VNC is nice if you can tollerate the overhead and don't mind running an entire (second?) desktop on the target system. However, given remote X display, it's not necessary most of the time.
Don't get me wrong! When VNC comes in handy, it's an amazing tool. I once floored a tech support guy from one of our vendors when he was trying to walk me though something, and I asked "why don't you do it, and I'll watch?" He couldn't imagine how that was possbile, but I had him download VNC for his Mac, and I ran a shared session on our server. We debugged the problem in 30 minutes, where it might have taken us hours or even days otherwise!
1. What you describe is a pain in the butt compared to my one-liner example.
2. My stored cookies, bookmarks, passowrds, etc, etc are not available on my home machine, and nor should they be.
3. I might be using a machine at a customer site or friends house (I do on-call support) where I can't rely on the local browser to be functional and/or there are restrictions on how much I can configure it.
But, I don't want to suffer the overhead of an entire desktop. Just want to run my browser. Bandwidth-frugal?! I'm sorry, but when the only thing needed to communicate a text draw is 'draw "Hello, world" at 0,0 in current graphics context', I really don't see a terminal server's overhead (sending the rendered image of the text) as being lighter weight!
What's more, I want to encrypt the connection and not rely on any proprietary hardware or software. ssh+X meet my needs. The point that the original poster made was that remote access isn't what people are interested in today, and desktops should focus only on local apps. I have to disagree out of personal experience.
Until I have another way to do this from home, I can't agree:
ssh -XfC -c blowfish workbox.work.com mozilla
The ability to run a fairly responsive browser on my home desktop with access to the internal network without having to have everyone and his brother in on the setup of some overblown VPN solution is not something I can live without.
You cannot "tweak" restrictive licensing and predatory business practices in a config file. I was running XP for a while at home because I played video games, but the recent wave of news has re-reminded me that I'm dancing with the devil. Time to ditch this boat-anchor and go back to the desktop I use at work anyway: Linux.
I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.
You're missing the point. You act as if the entire camera industry has one guy that goes "hey, I know! We'll turn the flash off by default!"
Try sitting in on a Cannon product development meeting and saying, "on this model, let's really juice up sales by making customers have to figure out the user interface in order to turn on the flash."
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you think people will be able to cope, camera manufacturers all make their cameras do the most generically useful thing by default. It may not be a nice outcome in terms of annoying flashes, but face it: that flash doesn't hurt the resulting picture in the average case, and it helps in the case of indoor photography. No one is going to step up to the plate to be the first to shut that off.
Now, I'd be happy if the camera just remembered when you shut the flash off from power-off to power-on. That you might be able to squeak past as a design improvement....
If cameras did not flash by default 80% of the people who bought them would not be able to take indoor pictures. That may sound fine to you, but it would mean that any camera put out that way would move off the shelves about as fast as a frozen slug.
For your sake, I hope you're trolling. Who are "you"? (A script kiddie?)
"I" am the author of numerous Perl modules and a contributor to various Perl-related publications and a professional Perl hacker. Not that it matters.
Perl is not the language of choice for anything. The reasons are almost too numerous to count.
The reasons that every language is not ideal are almost too numerous to count. Perl just happens to have a lot more going in its favor than most.
Hope you didn't need to edit that program of yours, fella!
I have no problem editing my Perl. In fact, my co-workers have no problem (except where I use features like the C-library interface or complex process control that would be difficult for others no matter what language you were using). Modules are a huge advantage for programming in the large.
Perl does not offer strong typing
Very true. Also a benefit. I would suggest that only LISP rivals Perl for the availability of truely generic data types.
... or a truly object-oriented model.
It depends on how you mean that. It does not offer a strong OO model, in the sense that Perl5's object model is fairly loose. This reflects the state of OO when Perl5 was written. C++ was young and seemed to be a poor model, but it was the one most people were paying attention to. Java did not exist. Smalltalk was nice, but no one wanted to think that way any more.
Now, Java has had its impact (I think Java's OO model is rather nice, though it has many problems that stem from its typing model) and other high-level languages like Ruby, Python, Eiffel, etc have changed the way we think about OO programming. It is now time for Perl to come in and do what it does best: deconstruct the best practices and adopt them as its own. This is one of the many things you have to look forward to in Perl6!
Hope you didn't need to write more than 100 lines... because it will turn into mush.
Counter-examples: LWP, PDL and many, many... MANY projects I have worked on alone or with others. PDL (Perl Data Language) is a prime example as it shows Perls ability to bring other components together. PDL is made up of Perl, Fortran and C. It offers one of the most complete scientific data languages available with high-performance transformations on low-level data such as binary streams, images, etc.
Also keep in mind that because of very-high-level complex datastructure handling, Perl makes it possible to write LESS code than most other languages.
The one thing that perl does reasonably well is operate on text files.
Spoken like someone who doesn't use Perl in the large. The one thing Perl does well is just about everything. Check out CPAN (the other MAJOR reason to use Perl).
But there are many other languages (awk, sed, Python, and bash scripting spring to mind)
If you think of Perl as being on the same level of usefulness as Bash, then I'm not suprised you've never made use of it. I'm sorry.
And anyway, who would consider scripting on the same level as programming anyway?
And who would consider Perl to be a language only capable of "scripting"? Scripts are traditionally run-time interpreted (Perl is compiled into a syntax tree, optimized and then exectued just like many other high-level languages). They also lack complex data types (Perl programs routinely create very complex arbitrarily deep datastructures casually; lists of hashes of lists of objects are quite common and easy to create in a couple of lines of code). Scripts are also hard to debug; Perl comes with a built-in symbolic debugger.
I agree in premise, but most people don't know anything about their cameras. They point, they click.
Cameras should be smart enough to detect long-range photography (most AF cameras have range-finders now anyway) and shut off the flash by default.
Even I find myself using the flash on my camera by accident (did it on the highway once... that was BAD) because the camera resets itself every time you turn it off.
I want smart cameras. I was digital cameras that can take a picture when I press the button, not 2 seconds after. Sigh.
Yep. Perl: The language for us. Java: The language for the rest of them.
Java is nice if you want to pick up a programming language for the first time. It has the corners filed off and you won't poke your eye out with it. But, when you need the ultimate in flexibility it falls short. You can drop down to C (or C++) or latteral to Perl or Python. But, Java just doesn't give you the control over the environment that you need to cover the ground other languages do. For example, Perl is used for everything from OS installers to data modeling languages to graphics manipulation plugins for The Gimp. These are all areas in which Java is simply the wrong tool for the job.
Now, if I were hiring a bunch of junior programmers to crank out a database app, I'd turn to Java without glancing over my shoulder!
Re:more RegEx fragmentation (corrected with Extran
on
Perl 6 Synopsis 5
·
· Score: 2
As always, TMTOWTDI
<-<alpha><digit><[.*]>>
Or were you looking for something more complicated like
(\w)<($1!~/_/)>
Of course, I've never treid running these through Larry's brain (the only currently functioning Perl 6 interpreter:-)
Not at all! In fact, since cygwin comes with the latest openssh, you could set up a login script that fires up ssh for compressed, encrypted X-forwarding and then logs into the server to run the apps you want. On the server, access to that port-forwarded socket is controled by X authentication via a dot-file which is protected by user rights. So, as long as everyone has their own account and key exchange is set up properly this can be painless and very secure!
Now, personally I'd just drop a Linux box on their desks and tell them to cope, but that's just me:)
I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that the parent article was moderated funny just because it used the word sex. Exchange of "genetic" material is not always a part of genetic algorithms, but it's certainly an "interesting" topic in that context and it was fairly "insightful" of XNormal to bring it up.
Oh well.
Re:Most cablemodem/DSL head-end routers have the t
on
Do You Have The Time?
·
· Score: 2
Pretty cool. I've updated my/etc/ntp.conf and/etc/ntp/step-tickers accordingly. I used to just grab random entries from the official list of public NTP servers.
The musical episode of Buffy is only interesting to severe Buffy fans
As I pointed out, I wasn't when I saw it for the first time, so there goes that hypothesis....
I was forced to watch it
Well, there's a positive outlook. You know when I suggested that fans tie their friends to chairs and make them watch it, I was kidding...:-)
Most of the cast had terrible voices
I suppose they had untrained voices, but I was impressed by how well a cast that was hired WITHOUT singing being a criteria were able to pull this off. Every song was at least good, IMHO with stand-outs from Giles and Tarra (I really thought Tarra was dubbed, she was so good). I don't look at the cast of The Matrix and say "what awful stances... and just look at that lame punch!" I look at actors doing their own fight scenes with a degree of believability and I'm pleased as punch (no pun(ch) intended). I look at OMWF and I see a show that's brave enough to NOT dub the cast's voices, which as others have pointed out actually helps the story.
Even my wife, who is a rabid Buffy fan, admitted that it was terrible.
I'm sorry she was unable to appreciate it, but there were a lot of fans and non-fans alike who deeply enjoyed this episode. At the very least, it was one of those risky sort of of-topic episodes that shows like Buffy, The West Wing, Babylon 5 (may it rest in peace) have to set them apart from the masses of episodic TV.
it certainly was not a good musical in context of other musicals.
It depends on what you look for in a musical. If you look for perfect pitch or prize-winning wardrobe you won't get it in Buffy. If you look for character development, quality story-telling and a sense of humor, OMWF is where you go.
FWIW: I often find myself humming one of the songs from the episode. That is my definition of a successful musical.
Interestingly, the WB was very tentative about the show, and series creator Joss Whedon has made the point that that may have helped rather than hurt. Having to squeeze everything he could out of a small budget in the early days made the show do things like bring in local bands for club scenes, get creative with the few sets they had (I've never seen a single hallway used so many ways:)
I can really see this when I look at Angel. A good show with all of the creativity of Buffy, but because it started off with more resources you can feel the impact on the creativity. It's like Lucas and the new Star Wars movies in a way....
Wow, great points... I'm surprised you haven't been modded up.
I was impressed, not because all of their voices were perfect (they were far from that), but because this cast, which was clearly not chosen for their singing ability, could sing well enough to hold the basic premise of the episode and make it enjoyable.
A friend of mine who is a musiscian watched it with me and commented that they also went out of their way to "cover" the styles of just about every musical type from rock opera to music video to 50s dance-musicals to show-tune stage productions. I think that really helped. If it had been a straight show-tune production it would have emphasized the lack of experience of the cast. As it was, I found myself paying more attention to the story and how the various numbers developed each of the characters.
Bottom line: if you're not prone to disecting musical performances on technical merit rather than contribution to story and you liked Little Shop of Horrors or The Rocky Horror Picture Show, this is the show for you.
Ok, I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but when you compare "Once More With Feeling" to other musicals in it's genre (comedy/horror) you have Little Shop of Horrors and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There must be others, but that's what I can think of. I love both of those, but OMWF just blew me away. The episode stands on its own (I know, since I wasn't a Buffy fan when I first saw it), and it only gets more engrosing as you become more familliar with the series (e.g. I just loved the "bunnies" bit from Anya, but it got even funnier when I saw the previous holloween episode).
If you're a fan of the series and have friends who have held out, I strongly suggest that you tie them to their chairs for this showing (even though it's cut-down), but then if you're a fan you probably knew that:-)
It's too bad that this episode kicked off (with a couple of set-up episodes) the least appealing season so far. I'm looking forward to next season though. I just hope Firefly and Angel don't take too much out of the creative team....
You've asked the smaller question with a really awesome example (OpenSSH is one of the highest quality software products available, IMHO).
However, the larger question is this: how do you convince your boss that you should be allowed to use lots of free software off the net. The answer is you should not, and he should not approve such a thing. What you should be doing is picking a vendor that will do things like chase down security updates, while also providing you with the kinds of features that you need.
Of course, this brings into question the entire spectrum of software that you run. Should you switch OS vendors to someone who embraces Open Source Software (e.g. a Linux vendor like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, etc.).
If you need high-quality software with the latest feature-set, you should be looking at who will give you what you need and support it well.
Can of worms you say? Well, yes but when you start talking about Linux these days you have a lot of amunition. IBM is shipping Linux-based systems. Everybody and his brother is using Linux-based servers in production (unless they're using BSD:)
OpenSSH is hard to argue against, and you'll probably win that battle hands-down. But what happens when you want remote management via VNC or OpenLDAP has some features you want or you need a quick-and-dirty database and don't want to spend $thousands?
Get an OS that comes with the best software already installed. Get Linux.
Re:In all seriousness, random libs *suck*
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 2
Huh. Well, it did exist under one of the BSDs (I assume all at this point, but not sure). I also thought Solaris had one. Guess I was off. Sorrry.
Certainly, it's a feature that all of the UNIXen should have. Randomness is one of the last things that the OS has access to, but does not give up easily.
There is a module for Perl that does some interesting timing tricks to pick up high-quality randomness. I think the module is Math::TrulyRandom, but you can just i/random/ in the CPAN shell (perl -MCPAN -e shell).
Re:In all seriousness, random libs *suck*
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 2
Actually, it is. The data that's gathered is based on anomolies in interupt timing and such. It doesn't have to do with what you do so much as the fact that you're forcing an A/D converter to generate interupts. There's always noise generated in that process.
Re:In all seriousness, random libs *suck*
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 2
On most modern UNIX-like systems there's a/dev/random which gives you the result of operating-system collected entropy from various timing-related operations which the OS performs anyway. You can just read as many bytes from it as you need.
Under Linux, at least (and I think a few other systems), there's also a/dev/urandom, which will give you the same output as/dev/random, until it runs out. In the case of/dev/random, it will block until more is available./dev/urandom is like doing a non-blocking read on/dev/random, and using the last value as a seed to the library random function if nothing is returned. This works out to be fairly usable for most applications, and is at least an order of magnitude better than just using the library random function.
I'd love to see a study of how frequently you need entropy to keep the urandom scheme within a given tolerance. Then, perhaps we could have a/dev/rurandom that would not block some of the time, but would have a constraint for just how pseudo-random it would allow itself to get. I suppose I could just write a wrapper function for it....
ChallengeResponse... oh please! Telnet's never had these problems.
I know you were trying to be humorous, but keep in mind that telnet *does* support challenge-response via the pam system under Linux and most modern systems.
This article talks about Web browsers, but how much would you like to bet that the first battleground for this technology will be MS' attempts to eradicate "untrusted" file servers on corporate networks.
Slashdot Mirror
VNC is nice if you can tollerate the overhead and don't mind running an entire (second?) desktop on the target system. However, given remote X display, it's not necessary most of the time.
Don't get me wrong! When VNC comes in handy, it's an amazing tool. I once floored a tech support guy from one of our vendors when he was trying to walk me though something, and I asked "why don't you do it, and I'll watch?" He couldn't imagine how that was possbile, but I had him download VNC for his Mac, and I ran a shared session on our server. We debugged the problem in 30 minutes, where it might have taken us hours or even days otherwise!
1. What you describe is a pain in the butt compared to my one-liner example.
2. My stored cookies, bookmarks, passowrds, etc, etc are not available on my home machine, and nor should they be.
3. I might be using a machine at a customer site or friends house (I do on-call support) where I can't rely on the local browser to be functional and/or there are restrictions on how much I can configure it.
But, I don't want to suffer the overhead of an entire desktop. Just want to run my browser. Bandwidth-frugal?! I'm sorry, but when the only thing needed to communicate a text draw is 'draw "Hello, world" at 0,0 in current graphics context', I really don't see a terminal server's overhead (sending the rendered image of the text) as being lighter weight!
What's more, I want to encrypt the connection and not rely on any proprietary hardware or software. ssh+X meet my needs. The point that the original poster made was that remote access isn't what people are interested in today, and desktops should focus only on local apps. I have to disagree out of personal experience.
- ssh -XfC -c blowfish workbox.work.com mozilla
The ability to run a fairly responsive browser on my home desktop with access to the internal network without having to have everyone and his brother in on the setup of some overblown VPN solution is not something I can live without.You cannot "tweak" restrictive licensing and predatory business practices in a config file. I was running XP for a while at home because I played video games, but the recent wave of news has re-reminded me that I'm dancing with the devil. Time to ditch this boat-anchor and go back to the desktop I use at work anyway: Linux.
I believe that if cameras didn't flash by default, people that are taking indoor pictures would just damn well have to remember to turn the flash on.
You're missing the point. You act as if the entire camera industry has one guy that goes "hey, I know! We'll turn the flash off by default!"
Try sitting in on a Cannon product development meeting and saying, "on this model, let's really juice up sales by making customers have to figure out the user interface in order to turn on the flash."
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you think people will be able to cope, camera manufacturers all make their cameras do the most generically useful thing by default. It may not be a nice outcome in terms of annoying flashes, but face it: that flash doesn't hurt the resulting picture in the average case, and it helps in the case of indoor photography. No one is going to step up to the plate to be the first to shut that off.
Now, I'd be happy if the camera just remembered when you shut the flash off from power-off to power-on. That you might be able to squeak past as a design improvement....
No.
If cameras did not flash by default 80% of the people who bought them would not be able to take indoor pictures. That may sound fine to you, but it would mean that any camera put out that way would move off the shelves about as fast as a frozen slug.
For your sake, I hope you're trolling. Who are "you"? (A script kiddie?)
... or a truly object-oriented model.
"I" am the author of numerous Perl modules and a contributor to various Perl-related publications and a professional Perl hacker. Not that it matters.
Perl is not the language of choice for anything. The reasons are almost too numerous to count.
The reasons that every language is not ideal are almost too numerous to count. Perl just happens to have a lot more going in its favor than most.
Hope you didn't need to edit that program of yours, fella!
I have no problem editing my Perl. In fact, my co-workers have no problem (except where I use features like the C-library interface or complex process control that would be difficult for others no matter what language you were using). Modules are a huge advantage for programming in the large.
Perl does not offer strong typing
Very true. Also a benefit. I would suggest that only LISP rivals Perl for the availability of truely generic data types.
It depends on how you mean that. It does not offer a strong OO model, in the sense that Perl5's object model is fairly loose. This reflects the state of OO when Perl5 was written. C++ was young and seemed to be a poor model, but it was the one most people were paying attention to. Java did not exist. Smalltalk was nice, but no one wanted to think that way any more.
Now, Java has had its impact (I think Java's OO model is rather nice, though it has many problems that stem from its typing model) and other high-level languages like Ruby, Python, Eiffel, etc have changed the way we think about OO programming. It is now time for Perl to come in and do what it does best: deconstruct the best practices and adopt them as its own. This is one of the many things you have to look forward to in Perl6!
Hope you didn't need to write more than 100 lines... because it will turn into mush.
Counter-examples: LWP, PDL and many, many... MANY projects I have worked on alone or with others. PDL (Perl Data Language) is a prime example as it shows Perls ability to bring other components together. PDL is made up of Perl, Fortran and C. It offers one of the most complete scientific data languages available with high-performance transformations on low-level data such as binary streams, images, etc.
Also keep in mind that because of very-high-level complex datastructure handling, Perl makes it possible to write LESS code than most other languages.
The one thing that perl does reasonably well is operate on text files.
Spoken like someone who doesn't use Perl in the large. The one thing Perl does well is just about everything. Check out CPAN (the other MAJOR reason to use Perl).
But there are many other languages (awk, sed, Python, and bash scripting spring to mind)
If you think of Perl as being on the same level of usefulness as Bash, then I'm not suprised you've never made use of it. I'm sorry.
And anyway, who would consider scripting on the same level as programming anyway?
And who would consider Perl to be a language only capable of "scripting"? Scripts are traditionally run-time interpreted (Perl is compiled into a syntax tree, optimized and then exectued just like many other high-level languages). They also lack complex data types (Perl programs routinely create very complex arbitrarily deep datastructures casually; lists of hashes of lists of objects are quite common and easy to create in a couple of lines of code). Scripts are also hard to debug; Perl comes with a built-in symbolic debugger.
Learn the language; you may be suprised.
I agree in premise, but most people don't know anything about their cameras. They point, they click.
Cameras should be smart enough to detect long-range photography (most AF cameras have range-finders now anyway) and shut off the flash by default.
Even I find myself using the flash on my camera by accident (did it on the highway once... that was BAD) because the camera resets itself every time you turn it off.
I want smart cameras. I was digital cameras that can take a picture when I press the button, not 2 seconds after. Sigh.
Yep. Perl: The language for us. Java: The language for the rest of them.
Java is nice if you want to pick up a programming language for the first time. It has the corners filed off and you won't poke your eye out with it. But, when you need the ultimate in flexibility it falls short. You can drop down to C (or C++) or latteral to Perl or Python. But, Java just doesn't give you the control over the environment that you need to cover the ground other languages do. For example, Perl is used for everything from OS installers to data modeling languages to graphics manipulation plugins for The Gimp. These are all areas in which Java is simply the wrong tool for the job.
Now, if I were hiring a bunch of junior programmers to crank out a database app, I'd turn to Java without glancing over my shoulder!
And why would the application server be unsecure? Is this a design criteria for some reason?!
Seems like a bad idea.
Not at all! In fact, since cygwin comes with the latest openssh, you could set up a login script that fires up ssh for compressed, encrypted X-forwarding and then logs into the server to run the apps you want. On the server, access to that port-forwarded socket is controled by X authentication via a dot-file which is protected by user rights. So, as long as everyone has their own account and key exchange is set up properly this can be painless and very secure!
:)
Now, personally I'd just drop a Linux box on their desks and tell them to cope, but that's just me
I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing that the parent article was moderated funny just because it used the word sex. Exchange of "genetic" material is not always a part of genetic algorithms, but it's certainly an "interesting" topic in that context and it was fairly "insightful" of XNormal to bring it up.
Oh well.
Pretty cool. I've updated my /etc/ntp.conf and /etc/ntp/step-tickers accordingly. I used to just grab random entries from the official list of public NTP servers.
The musical episode of Buffy is only interesting to severe Buffy fans
:-)
As I pointed out, I wasn't when I saw it for the first time, so there goes that hypothesis....
I was forced to watch it
Well, there's a positive outlook. You know when I suggested that fans tie their friends to chairs and make them watch it, I was kidding...
Most of the cast had terrible voices
I suppose they had untrained voices, but I was impressed by how well a cast that was hired WITHOUT singing being a criteria were able to pull this off. Every song was at least good, IMHO with stand-outs from Giles and Tarra (I really thought Tarra was dubbed, she was so good). I don't look at the cast of The Matrix and say "what awful stances... and just look at that lame punch!" I look at actors doing their own fight scenes with a degree of believability and I'm pleased as punch (no pun(ch) intended). I look at OMWF and I see a show that's brave enough to NOT dub the cast's voices, which as others have pointed out actually helps the story.
Even my wife, who is a rabid Buffy fan, admitted that it was terrible.
I'm sorry she was unable to appreciate it, but there were a lot of fans and non-fans alike who deeply enjoyed this episode. At the very least, it was one of those risky sort of of-topic episodes that shows like Buffy, The West Wing, Babylon 5 (may it rest in peace) have to set them apart from the masses of episodic TV.
it certainly was not a good musical in context of other musicals.
It depends on what you look for in a musical. If you look for perfect pitch or prize-winning wardrobe you won't get it in Buffy. If you look for character development, quality story-telling and a sense of humor, OMWF is where you go.
FWIW: I often find myself humming one of the songs from the episode. That is my definition of a successful musical.
Interestingly, the WB was very tentative about the show, and series creator Joss Whedon has made the point that that may have helped rather than hurt. Having to squeeze everything he could out of a small budget in the early days made the show do things like bring in local bands for club scenes, get creative with the few sets they had (I've never seen a single hallway used so many ways :)
I can really see this when I look at Angel. A good show with all of the creativity of Buffy, but because it started off with more resources you can feel the impact on the creativity. It's like Lucas and the new Star Wars movies in a way....
Wow, great points... I'm surprised you haven't been modded up.
I was impressed, not because all of their voices were perfect (they were far from that), but because this cast, which was clearly not chosen for their singing ability, could sing well enough to hold the basic premise of the episode and make it enjoyable.
A friend of mine who is a musiscian watched it with me and commented that they also went out of their way to "cover" the styles of just about every musical type from rock opera to music video to 50s dance-musicals to show-tune stage productions. I think that really helped. If it had been a straight show-tune production it would have emphasized the lack of experience of the cast. As it was, I found myself paying more attention to the story and how the various numbers developed each of the characters.
Bottom line: if you're not prone to disecting musical performances on technical merit rather than contribution to story and you liked Little Shop of Horrors or The Rocky Horror Picture Show, this is the show for you.
Ok, I'm being slightly hyperbolic, but when you compare "Once More With Feeling" to other musicals in it's genre (comedy/horror) you have Little Shop of Horrors and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. There must be others, but that's what I can think of. I love both of those, but OMWF just blew me away. The episode stands on its own (I know, since I wasn't a Buffy fan when I first saw it), and it only gets more engrosing as you become more familliar with the series (e.g. I just loved the "bunnies" bit from Anya, but it got even funnier when I saw the previous holloween episode).
:-)
If you're a fan of the series and have friends who have held out, I strongly suggest that you tie them to their chairs for this showing (even though it's cut-down), but then if you're a fan you probably knew that
It's too bad that this episode kicked off (with a couple of set-up episodes) the least appealing season so far. I'm looking forward to next season though. I just hope Firefly and Angel don't take too much out of the creative team....
You've asked the smaller question with a really awesome example (OpenSSH is one of the highest quality software products available, IMHO).
:)
However, the larger question is this: how do you convince your boss that you should be allowed to use lots of free software off the net. The answer is you should not, and he should not approve such a thing. What you should be doing is picking a vendor that will do things like chase down security updates, while also providing you with the kinds of features that you need.
Of course, this brings into question the entire spectrum of software that you run. Should you switch OS vendors to someone who embraces Open Source Software (e.g. a Linux vendor like Red Hat, Caldera, SuSe, etc.).
If you need high-quality software with the latest feature-set, you should be looking at who will give you what you need and support it well.
Can of worms you say? Well, yes but when you start talking about Linux these days you have a lot of amunition. IBM is shipping Linux-based systems. Everybody and his brother is using Linux-based servers in production (unless they're using BSD
OpenSSH is hard to argue against, and you'll probably win that battle hands-down. But what happens when you want remote management via VNC or OpenLDAP has some features you want or you need a quick-and-dirty database and don't want to spend $thousands?
Get an OS that comes with the best software already installed. Get Linux.
Huh. Well, it did exist under one of the BSDs (I assume all at this point, but not sure). I also thought Solaris had one. Guess I was off. Sorrry.
Certainly, it's a feature that all of the UNIXen should have. Randomness is one of the last things that the OS has access to, but does not give up easily.
There is a module for Perl that does some interesting timing tricks to pick up high-quality randomness. I think the module is Math::TrulyRandom, but you can just i/random/ in the CPAN shell (perl -MCPAN -e shell).
Actually, it is. The data that's gathered is based on anomolies in interupt timing and such. It doesn't have to do with what you do so much as the fact that you're forcing an A/D converter to generate interupts. There's always noise generated in that process.
On most modern UNIX-like systems there's a /dev/random which gives you the result of operating-system collected entropy from various timing-related operations which the OS performs anyway. You can just read as many bytes from it as you need.
/dev/urandom, which will give you the same output as /dev/random, until it runs out. In the case of /dev/random, it will block until more is available. /dev/urandom is like doing a non-blocking read on /dev/random, and using the last value as a seed to the library random function if nothing is returned. This works out to be fairly usable for most applications, and is at least an order of magnitude better than just using the library random function.
/dev/rurandom that would not block some of the time, but would have a constraint for just how pseudo-random it would allow itself to get. I suppose I could just write a wrapper function for it....
Under Linux, at least (and I think a few other systems), there's also a
I'd love to see a study of how frequently you need entropy to keep the urandom scheme within a given tolerance. Then, perhaps we could have a
ChallengeResponse... oh please! Telnet's never had these problems.
I know you were trying to be humorous, but keep in mind that telnet *does* support challenge-response via the pam system under Linux and most modern systems.
This article talks about Web browsers, but how much would you like to bet that the first battleground for this technology will be MS' attempts to eradicate "untrusted" file servers on corporate networks.
Samba should be very concerned about this!