impossible to read. The only way I could think of to get rid of them was to click on another "multi-link" (which means just obscuring a different part of the page), or to reload (which wastes bandwidth and time.)
Even worse - if someone decides to open the new link in a new tab or window, the link doesn't go back to normal - it sticks around (again) obscuring the text on the site.
Considering that people can't know what's in the hidden part of the link before they click on it, it seems a little silly to me to prevent them from undoing the menu when they go to find out.
Perhaps a better idea would be to display the links when the mouse is hovering over the link, instead of when they click on it? (And you could probably do that with simple CSS, rather than using Javascript.)
Naw.. what about Lexa Doig?
She at least plays D&D and RPG videogames.
I lost my virginity when I was 8; it was with my next-door neighbor, who was the same age.
So.. you're saying that we should both be executed?
You're not from Iran by any chance are you?
If you gain access to any account used to su to root, you've effectively gotten root.
Pure, unmitigated bullshit.
As most machines don't restrict access to su, you're effectively saying that having *ANY* access to a machine will effectively give you root access. If that's true, why have separate accounts at all?
Here's a test for you: what's *MY* root password?
If I gave you an account on my system, you claim that you will *EFFECTIVELY* have root - in order to do that, you must know my root password. You have my permission to post it here - go ahead, I dare you.
Since root usually has the best password, I'm not sure that's really important.
You're wrong - it's important because it's ROOT. If they bruteforce root, they have complete control of your system.
why is it said not to login as root over SSH?
Because it provides an audit trail. If you disallow root logins, you can see who is logging in before they become root (assuming you're doing secure logging.)
The only plausible reason I've ever heard is that the encryption is stronger after the login is complete
If you think this is plausible, then you really need to learn a little bit more about security.
C'mon, everybody knows that the reason Cruise hooked up with Holmes is that Dakota Fanning is only 12.
Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. This was on everywhere in the holiday season until then, but since is exclusively on NBC. Capra chose not to renew the copyright on that film, so it was his wish that it be public domain.
As I heard it, the film is still public domain, but the music in it was still under copyright; NBC bought the rights to the music, and is therefore able to control copyright of the film.
Theoretically, anyone could play it if they replaced the music (or cut the scenes which contain copyrighted music.)
But you're right - we are all being robbed.
This might come as a shock to you, but they're not real; they're fictional characters popularized by a television show.
Oh, and you misspelled her name; it's Lois, not Lewis.
I know you're just trolling, but...
Truth will have no matter when the sued companies cave or go bust.
Yeah, sure. IBM is gonna go bust. Right.
Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write. His reasoning leads him to believe that if "one guy" did it, but one guy really couldn't have done it, then he must have copied it.
No, Darl McBride is a sociopath who thinks that he's smarter than everybody else.
Like most other sociopaths, he justifies his behaviour by thinking "Everybody else is crooked, so I have to be too. I would have no problem engaging in copyright infringement, so therefore the Linux guys must not either, because they're just like me."
Whether he understands OS development is irrelevant - he simply doesn't care. What he cares about is justifying his position.
... is nail McBride's hide to the wall WRT IBM's Lanham Act counterclaims.
This email clearly shows that McBride knew in August 2002 - well before he began his "millions of lines" and "truckloads" tirade - that the claims he was going to make were false.
That is what Directory Services Repair mode is for
Which only works if your AD is still working. If you can't log in as administrator, you can't log in to fix it. A reinstall was the only way to fix it.
I really think AD is easy to use for 90% of people and installs out there.
But not for people using Linux or UNIX.
Naturally it won't work for everybody because some people have truly unique needs.
If by "truly unique" you mean "following the instructions on a bog-standard install" then yeah, you're right.
Sure, if you want to do it the easy way!
</voice>
LDAP, is a directory service
Correct.
that also has the ability to verify ID/Pass pairs, which is the most basic form of authentication
No. You can *USE* LDAP to store password information, but you are in no way required to, nor is it the only way to authenticate.
With LDAP, you must punch in your password repeatedly.
Umm, WHAT!?!?!
As you mentioned in your first (and only correct) sentence, LDAP is a directory service. What you use that directory for is up to you.
Comparing Kerberos and LDAP is like comparing apples and volkswagons. The two are completely different entities (that can be used together, or apart.)
Umm.. are you any relation to Kevin? :o)
Is that open source?
Yes
The page makes it look like it isn't.
You're correct, RH's page is pretty misleading (maybe because they want you to buy a support contract from them?) - I had to hunt around for quite awhile before I found the source.
Is this the reincarnation of Netscape Directory Server?
Yes, although it's now known as "Fedora Directory Server"
They have a wiki for the project here
For something more complex (like specifying unix UIDs, login shells, home directories, etc) you need to look at Microsoft Services for Unix (to extend the AD schema)
Which (in my experience) just tanks your AD server.
I've tried it twice, and both times turned my AD server into a doorstop - the AD service locks hard, and there's no way to bring it back.. which makes the entire machine useless (as you can't log in without AD running) - a reinstall was required to fix it.
And apparently I'm not the only one this has happened to.
Web developers only need to cater to those devices in which they expect their content to be viewed.
Bullshit. Web developers need to be
I do not expect, nor do I desire for someone to use my company's web apps from a cellphone or PDA.
Then you're asking your company to be put out of business.
Would your boss like it if your store rejected people who drove up in something *other* than a Ford or GM car? The answer is (quite obviously) "NO". (Why does the car one drives have any bearing on how good their money is? Would you intentionally restrict your business to people who drive a car that you don't know about?)
Web pages are no different. You make them accessible to as many people as you can, because you don't want to alienate your customers.