>1. Imagine for a minute that you are slightly > handicapped, in that moving a mouse for you is > difficult, or problematic.
This is a serious issue. It's one that will take a lot of effort to correct... and patches _will_ be gratefully accepted. At the moment, we are about 80% of the way to a shared code base with data/logic/gui separated out, so that we can build a console installer and a gui installer at the same time, without duplicate source code.
> What boggles my mind, is that for a > predominiantly console-based set of apps, they > make this lousy installer that forces you to use > a MOUSE and and click a billion times in order > to get everything. Like Hello? Even just an > "Install ALL" button would be nice.
Install all - click the word 'default' beside the category label 'All' until it shows 'install'. Voila. Done. That was _hard_ wasn't it. As for the reason for the GUI installer, the users of cygwin demanded it a few years ago. Surprising huh?
Gcc can cross-compile to cygwin, so you can build for the cygwin port on the OS of your choice - Linux, BSD, win32 + cygwin. So there is _no_ build dependency on non-free software.
220 hairs wide - if you lay the gates side by side. I don't know how much space they do need between gates, but the width of a chip is going to more like 1/100000 * number of gate widths needed for layout * sqrt (22,000,000). So assuming they need 1 gates width on either side of each gate (for a total gap of 2 gates width between gates), the core of chip would be ~0.14 human hairs wide.
>> Cygwin was written by Cygnus employees (hence
>> the name) but, like any successful free
>> software endeavor, it's grown far from its
>> humble beginnings.
> A port is a port. A port to the environment as
> hostile as Windows may be a difficult
> undertaking, but it's still derived from the
> same gnu utilities that are still in active
> development.
Are you suggesting that Cygwin is a port of some other package? Ports are made from source code - if I described WINE as a port of win32, I suspect few folk would agree with me - WINE was created from scratch.
Likewise Cygwin is not a port of anything. Cygwin is a standalone.dll, custom built to provide various unix and POSIX API calls.
packages such as inetd on cygwin and ssh(d) on cygwin are ports (and are acknowledged as such).
In fact most of the packages distributed with Cygwin are trivial ports of the upstream versions. Some of the packages do have more substantial changes, but again, they are openly acknowledged as being ports.
Lastly, for disclosure purposes, cygwin does make heavy use of newlib, but all the 'kernel' calls - those that wrap the O/S - have not been ported from anywhere.
Are they penetrating the computer? Or emailing postmaster@ ? The Code Red Vigilante pages weren't very forthcoming, and that K5 like was completely offtopic.
If they are penetrating the computer in response, then I agree with your statement, if it's a simple "when scanned by foo, email foo" then surely there's no issue there? Although.. it might be annoying to get 4000 emails saying a machine you don't administrate is infected:}
In case anyone doesn't know cgf is the core of the Cygwin project. He's speaking quite accurately there for all of the Cygwin developers - myself included (hint:I maintain the pthreads eumlation code) - and no-ones moderated him comment up.
Also worth mentioning is that Redhat aren't supporting Cygwin other than 'allowing' Chris and Corinna in their 'spare time' to work on Cygwin. Cygwin already does everything needed to produce the GNUPro toolkit, so *I guess* there is little company motivation there.
Finally, Thanks banuaba! My suggestion would be: subscribe to the users mailing list and help out with the questions that fall in the area you use cygwin the most. That will probably free up developer time - and result in a better product.
+You don't really think Microsoft exposes all the
+needed API's to write a redirector without
+getting WNT/W2K source code access, do you ?
Certainly not. I've done a chunk of research into being able to build an IFS driver for NFS and/or a IFS driver for UMSDOS for cygwin. The Windows 2000 DDK is in the thousands of US dollars range - out of my league as a for-interest hacker. Cygwin itself can pretend to offer filesystems, but that doesn't let the general windows case do much.
+ There's not even a"redirector writers kit" you
+ can buy ! Microsoft doesn't *want* people to be
+able to write replacement redirectors. If you
+could do that, you might reduce dependencies on
+Windows Domain/ADS servers - why, you might even
+plug in your own authentication client, removing
+the need for a PDC/ADS server ! That would never
+do, now would it. Where would the monopoly go
+then ?
I strongly suggest you get in contact with Corinna Vinschen of Red Hat. She's written a sub-authenticator for NT for use with cygwin - to allow "su" without a password to work on NT. Thats a big step in the right direction. I don't know how much practical help that is to building a SAM-like replacement, but if Novell can do it, then for sure we can.
+ Why do you think all the PC/NFS products don't
+work very well ? Why do you think anyone who has
+to support Windows clients in a serious way (for
+a NAS product etc.) has to implement SMB ? It
+isn't because it's a beautiful or elegent
+protocol:-):-).
I thought it was selection of the fittest:-/.
Seriously though, speaking from experience, an old version of the smbval library (smblib.c has version 1.0:}) builds and runs just fine under cygwin on windows. IO've successfully used it while we developed squid's NTLM integration (and thanks again to the SAMBA team ! ).
How hard would it be to link in the open source flash player to muffin/adzapper/squid/zope and get it to extract the final url the flash player will take you to... and give the browser a redirect to that instead of the flash animation?
Obviously you don't want that to happen to all flash animations... but similar rules for choosing which ads to block for banners should also choose which flash anims to skip.
Given the technical capability to skip the ads, the advertisers are back where they are now with banner ads: you don't know if folk have seen the ad or paid attention.
I don't object to awareness raising ads, but ads that prevent me doing what I want with _my_ machine really annoy me. (to the advertisers: Eyeballs, yes, time No!)
Slashdot Mirror
>1. Imagine for a minute that you are slightly
> handicapped, in that moving a mouse for you is
> difficult, or problematic.
This is a serious issue. It's one that will take a lot of effort to correct... and patches _will_ be gratefully accepted. At the moment, we are about 80% of the way to a shared code base with data/logic/gui separated out, so that we can build a console installer and a gui installer at the same time, without duplicate source code.
> What boggles my mind, is that for a
> predominiantly console-based set of apps, they
> make this lousy installer that forces you to use
> a MOUSE and and click a billion times in order
> to get everything. Like Hello? Even just an
> "Install ALL" button would be nice.
Install all - click the word 'default' beside the category label 'All' until it shows 'install'. Voila. Done. That was _hard_ wasn't it. As for the reason for the GUI installer, the users of cygwin demanded it a few years ago. Surprising huh?
Rob (Cygwin setup maintainer).
Gcc can cross-compile to cygwin, so you can build for the cygwin port on the OS of your choice - Linux, BSD, win32 + cygwin. So there is _no_ build dependency on non-free software.
220 hairs wide - if you lay the gates side by side. I don't know how much space they do need between gates, but the width of a chip is going to more like 1/100000 * number of gate widths needed for layout * sqrt (22,000,000). So assuming they need 1 gates width on either side of each gate (for a total gap of 2 gates width between gates), the core of chip would be ~0.14 human hairs wide.
Actually, it does its a transitive verb.a dm inistrate
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
You seem to be confused about what Cygwin is...
.dll, custom built to provide various unix and POSIX API calls.
>> Cygwin was written by Cygnus employees (hence
>> the name) but, like any successful free
>> software endeavor, it's grown far from its
>> humble beginnings.
> A port is a port. A port to the environment as
> hostile as Windows may be a difficult
> undertaking, but it's still derived from the
> same gnu utilities that are still in active
> development.
Are you suggesting that Cygwin is a port of some other package? Ports are made from source code - if I described WINE as a port of win32, I suspect few folk would agree with me - WINE was created from scratch.
Likewise Cygwin is not a port of anything. Cygwin is a standalone
packages such as inetd on cygwin and ssh(d) on cygwin are ports (and are acknowledged as such).
In fact most of the packages distributed with Cygwin are trivial ports of the upstream versions. Some of the packages do have more substantial changes, but again, they are openly acknowledged as being ports.
Lastly, for disclosure purposes, cygwin does make heavy use of newlib, but all the 'kernel' calls - those that wrap the O/S - have not been ported from anywhere.
Are they penetrating the computer? Or emailing postmaster@ ? The Code Red Vigilante pages weren't very forthcoming, and that K5 like was completely offtopic.
:}
If they are penetrating the computer in response, then I agree with your statement, if it's a simple "when scanned by foo, email foo" then surely there's no issue there? Although.. it might be annoying to get 4000 emails saying a machine you don't administrate is infected
For shame Slashfolk!
In case anyone doesn't know cgf is the core of the Cygwin project. He's speaking quite accurately there for all of the Cygwin developers - myself included (hint:I maintain the pthreads eumlation code) - and no-ones moderated him comment up.
Also worth mentioning is that Redhat aren't supporting Cygwin other than 'allowing' Chris and Corinna in their 'spare time' to work on Cygwin. Cygwin already does everything needed to produce the GNUPro toolkit, so *I guess* there is little company motivation there.
Finally, Thanks banuaba! My suggestion would be: subscribe to the users mailing list and help out with the questions that fall in the area you use cygwin the most. That will probably free up developer time - and result in a better product.
+You don't really think Microsoft exposes all the
:-) :-).
:-/.
:}) builds and runs just fine under cygwin on windows. IO've successfully used it while we developed squid's NTLM integration (and thanks again to the SAMBA team ! ).
+needed API's to write a redirector without
+getting WNT/W2K source code access, do you ?
Certainly not. I've done a chunk of research into being able to build an IFS driver for NFS and/or a IFS driver for UMSDOS for cygwin. The Windows 2000 DDK is in the thousands of US dollars range - out of my league as a for-interest hacker. Cygwin itself can pretend to offer filesystems, but that doesn't let the general windows case do much.
+ There's not even a"redirector writers kit" you
+ can buy ! Microsoft doesn't *want* people to be
+able to write replacement redirectors. If you
+could do that, you might reduce dependencies on
+Windows Domain/ADS servers - why, you might even
+plug in your own authentication client, removing
+the need for a PDC/ADS server ! That would never
+do, now would it. Where would the monopoly go
+then ?
I strongly suggest you get in contact with Corinna Vinschen of Red Hat. She's written a sub-authenticator for NT for use with cygwin - to allow "su" without a password to work on NT. Thats a big step in the right direction. I don't know how much practical help that is to building a SAM-like replacement, but if Novell can do it, then for sure we can.
+ Why do you think all the PC/NFS products don't
+work very well ? Why do you think anyone who has
+to support Windows clients in a serious way (for
+a NAS product etc.) has to implement SMB ? It
+isn't because it's a beautiful or elegent
+protocol
I thought it was selection of the fittest
Seriously though, speaking from experience, an old version of the smbval library (smblib.c has version 1.0
Rob
I think the "interruption" model is flawed:
... but similar rules for choosing which ads to block for banners should also choose which flash anims to skip.
How hard would it be to link in the open source flash player to muffin/adzapper/squid/zope and get it to extract the final url the flash player will take you to... and give the browser a redirect to that instead of the flash animation?
Obviously you don't want that to happen to all flash animations
Given the technical capability to skip the ads, the advertisers are back where they are now with banner ads: you don't know if folk have seen the ad or paid attention.
I don't object to awareness raising ads, but ads that prevent me doing what I want with _my_ machine really annoy me. (to the advertisers: Eyeballs, yes, time No!)