Try searching for cell phone ringtones or popular song lyrics sometime. Those guys have tricking google down to a science. Javascript redirects, fake URLs with keywords in them, you'll find it all. The sad thing is it seems to be working. It is obvious that it is very hard to get a high ranking in these kind of searches without using some sort of google-tricking mechanism.
No, letting the user keep undeleting files as long as possible is bad. Why? Because when you know you can do something, you start to rely on it. So the user will start to be a little less careful emptying the trashcan, since he knows that he can undo it right away if he wants. Except that one time he accidentally empties the trash right before he installs a program, and then he tries to undelete and whoops! His data is gone forever. Unreliable undeletes are bad news; there are good reasons to make emptying the trash a permanent operation. There probably still is a place for undelete utilities, but it shouldn't be something that is built into the OS and is easy to access, it should be something used only out of desperation.
It seems like what you need is a program that does this:
Searches the network for Win2K machines with blank passwords (not hard, scan through network shares)
When it finds one, logs in, changes the root password, then leaves a note on the desktop and in the startup folder explaining and giving the new password.
They'd never let you do it, but it would be sweet:-)
Before you think about adding this clause to the GPL, remember that this only works if the user is required to accept the license before *using* the software. This is an important subtlety of the GPL: You are not required to accept the GPL to *use* the software, only to *distribute* it. So a clause like this wouldn't have as big an effect if it was added to the GPL since it would only prevent a suing company from distributing any GPL'd software. The GPL is like this because it is not like one of those shrink-wrap licenses which limit your rights before you can use the product. The GPL only gives you rights that you would otherwise not have by default under copyright law, namely the right to distribution, if you agree to its conditions. IMHO that makes the GPL stronger in principle than ordinary shrink-wrap licenses, and probably stronger than this license too. However, IANAL.
I understand perfectly. I have already said I am not against the integrated look and feel. I think it is a great thing, in fact. What you are saying is that Red Hat should provide one set of default applications. I agree that this is a good choice (although I would prefer red hat had two sets and allowed the user or sysadmin to choose between gnome and kde, but they are not going to do that so it's beside the point). I just think that it is dumb for Red Hat to go with only one set of default applications and still include the choice of desktop. What is the point? Why not go all the way and simply provide one totally unified desktop? Providing a KDE desktop without the KDE applications is mis-representing KDE as a desktop environment. It is this wishy-washy compromise between having a unified environment and having two different environments that is what I dislike.
No, one set of default apps is not necessary. Neither is a crowded menu full of redundant, non-functional applications necessary. What would be good is one of two possibilities:
Red Hat removes KDE, keeping only the libraries so they can run KDE/QT apps if the user installs them. Instead, they focus on improving GNOME and GNOME's one set of default apps. This would be a perfectly valid choice for them to make.
Red Hat keeps two sets of default applications: a set for GNOME consisting of mostly GNOME applications, and a set for KDE consisting of mostly KDE applications. The users choose which desktop they like at the login screen, and are only presented with the default choices associated with that desktop (though all applications should of course be available at all times, the menus and mime-type handlers should prominently present the defaults and the alternates should be harder to find). This is the choice I wish they would make, although it would be more work. (actually, the choice I wish they would make is to stop propping up GNOME and go with KDE like everyone else, but that is not likely, and it is really too late for them to turn back now.)
Instead, Red Hat has chosen to have only one set of default apps, which renders the choice of desktop rather pointless and redundant. Basically you're choosing between KDE or GNOME panels, and since they are being made compatible down to the panel-applets anyway, what is the point of having them both?
if you set your session to KDE, it uses all the kde apps by default (konqueror as file manager, web browser.. konsole as the terminal)
Is this really the case? This goes against what I have read previously. I have not used the betas, but I understood from Red Hat's statements that the set of default applications would be exactly the same in both environments. Do they use KMail for mail and Kate for text editing?
Look, I just got done saying how I was all for the unified look and feel, and how I wasn't advocating removing the KDE libraries from Red Hat, and now you're acting like I said just the reverse! Will you try to understand my position at least a little before you start criticizing it? Please read my first post and see if that doesn't clear things up.
Sure Red Hat is allowed to not include redundant apps. Why are they including KDE at all? It is redundant if it is not different from GNOME in at least its default apps. They should remove it entirely, or let it be different. They shouldn't include it while making it use all the same apps as gnome, and still claim that it is KDE. That's what is redundant.
As for KMail and Konqueror being not as good, that's a matter of opinion, it depends on what you use them for, and you know it.
I am not with Red Hat. If they want to include KDE, they should do KDE: Konqueror browser, Konqueror file manager, KMail mail, the whole package. Without its apps, KDE is nothing but a mediocre panel.
It is a common misconception in these discussions that people are mad about the unified look and integration between KDE and GNOME that Red Hat is promoting. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hope I can speak for all KDE fans when I say the unified look is a step forward, and integration is good. After all, people have been crying out for both for years. But what Red Hat is including is not KDE, it is simply KDE's panel used to launch other applications. The panel is not what makes KDE compelling, it's the app integration. If Red Hat wants to use GNOME app defaults, then what are they doing including KDE at all? It is a joke, simply so they can put "KDE desktop" on their boxes.
I am also not trying to say that Red Hat should drop all KDE support. No matter what, Red Hat should include libraries to run KDE apps, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. If they aren't going to use KDE app defaults, though, they might as well not include KDE as a choice on the login screen. There is no reason to.
It's not foreign sites they're worried about, it's non-conforming sites. They want absolute power to decree what can and can't be on the Internet, no matter who is putting it there, Chinese, American, whoever. Here's hoping they don't succeed.
The free registration bugs the heck out of me. I never remember the username/password I used last time, so I always have to re-register, and then the username I choose is taken, and it gets annoying. Then I found asahi.com, and I found it much easier. So I figured I'd spread the word.
As to there not being any free lunches, the registration itself is free, so that just about proves you wrong right there. Not to mention the zillions of other free things on the Internet. Maybe the free lunches won't last forever, but they're here now. And if Free Software is any indication of what the Internet can do, perhaps the free lunches won't end. Anyway, I'm hardly exploiting the NYT by depriving them of thousands of pages of bogus personal information supplied by slashdotters.
Wow, the AC is right! I didn't even try it, and apparently neither did the editors judging by the "free blah di blah" comment in the article.. Plus it's the "printable" version with no retarded sidebars! Someone got smart finally. Please mod my first post down, and this AC up. Unless, of course, the NYT catches on and the link ceases to work...
In the future, though, www.asahi.com/english/nyt is the solution to all your NYT-reading problems.
Here's a new way to fight spam: Paste your Congressperson's email all over your popular website. Soon they'll be getting tons of spam, and they'll get so fed up with filtering out the real mails they'll start passing anti-spam laws.
You can't use this fact to break the speed of light with ping-pong balls, though, because of their elasticity. In fact, even balls made out of the most incompressible material in the world would not be able to send a signal (indicated by the ball popping out the other end of the tube) faster than the speed of light in this manner. The reason is that the pressure you apply to the balls takes time to propogate though the balls, and it can not travel faster than the speed of light. So if you had a tube a light-year long, pushing in a ball at one end would not cause another ball to immediately come out of the other end, even if you were able to push the ball all the way into the tube. The balls in the middle would be compressed, and the compression wave would propogate at some speed smaller than the speed of light.
Granted, it's not the most elegant way to do things, but when anyone who runs a centralized search server gets smacked down by the powers that be, it's the only option (and the network guys brought it on themselves!). It's light-years better than using the crappy network browser built into windows explorer. Every time I use that thing I wonder how Microsoft could possibly advertise it as a feature: it freezes explorer windows for minutes at a time for no apparent reason, sometimes crashes, and is always unreliable. It is basically unusable for browsing large networks with lots of computers and files, and it has no search function.
I think the best option would be a P2P system where a shared distributed catalog of available files is kept up-to-date through occasional partial scans by random computers on the network. That way most of the time no one has to scan anything, and when scanning is necessary only one or two computers will be doing it. The scan results would be available for all to use, with no centralized server to bear the brunt of the network admin's wrath.
No, the reason MS webservers are vulnerable is that IIS and sundry web-related services are buggy.
the same exploits used to take out a desktop PC running Windows can be used to take on an MS webserver too.
Only if the desktop is running server software like IIS (which is not true for the majority of windows installations) or the server is running desktop software like Outlook (who reads their mail through outlook on their webserver?).
A vulnerbility in Windows is a vulnerability in IIS.
I think you have it backwards. A vulnerability in IIS is a vulnerability in Windows, but only if IIS is running. The vulnerabilities aren't exposed by Windows itself (except in very rare cases such as Universal PNP), they are usually exposed by the running software.
It's more vulnerable and easy to access.
OK, I'll buy more vulnerable, but if someone has the technical expertise to find a bug and create an exploit for it, they have more than enough experience to work the point-n-drool installers of modern Linux distros, and enough motivation to want to tinker with Linux.
Question: Why can't jabber client authors include a stripped-down jabber server whose only purpose is to run the AIM transport? That way everyone who wants to connect to AIM through Jabber does it from their own computer, making it the same as gaim or Trillian.
The argument stands ONLY with respect to Outlook worms, Word macro viruses, etc. It does NOT stand when applied to web servers, which do happen to be the entire focus of this article. If the parent post was indeed talking about things other than webservers, the poster should have made that clear instead of mis-using a cliched excuse for Microsoft's rampant bug problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Try searching for cell phone ringtones or popular song lyrics sometime. Those guys have tricking google down to a science. Javascript redirects, fake URLs with keywords in them, you'll find it all. The sad thing is it seems to be working. It is obvious that it is very hard to get a high ranking in these kind of searches without using some sort of google-tricking mechanism.
No, letting the user keep undeleting files as long as possible is bad. Why? Because when you know you can do something, you start to rely on it. So the user will start to be a little less careful emptying the trashcan, since he knows that he can undo it right away if he wants. Except that one time he accidentally empties the trash right before he installs a program, and then he tries to undelete and whoops! His data is gone forever. Unreliable undeletes are bad news; there are good reasons to make emptying the trash a permanent operation. There probably still is a place for undelete utilities, but it shouldn't be something that is built into the OS and is easy to access, it should be something used only out of desperation.
- Searches the network for Win2K machines with blank passwords (not hard, scan through network shares)
- When it finds one, logs in, changes the root password, then leaves a note on the desktop and in the startup folder explaining and giving the new password.
They'd never let you do it, but it would be sweetWake me when you don't need a hardware mod to install linux, and you can still play games afterwards.
I understand perfectly. I have already said I am not against the integrated look and feel. I think it is a great thing, in fact. What you are saying is that Red Hat should provide one set of default applications. I agree that this is a good choice (although I would prefer red hat had two sets and allowed the user or sysadmin to choose between gnome and kde, but they are not going to do that so it's beside the point). I just think that it is dumb for Red Hat to go with only one set of default applications and still include the choice of desktop. What is the point? Why not go all the way and simply provide one totally unified desktop? Providing a KDE desktop without the KDE applications is mis-representing KDE as a desktop environment. It is this wishy-washy compromise between having a unified environment and having two different environments that is what I dislike.
Of course RH has the right to do whatever they want. And I have the right not to approve of what they are doing. What is your point?
- Red Hat removes KDE, keeping only the libraries so they can run KDE/QT apps if the user installs them. Instead, they focus on improving GNOME and GNOME's one set of default apps. This would be a perfectly valid choice for them to make.
- Red Hat keeps two sets of default applications: a set for GNOME consisting of mostly GNOME applications, and a set for KDE consisting of mostly KDE applications. The users choose which desktop they like at the login screen, and are only presented with the default choices associated with that desktop (though all applications should of course be available at all times, the menus and mime-type handlers should prominently present the defaults and the alternates should be harder to find). This is the choice I wish they would make, although it would be more work. (actually, the choice I wish they would make is to stop propping up GNOME and go with KDE like everyone else, but that is not likely, and it is really too late for them to turn back now.)
Instead, Red Hat has chosen to have only one set of default apps, which renders the choice of desktop rather pointless and redundant. Basically you're choosing between KDE or GNOME panels, and since they are being made compatible down to the panel-applets anyway, what is the point of having them both?Is this really the case? This goes against what I have read previously. I have not used the betas, but I understood from Red Hat's statements that the set of default applications would be exactly the same in both environments. Do they use KMail for mail and Kate for text editing?
Look, I just got done saying how I was all for the unified look and feel, and how I wasn't advocating removing the KDE libraries from Red Hat, and now you're acting like I said just the reverse! Will you try to understand my position at least a little before you start criticizing it? Please read my first post and see if that doesn't clear things up.
As for KMail and Konqueror being not as good, that's a matter of opinion, it depends on what you use them for, and you know it.
It is a common misconception in these discussions that people are mad about the unified look and integration between KDE and GNOME that Red Hat is promoting. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hope I can speak for all KDE fans when I say the unified look is a step forward, and integration is good. After all, people have been crying out for both for years. But what Red Hat is including is not KDE, it is simply KDE's panel used to launch other applications. The panel is not what makes KDE compelling, it's the app integration. If Red Hat wants to use GNOME app defaults, then what are they doing including KDE at all? It is a joke, simply so they can put "KDE desktop" on their boxes.
I am also not trying to say that Red Hat should drop all KDE support. No matter what, Red Hat should include libraries to run KDE apps, and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. If they aren't going to use KDE app defaults, though, they might as well not include KDE as a choice on the login screen. There is no reason to.
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement."
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Slashdot: "Google News has a nice collection of links to articles regarding the announcement."
Google News: "Microsoft Buys Rare - Slashdot - 11 minutes ago"
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
It's not foreign sites they're worried about, it's non-conforming sites. They want absolute power to decree what can and can't be on the Internet, no matter who is putting it there, Chinese, American, whoever. Here's hoping they don't succeed.
As to there not being any free lunches, the registration itself is free, so that just about proves you wrong right there. Not to mention the zillions of other free things on the Internet. Maybe the free lunches won't last forever, but they're here now. And if Free Software is any indication of what the Internet can do, perhaps the free lunches won't end. Anyway, I'm hardly exploiting the NYT by depriving them of thousands of pages of bogus personal information supplied by slashdotters.
In the future, though, www.asahi.com/english/nyt is the solution to all your NYT-reading problems.
Registration-free link courtesy of asahi.com/english/nyt
I don't understand. Mozilla already has a WYSIWYG editor, Composer. What do these do that is different?
Here's a new way to fight spam: Paste your Congressperson's email all over your popular website. Soon they'll be getting tons of spam, and they'll get so fed up with filtering out the real mails they'll start passing anti-spam laws.
You can't use this fact to break the speed of light with ping-pong balls, though, because of their elasticity. In fact, even balls made out of the most incompressible material in the world would not be able to send a signal (indicated by the ball popping out the other end of the tube) faster than the speed of light in this manner. The reason is that the pressure you apply to the balls takes time to propogate though the balls, and it can not travel faster than the speed of light. So if you had a tube a light-year long, pushing in a ball at one end would not cause another ball to immediately come out of the other end, even if you were able to push the ball all the way into the tube. The balls in the middle would be compressed, and the compression wave would propogate at some speed smaller than the speed of light.
I think the best option would be a P2P system where a shared distributed catalog of available files is kept up-to-date through occasional partial scans by random computers on the network. That way most of the time no one has to scan anything, and when scanning is necessary only one or two computers will be doing it. The scan results would be available for all to use, with no centralized server to bear the brunt of the network admin's wrath.
Yeah. If you have sharescan and a college network, who needs Napster/Gnutella/WinMX/Kazaa?
the same exploits used to take out a desktop PC running Windows can be used to take on an MS webserver too.
Only if the desktop is running server software like IIS (which is not true for the majority of windows installations) or the server is running desktop software like Outlook (who reads their mail through outlook on their webserver?).
A vulnerbility in Windows is a vulnerability in IIS.
I think you have it backwards. A vulnerability in IIS is a vulnerability in Windows, but only if IIS is running. The vulnerabilities aren't exposed by Windows itself (except in very rare cases such as Universal PNP), they are usually exposed by the running software.
It's more vulnerable and easy to access.
OK, I'll buy more vulnerable, but if someone has the technical expertise to find a bug and create an exploit for it, they have more than enough experience to work the point-n-drool installers of modern Linux distros, and enough motivation to want to tinker with Linux.
Question: Why can't jabber client authors include a stripped-down jabber server whose only purpose is to run the AIM transport? That way everyone who wants to connect to AIM through Jabber does it from their own computer, making it the same as gaim or Trillian.
The argument stands ONLY with respect to Outlook worms, Word macro viruses, etc. It does NOT stand when applied to web servers, which do happen to be the entire focus of this article. If the parent post was indeed talking about things other than webservers, the poster should have made that clear instead of mis-using a cliched excuse for Microsoft's rampant bug problem.