I use VNC to administrate my home firewall machine... works wonderfully.
Only one (small, insignificant to some) caveat:
Watch your bandwidth when using VNC. The Linux client has some bandwidth control, but no such control was coded into the Windows version. When you have the Windows client up, it can be a real hog.
I'm hoping to hack some changes into their client code for Windows when I get some time. My wife is a Windows user, and when she's controlling the connection on the firewall from her machine the network takes a distinct hit.
I'm just pondering over the problems inherent in Quantum Computing.
The role of a technician could change drastically. Instead of fixing problems, a tech would just sit and observe the system at every given moment so that it runs properly. If the tech stops observing for any length of time the system would go haywire.
Then again... maybe it's not so different after all.:)
Actually it might be a test to see who pays attention to content as opposed to pure presentation. You know... someone who understands that people that speak English as a second language (or third+) and people of all age groups contribute to Slashdot. What's your contribution? A spelling flame.
Has/. ben/.'ed? The main page is loading at a slow crawl, and the title apparently is no longer Slashdoot, but simply ':' and none of the images on the main pages are loading correctly. Is this just me or a server problem?
Actually, I've heard that Slashdot has been considering renaming themselves to Colon for a long time. Perhaps they're giving Colon a try for a bit to gauge the public's reaction.
We won't be able to say a site has been Slashdotted anymore, the site will have been Coloned. In the eyes of Microsoft we would no longer be those damned Slashdot people, instead we'd be those damned Colon people. Instead of reading my news in a customized format on My Slashdot, I'd be forced to get the latest tech news from My Colon.
... or maybe this has something to do with Hemos the Hamster... yikes!
- They attributed the CPU "death" to the fact that they had already put the CPU through hell before using this cooling method, and they added peletier coolers which could have shocked the CPU.
- The Kryotech cooler made 50dbA of noise, not the vapochill (it stood at 35dbA).
They also don't mention condensation anywhere when it comes to the vapochill.
Overall, I thought the review was particularly glowing. Comments like "In my opinion VapoChill and a Celeron is the perfect combination.", "Athlon 800 for half the prize off a KryotechCool Athlon800!" lead me to believe that the reviewer actually likes this product better than many others.
Sounds like you love to tinker as much as I do. Making an old hard drive play jingle bells by manipulating registers in the controller chip and other such things.
I agree that hardware knowledge will play an important role in the security battleground of the future; However, I don't think it has been, or currently is as limited as one might imply from your comments.
The real hackers out there are folks who have an overwhelming desire to know how everything works. To them, your comments might seem more like statements of the obvious rather than commentary about a subject you obviously enjoy. Hacking has always included hardware knowledge as a big part of it and it always will.
A perfect example would be boxing (anyone thinking I'm referring to a sport stop reading here). The people who came up with most of those ideas weren't interested in any sort of fame, they just wanted to know how things worked. That was almost 100% hardware-based, and included knowledge that can be applied to today's electronics quite easily. Fundamentally things haven't changed very much... which was another point of yours.
So... I agree, but I also think many so-called security experts miss the point that vulnerabilities have always existed at the hardware level. It's not just the future we're talking about here. IMO that's as much a fact now as it ever will be.
Call me crazy, but don't they measure TVs diagonally because it is the best expression of their surface area?
It does when you're talking about the same aspect ratio; However, when you're describing completely different aspect ratios of squares the best way to demonstrate the surface area is to describe two adjacent sides. Of course, that would be a smaller number... and everyone knows that bigger numbers generally sell a product better. Therefore, they still use the diagonal.
I don't think it's FUD to understand that you're buying a smaller picture tube when you buy a 16:9 of the same diagonal size. I also don't think it's petty and worthless to talk about screen area when you're discussing NEW television purchases. The question regarded why the US only seems to have larger 16:9 televisions, not why your 35" 3:4 TV is crap because its vertical scan is restricted.
The current wide aspect ratio in theatres was introduced in the '50s as a way to compete with TV. Movie studios and theatres were afraid people would watch TV more and go to the theatre less, so they came up with new ways to impress theatre-goers. The much wider screen was one of the ways they competed with TV.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Theaters widened it yet again during the "cinerama" period of the '60s, which turned out to be a flop... then finally settled on a standard.
In the end, theaters found that competing with TV meant constantly upgrading their technology to surpass that of the average home viewer. That's still the case today. Screen size ended up having very little to do with anything except for the three main points in my original post.
ProScan is RCA's high-end brand name. It used to be on the lower end of the scale where the best electronics are concerned, but has come back in a big way in the last few years.
My younger brother purchased a 60" projection TV (not widescreen) made my ProScan last year which I found to be quite impressive. It entirely changed my opinion about console games.:)
Has anyone noticed that a 4:3 television has a much larger surface area than a 16:9 of the same diagonal size?
I've always thought that the 4:3 aspect ratio worked wonderfully for home viewing while the shorter, wider formats in movie theaters were produced for a variety of reasons:
1. The audience doesn't have to look too far up (or down) to see what is going on. It keeps the action on a level plane for the most part.
2. The audience won't have half the screen blocked by the heads of people in front of them. At the very least you can see around the person in front of you if you're short (or they're some huge hat-wearing ape).
3. To make more money! A shorter, wider theater seats a lot more people close enough to see the screen than a skinnier, taller one would.
Unless most television broadcasts start coming in widescreen, or everyone gets huge TVs... I don't see the advantage of getting widescreen when you're actually sacrificing surface area and more money to get one the same diagonal size as your old 4:3.
In countries where widescreen broadcasts are more common, I'd expect widescreen to be more common... but only large home theater systems seem to make sense in the US right now.
Let me preface this by saying that I realize you are responding to critics as a group (especially some of the more vehement ones), and not to me personally. Since I did write a critique though, I'll respond.
I may have gone a bit overboard in questioning why NPR would have picked who they did. You and Alan are obviously knowledgeable about Linux and care about it a great deal. No one here (who knows better) would question that or the bravery you both showed in presenting yourselves live in a public forum. We owe you thanks for everything you both have done!
With that said, I still must admit that I found the interview somewhat disheartening. I hear/see live interviews all the time that have more structure and straightforward content. That may have been due to NPR, it may have been due to you guys, or it may have been due to my own expectations; However, it's still how the interview left me feeling.
Of course we can't fix what has already been done, so let's just forget about it, right? I don't think so. Just as OSS allows our community the opportunity to analyze (and bicker sometimes *grin*) about where our software falls short and fix it, Slashdot (and the like) allows us the opportunity to analyze where we fall short and fix ourselves.
I know if I were you, I'd immediately have headed over to/. to see how folks think I had done. That's the purpose of an open forum such as this. Not only does it allow people to express their opinions, it also allows us as a community to form brand new opinions out of a consensus. It refines us both collectively and as individuals.
I feel that if I discuss how I think we missed an opportunity, I may be able to somehow lessen the chance that we will miss it the next time. I'm quite happy that Linux was featured for an hour on public radio... but I think that a whole lot more could be done with such a powerful communication tool.
So I say let the flames roar and take the personal comments with a grain of salt. We all have something to gain from this kind of discussion IMHO.
LouZiffer
Rambling narratives instead of simple answers.
on
Matt Welsh on NPR
·
· Score: 3
I believe that the average computer user is going to get very confused by this particular show. Even having used Linux since 1993, I found myself wondering when a question would actually get answered without someone rambling off on OSS, their own history with Linux, or terms that only Linux users would be familiar with. Not once did I hear a question that had a clear and concise answer. I understood what they were going to get at eventually, but that's only because I knew the answer already.
Perhaps when choosing people to interview, one should not simply pick the most learned individuals they can find. The ability to prepare an on-the-spot lecture is nice when you're in a classroom, but it doesn't seem to work very well in an environment where every minute counts.
I see this as a bit of a wasted opportunity when it comes to "educating the masses". Instead of giving a brief, basic overview of the pros and cons of a good OS... I heard the interviewer constantly losing control as our knowledgeable interviewees plumbed the depths of Linux while dragging the audience with them.
Perhaps it wasn't a total loss... but I still think it could have been a lot better.
Plenty of people at IBM read Slashdot. I agree that this attempt is a bit misguided from the viewpoint of your average Linux user, but I don't think IBM is aiming this at Linux users at all. They may or may not know that anyone who has used Linux on any laptop at all can get it working on a Thinkpad... that isn't the point.
IBM's main interests have always revolved around business. Their forays into the home user market have never been much more than exploratory for a corporation their size. This recent attempt, successful or not, looks more like an effort to console business owners and CIOs who fear running this "new-fangled" OS on their Thinkpads. IBM simply picked a distro they all had probably heard of and showed how to install it. The fact that they put in caveats regarding the modem and other possible problems and don't put them in fine print is a step up from where IBM used to be in this business.
I agree that IBM should release specs on their hardware, but there is certainly nothing forcing them to. There is no moral "right" or "wrong" side to stand on, only different points of view. If people really don't like the fact that they'll have to buy a PCMCIA modem, they won't buy a 600E for use as a Linux laptop. The same goes for the closed hardware specs. When IBM sees profit in opening up their hardware specs - more profit than if they don't - they'll jump at the chance. Until then, there are other companies to buy from.
Very true. Even with a case lock on the machine, these are only measures meant to stall someone, prevent mischief, or simply make it not worth breaking into more than anything else. True security in the sense you're talking about means locking a machine in a door-less vault with no connectivity to the outside world. Of course... then you open yourself up to nose-toting talk show hosts. 8)
Security in real life means making things secure enough that almost anyone tempted to break it will go on to easier prospects when they feel the effort isn't worth the end result.
There's an easy way to prevent someone from ever booting to a floppy drive on a server - take out the floppy drive. I've run my main server for years with no floppy drive in it.
In the Bay Area, $60k is not quite enough to live on, let alone raise a family.
I'm at fault there... that part of my statement was based primarily on where I currently live (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). I'd still argue that if you can't find a location within a decent commute range where $115k/year can support you and your family, you either have a VERY large family or it's time to look at your spending habits.
Slashdot Mirror
Only one (small, insignificant to some) caveat:
Watch your bandwidth when using VNC. The Linux client has some bandwidth control, but no such control was coded into the Windows version. When you have the Windows client up, it can be a real hog.
I'm hoping to hack some changes into their client code for Windows when I get some time. My wife is a Windows user, and when she's controlling the connection on the firewall from her machine the network takes a distinct hit.
I'm just pondering over the problems inherent in Quantum Computing.
The role of a technician could change drastically. Instead of fixing problems, a tech would just sit and observe the system at every given moment so that it runs properly. If the tech stops observing for any length of time the system would go haywire.
Then again... maybe it's not so different after all. :)
a) check the grammer on his resume
b) tell him it's not an NT position
c) check his reference from a BillG at Microsoft
d) kick his sorry ass back to PC Weak
e) all of the above
I went to my own panel of experts, and here's what they had to say...
Keanu Reeves: Whoah. I'd shoot the hostage. Take him out of the equation.
Yoda: Kick his sorry ass back to PC Week I would. Yes.
Bill Gates: I don't understand the question.
Bill Clinton: In your question, what do you mean by the word "at"?
Dan Quayle: Id chek the gramer on his resuhmay.
Ginger Lynn: I'd tell him I don't do the... I mean... I'd tell him it's not an NT position. Then again I might do all of the above.
You fail.
I'll take function over form any day.
Actually, I've heard that Slashdot has been considering renaming themselves to Colon for a long time. Perhaps they're giving Colon a try for a bit to gauge the public's reaction.
We won't be able to say a site has been Slashdotted anymore, the site will have been Coloned. In the eyes of Microsoft we would no longer be those damned Slashdot people, instead we'd be those damned Colon people. Instead of reading my news in a customized format on My Slashdot, I'd be forced to get the latest tech news from My Colon.
... or maybe this has something to do with Hemos the Hamster... yikes!
You were joking, right? I thought so.
- They attributed the CPU "death" to the fact that they had already put the CPU through hell before using this cooling method, and they added peletier coolers which could have shocked the CPU.
- The Kryotech cooler made 50dbA of noise, not the vapochill (it stood at 35dbA).
They also don't mention condensation anywhere when it comes to the vapochill.
Overall, I thought the review was particularly glowing. Comments like "In my opinion VapoChill and a Celeron is the perfect combination.", "Athlon 800 for half the prize off a KryotechCool Athlon800!" lead me to believe that the reviewer actually likes this product better than many others.
Something said or done to provoke laughter.
Since when did you spell 'point' 'f', 'r', 'e', 'a', 'k' ?
It was probably not as long ago as the last time you comprehended a good joke.
D'oh!
Sounds like you love to tinker as much as I do. Making an old hard drive play jingle bells by manipulating registers in the controller chip and other such things.
I agree that hardware knowledge will play an important role in the security battleground of the future; However, I don't think it has been, or currently is as limited as one might imply from your comments.
The real hackers out there are folks who have an overwhelming desire to know how everything works. To them, your comments might seem more like statements of the obvious rather than commentary about a subject you obviously enjoy. Hacking has always included hardware knowledge as a big part of it and it always will.
A perfect example would be boxing (anyone thinking I'm referring to a sport stop reading here). The people who came up with most of those ideas weren't interested in any sort of fame, they just wanted to know how things worked. That was almost 100% hardware-based, and included knowledge that can be applied to today's electronics quite easily. Fundamentally things haven't changed very much... which was another point of yours.
So... I agree, but I also think many so-called security experts miss the point that vulnerabilities have always existed at the hardware level. It's not just the future we're talking about here. IMO that's as much a fact now as it ever will be.
It does when you're talking about the same aspect ratio; However, when you're describing completely different aspect ratios of squares the best way to demonstrate the surface area is to describe two adjacent sides. Of course, that would be a smaller number... and everyone knows that bigger numbers generally sell a product better. Therefore, they still use the diagonal.
I don't think it's FUD to understand that you're buying a smaller picture tube when you buy a 16:9 of the same diagonal size. I also don't think it's petty and worthless to talk about screen area when you're discussing NEW television purchases. The question regarded why the US only seems to have larger 16:9 televisions, not why your 35" 3:4 TV is crap because its vertical scan is restricted.
LouZiffer
Couldn't have said it better myself. Theaters widened it yet again during the "cinerama" period of the '60s, which turned out to be a flop... then finally settled on a standard.
In the end, theaters found that competing with TV meant constantly upgrading their technology to surpass that of the average home viewer. That's still the case today. Screen size ended up having very little to do with anything except for the three main points in my original post.
ProScan is RCA's high-end brand name. It used to be on the lower end of the scale where the best electronics are concerned, but has come back in a big way in the last few years.
My younger brother purchased a 60" projection TV (not widescreen) made my ProScan last year which I found to be quite impressive. It entirely changed my opinion about console games. :)
LouZiffer
Has anyone noticed that a 4:3 television has a much larger surface area than a 16:9 of the same diagonal size?
I've always thought that the 4:3 aspect ratio worked wonderfully for home viewing while the shorter, wider formats in movie theaters were produced for a variety of reasons:
1. The audience doesn't have to look too far up (or down) to see what is going on. It keeps the action on a level plane for the most part.
2. The audience won't have half the screen blocked by the heads of people in front of them. At the very least you can see around the person in front of you if you're short (or they're some huge hat-wearing ape).
3. To make more money! A shorter, wider theater seats a lot more people close enough to see the screen than a skinnier, taller one would.
Unless most television broadcasts start coming in widescreen, or everyone gets huge TVs... I don't see the advantage of getting widescreen when you're actually sacrificing surface area and more money to get one the same diagonal size as your old 4:3.
In countries where widescreen broadcasts are more common, I'd expect widescreen to be more common... but only large home theater systems seem to make sense in the US right now.
LouZiffer
Let me preface this by saying that I realize you are responding to critics as a group (especially some of the more vehement ones), and not to me personally. Since I did write a critique though, I'll respond.
I may have gone a bit overboard in questioning why NPR would have picked who they did. You and Alan are obviously knowledgeable about Linux and care about it a great deal. No one here (who knows better) would question that or the bravery you both showed in presenting yourselves live in a public forum. We owe you thanks for everything you both have done!
With that said, I still must admit that I found the interview somewhat disheartening. I hear/see live interviews all the time that have more structure and straightforward content. That may have been due to NPR, it may have been due to you guys, or it may have been due to my own expectations; However, it's still how the interview left me feeling.
Of course we can't fix what has already been done, so let's just forget about it, right? I don't think so. Just as OSS allows our community the opportunity to analyze (and bicker sometimes *grin*) about where our software falls short and fix it, Slashdot (and the like) allows us the opportunity to analyze where we fall short and fix ourselves.
I know if I were you, I'd immediately have headed over to /. to see how folks think I had done. That's the purpose of an open forum such as this. Not only does it allow people to express their opinions, it also allows us as a community to form brand new opinions out of a consensus. It refines us both collectively and as individuals.
I feel that if I discuss how I think we missed an opportunity, I may be able to somehow lessen the chance that we will miss it the next time. I'm quite happy that Linux was featured for an hour on public radio... but I think that a whole lot more could be done with such a powerful communication tool.
So I say let the flames roar and take the personal comments with a grain of salt. We all have something to gain from this kind of discussion IMHO.
LouZiffer
I believe that the average computer user is going to get very confused by this particular show. Even having used Linux since 1993, I found myself wondering when a question would actually get answered without someone rambling off on OSS, their own history with Linux, or terms that only Linux users would be familiar with. Not once did I hear a question that had a clear and concise answer. I understood what they were going to get at eventually, but that's only because I knew the answer already.
Perhaps when choosing people to interview, one should not simply pick the most learned individuals they can find. The ability to prepare an on-the-spot lecture is nice when you're in a classroom, but it doesn't seem to work very well in an environment where every minute counts.
I see this as a bit of a wasted opportunity when it comes to "educating the masses". Instead of giving a brief, basic overview of the pros and cons of a good OS... I heard the interviewer constantly losing control as our knowledgeable interviewees plumbed the depths of Linux while dragging the audience with them.
Perhaps it wasn't a total loss... but I still think it could have been a lot better.
That's a picture of Bill the Borg. Seen any Star Trek lately? If not... it might not make much sense.
Plenty of people at IBM read Slashdot. I agree that this attempt is a bit misguided from the viewpoint of your average Linux user, but I don't think IBM is aiming this at Linux users at all. They may or may not know that anyone who has used Linux on any laptop at all can get it working on a Thinkpad ... that isn't the point.
IBM's main interests have always revolved around business. Their forays into the home user market have never been much more than exploratory for a corporation their size. This recent attempt, successful or not, looks more like an effort to console business owners and CIOs who fear running this "new-fangled" OS on their Thinkpads. IBM simply picked a distro they all had probably heard of and showed how to install it. The fact that they put in caveats regarding the modem and other possible problems and don't put them in fine print is a step up from where IBM used to be in this business.
I agree that IBM should release specs on their hardware, but there is certainly nothing forcing them to. There is no moral "right" or "wrong" side to stand on, only different points of view. If people really don't like the fact that they'll have to buy a PCMCIA modem, they won't buy a 600E for use as a Linux laptop. The same goes for the closed hardware specs. When IBM sees profit in opening up their hardware specs - more profit than if they don't - they'll jump at the chance. Until then, there are other companies to buy from.
LouZiffer
You have to admit... even for a randomly generated complaint, this seems to fit pretty well.
Very true. Even with a case lock on the machine, these are only measures meant to stall someone, prevent mischief, or simply make it not worth breaking into more than anything else. True security in the sense you're talking about means locking a machine in a door-less vault with no connectivity to the outside world. Of course... then you open yourself up to nose-toting talk show hosts. 8)
Security in real life means making things secure enough that almost anyone tempted to break it will go on to easier prospects when they feel the effort isn't worth the end result.
There's an easy way to prevent someone from ever booting to a floppy drive on a server - take out the floppy drive. I've run my main server for years with no floppy drive in it.
I'm beginning to feel queasy. Say it isn't so...
Is there any sort of "electronic" version of that article?
This article on SiliconValley gives a tad more information, though it's still lacking any real content.
If you're living by Lake Norman (just north of Charlotte, NC) there's one right there. Keeps the water nice and warm year round. 8)
I'm at fault there... that part of my statement was based primarily on where I currently live (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). I'd still argue that if you can't find a location within a decent commute range where $115k/year can support you and your family, you either have a VERY large family or it's time to look at your spending habits.