But it's not really that hard to get a basic setup either. The default configuration file is typically setup for caching, so all you have to do is add your own zones. Isn't exactly super hard to copy the zone file and edit the A entries (plus a few more).
Ok, let me get this straight. His only computer is a AMD (he cleaned the room while installing, implying he doesn't have another one), yet he possess Mac OS X 10.3 install disks? Did he actually go out and buy them just to try this? Evidently it's even his first time using OS X, considering he felt it was very alien.
Are they joking about the valid filenames? Essentially it's just the characters accessible with or without shift on an US keyboard. This excludes any character not commonly used in English, which seems ridiculous to say the least.
Well a bit late to post here perhaps but one thing I've found important when building from source is to keep your packages separate. That is run./configure --prefix=/sw/\${PACKAGE_NAME}/\${PACKAGE_VERSION} (note you'll probably have to fill it out manually). Then you use a script to set up your PATH, LIBRARY_PATH and CPATH etc...
It saves a lot of headache, and gcc will still find all includes and libraries.
That said, DNS probably could be a bit smarter about, say, using unicode instead of ASCII for URLs... Though I have to wonder just how confusing that might make things if there are now who knows how many glyphs that all look too similar
Unicode has solutions to that, namely the normal forms. There's four of them (composed normal form, discomposed normal form and their compatibility variants). You only have to choose one of those and convert any other string to it.
That being said, there's already a system for putting any character in an URL. I think it's based on Unicode (not sure), but it uses only 7 bits, since that's what dns can handle.
If you don't want your toaster/whatever routable from outside your home, how is NAT going to help you? It's not like you have to put a globally routable ip on a device just because it's not behind NAT. There's site local and link local IP addresses with IPv6, and the link local at least are always there, even if you put a global as well.
Actually you have link local addresses with IPv4 as well. The net 169.254/16 must always be sent to your local interface regardless of your IP, and packets with it as source or destination must never be routed.
Sorry if my post sounded like I was comparing Linux and Windows documentation, and I guess that's easy to presume considering the topic, but I wasn't. I was just refering to the state of linux documentation in general. I've never been a Windows user, wrt my own computers.
It wasn't a troll. I was talking about the documentation that comes with the linux distros I've tried and I assume the rest are the same. The OP tells MS to document their protocols/standards, but linux is no better. As you say, most documentation are in books written by others. Great that someone took their time going through the source, but why wasn't it documented in the first place?
Uhm, one of my biggest points against linux is the lack of this kind of documentation. Sure, there's lots of howtos, but howtos suck if you're just looking for reference. The man pages are really lacking in linux. And yes, there's the source code, but that's like reading the entire cook book for a single recipe.
I liked it. Perhaps because I didn't like #2 too much (too long speeches, chliche ending) and only saw it once early, so didn't remember too much at first.
It's more Fantasy than Sci-Fi though (what with saving the world not to mention Neo's and Smith's magic/super powers), but once I got used to that I enjoyed it all together. There isn't much depth admittedly, but perhaps it isn't needed for a part 3, or perhaps I just like movies anyway.:)
I also like the ending, though it seems weird the people in next to final scene survived.
The subway wasn't between the real world and the Matrix. It was between the program world and the Matrix. Presumably the program world is something similar to the Matrix but for computer instead of human software.
That's how I'm setting it up now, but it's suboptimal in some ways. Plus it only works for http, there's other protocols out there (FTP, for example, which has this problem even without TLS).
Sure, perhaps it's something I should live with on a personal internet account. But if everyone was running IPv6, I wouldn't need to, as there'd be plenty of IP-numbers to go around.
If the cable companies would provide the cable modem with NAT and modest firewalling instead of assigning public addresses to the uninformed masses, many of the recent insecurities would be *much* less critical.
And what exactly is it NAT helps with that the firewall doesn't on its own?
Those who moan about not being able to run the services they want should really learn about port mapping.
What about services that have dynamic port numbers, such as ftp, dcc, basically any client to client file transfers. Yes there's passive ftp, but what about when both sides are behind NAT?
IP 6 will mean even more machines without even weak firewalls, meaning a more vulnerable environment for those without the clue to buy a firewall.
You said it yourself. Provide these users with a firewall. But NAT isn't a firewall, it's a bad way to solve a problem while waiting for a better.
Well at least I have. I want to run https/ftps on several of my subdomains, but I only have one ip. I can only use https with one hostname per ip.
That's just one example. Another is sending a file or playing a game or whatever between two computer each behind a different NAT. You have to do ugly port forwarding rules that might be more or less huge ranges. People have to learn how tcp/ip works on a level completely unnecessary unless you're a techie. And god forbid you want to run two public game servers behind the same nat (many games don't let you specify port to connect to).
NAT is a necessity, not a feature. Things would be so much easier if it wasn't needed.
This works, only problem is it scans through all mails in all mailboxes, instead of just looking for new. So if you like me save all your mail and have several thousand messages, it will take a while.
Sadly it's simpler to just quit and restart Mail.app.
No, actually Apple cooked it up, they just disguised themselves as the IETF at the time (that is, Apple lobbied the IETF to start a work group). This is all pretty obvious at the Zeroconf homepage, which talks about AppleTalk and AirPort and then mentions Windows in passing.
Actually I read somewhere they had huge problems getting the IETF to accept it, as IETF is more bent on configurability than ease of use.
Argh, please tell me 7B85 is not 10.3.0. NFS is buggy in this build. mounts get stale and won't even unmount, "permission denied". Also if the automounter hangs and you kill it you're soon going to be without any disk access, even local one.
You do both. Why not group options together as a single one, and then provide a way to get to the specific ones. You could for example have a pop up menu with themes, and at the bottum put "Custom..." which opens a new dialog with all the specific options. And a compatibility level menu, etc.
I'm definitely in the "less options!" group, and I think one important thing is to consider if everything really has to be an option, or if the program can figure it out itself. Not sure how that applies to something like GNOME, but network applications can for example try the best protocol first then switch to other ones if it can't use it.
A car is a much lesser problem. It's much less likely my car gets used to kill or threaten to kill someone even if it's stolen. A car takes longer to kill with and it's harder to do it. A car is useful in your everyday life, not just as your hobby. A car is easy to spot (or hear) during the kill, a gun hard until it's over.
A gun can only be useful in very rare circumstances where a non harmful device wouldn't be. Somewhere where an alarm wouldn't scare off the perpetrator and where he didn't pull a gun first is the only situation I can think of, and if that is a situation you can't simply avoid, you could apply for a special gun licence (as opposed to one practically everyone can get) for that period.
A kid would probably have to train much more to use a car effectively, which I guess is only a semi-argument, since that could change in the future.
I could probably think up plenty of more arguments. A car is a risk, but a much lesser one than a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
Dean Koontz wrote a book about this. Not that I'm a huge fan, but found that book pretty good.
Watchers
Voice quality was so good, the whole thing was kind of anti-climatic
Yeah, gotta hate those nonweathers.
But it's not really that hard to get a basic setup either. The default configuration file is typically setup for caching, so all you have to do is add your own zones. Isn't exactly super hard to copy the zone file and edit the A entries (plus a few more).
Ok, let me get this straight. His only computer is a AMD (he cleaned the room while installing, implying he doesn't have another one), yet he possess Mac OS X 10.3 install disks? Did he actually go out and buy them just to try this? Evidently it's even his first time using OS X, considering he felt it was very alien.
Should probably have given a reference. Well here it is (the dcc2-quotedname part).
Are they joking about the valid filenames? Essentially it's just the characters accessible with or without shift on an US keyboard. This excludes any character not commonly used in English, which seems ridiculous to say the least.
Well a bit late to post here perhaps but one thing I've found important when building from source is to keep your packages separate. That is run ./configure --prefix=/sw/\${PACKAGE_NAME}/\${PACKAGE_VERSION} (note you'll probably have to fill it out manually). Then you use a script to set up your PATH, LIBRARY_PATH and CPATH etc...
It saves a lot of headache, and gcc will still find all includes and libraries.
Unicode has solutions to that, namely the normal forms. There's four of them (composed normal form, discomposed normal form and their compatibility variants). You only have to choose one of those and convert any other string to it.
That being said, there's already a system for putting any character in an URL. I think it's based on Unicode (not sure), but it uses only 7 bits, since that's what dns can handle.
If you don't want your toaster/whatever routable from outside your home, how is NAT going to help you? It's not like you have to put a globally routable ip on a device just because it's not behind NAT. There's site local and link local IP addresses with IPv6, and the link local at least are always there, even if you put a global as well.
Actually you have link local addresses with IPv4 as well. The net 169.254/16 must always be sent to your local interface regardless of your IP, and packets with it as source or destination must never be routed.
Sorry if my post sounded like I was comparing Linux and Windows documentation, and I guess that's easy to presume considering the topic, but I wasn't. I was just refering to the state of linux documentation in general. I've never been a Windows user, wrt my own computers.
It wasn't a troll. I was talking about the documentation that comes with the linux distros I've tried and I assume the rest are the same. The OP tells MS to document their protocols/standards, but linux is no better. As you say, most documentation are in books written by others. Great that someone took their time going through the source, but why wasn't it documented in the first place?
Uhm, one of my biggest points against linux is the lack of this kind of documentation. Sure, there's lots of howtos, but howtos suck if you're just looking for reference. The man pages are really lacking in linux. And yes, there's the source code, but that's like reading the entire cook book for a single recipe.
So what about us BSD users? They don't want our opinions? BSD is after all very different than linux in many ways.
Wow, I never thought I'd see code like strcat(..., argv[...]); except in testing code. Very bad of whoever made this.
I liked it. Perhaps because I didn't like #2 too much (too long speeches, chliche ending) and only saw it once early, so didn't remember too much at first.
:)
It's more Fantasy than Sci-Fi though (what with saving the world not to mention Neo's and Smith's magic/super powers), but once I got used to that I enjoyed it all together. There isn't much depth admittedly, but perhaps it isn't needed for a part 3, or perhaps I just like movies anyway.
I also like the ending, though it seems weird the people in next to final scene survived.
The subway wasn't between the real world and the Matrix. It was between the program world and the Matrix. Presumably the program world is something similar to the Matrix but for computer instead of human software.
At least that's how I got it.
That's how I'm setting it up now, but it's suboptimal in some ways. Plus it only works for http, there's other protocols out there (FTP, for example, which has this problem even without TLS).
Sure, perhaps it's something I should live with on a personal internet account. But if everyone was running IPv6, I wouldn't need to, as there'd be plenty of IP-numbers to go around.
If the cable companies would provide the cable modem with NAT and modest firewalling instead of assigning public addresses to the uninformed masses, many of the recent insecurities would be *much* less critical.
And what exactly is it NAT helps with that the firewall doesn't on its own?
Those who moan about not being able to run the services they want should really learn about port mapping.
What about services that have dynamic port numbers, such as ftp, dcc, basically any client to client file transfers. Yes there's passive ftp, but what about when both sides are behind NAT?
IP 6 will mean even more machines without even weak firewalls, meaning a more vulnerable environment for those without the clue to buy a firewall.
You said it yourself. Provide these users with a firewall. But NAT isn't a firewall, it's a bad way to solve a problem while waiting for a better.
Well at least I have. I want to run https/ftps on several of my subdomains, but I only have one ip. I can only use https with one hostname per ip.
That's just one example. Another is sending a file or playing a game or whatever between two computer each behind a different NAT. You have to do ugly port forwarding rules that might be more or less huge ranges. People have to learn how tcp/ip works on a level completely unnecessary unless you're a techie. And god forbid you want to run two public game servers behind the same nat (many games don't let you specify port to connect to).
NAT is a necessity, not a feature. Things would be so much easier if it wasn't needed.
This works, only problem is it scans through all mails in all mailboxes, instead of just looking for new. So if you like me save all your mail and have several thousand messages, it will take a while.
Sadly it's simpler to just quit and restart Mail.app.
Zeroconf was cooked up in the *nix world.
No, actually Apple cooked it up, they just disguised themselves as the IETF at the time (that is, Apple lobbied the IETF to start a work group). This is all pretty obvious at the Zeroconf homepage, which talks about AppleTalk and AirPort and then mentions Windows in passing.
Actually I read somewhere they had huge problems getting the IETF to accept it, as IETF is more bent on configurability than ease of use.
Argh, please tell me 7B85 is not 10.3.0. NFS is buggy in this build. mounts get stale and won't even unmount, "permission denied". Also if the automounter hangs and you kill it you're soon going to be without any disk access, even local one.
You do both. Why not group options together as a single one, and then provide a way to get to the specific ones. You could for example have a pop up menu with themes, and at the bottum put "Custom..." which opens a new dialog with all the specific options. And a compatibility level menu, etc.
I'm definitely in the "less options!" group, and I think one important thing is to consider if everything really has to be an option, or if the program can figure it out itself. Not sure how that applies to something like GNOME, but network applications can for example try the best protocol first then switch to other ones if it can't use it.
My best investment mouse-wise was the cordless optical mouse I'm now using. No more cleaning, no more cable getting stuck somewhere.
A car is a much lesser problem. It's much less likely my car gets used to kill or threaten to kill someone even if it's stolen. A car takes longer to kill with and it's harder to do it. A car is useful in your everyday life, not just as your hobby. A car is easy to spot (or hear) during the kill, a gun hard until it's over.
A gun can only be useful in very rare circumstances where a non harmful device wouldn't be. Somewhere where an alarm wouldn't scare off the perpetrator and where he didn't pull a gun first is the only situation I can think of, and if that is a situation you can't simply avoid, you could apply for a special gun licence (as opposed to one practically everyone can get) for that period.
A kid would probably have to train much more to use a car effectively, which I guess is only a semi-argument, since that could change in the future.
I could probably think up plenty of more arguments. A car is a risk, but a much lesser one than a gun.