As for shared FAT32 drive, can't you mount the FAT32 in linux and symlink the mail folders directory in linux to the location on the windows drive?
I had something like this working for a while with Netscape 4, when I was dual-booting between Red Hat 6 and Windows 98. As long as the mail program doesn't want to do any operations that aren't supported on FAT32 (I doubt it would), everything should be fine.
I'm not so sure... For instance, the safest way to "copy" when renaming it, in one, atomic operation, is to use hard links. The last time I checked, FAT didn't support those:-(
Re:Bash is the One True Shell, ksh is very close
on
Which Shell Do You Prefer?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No one said the shell you use has to be the one you program in. I prefer to use tcsh for my interactive shell (it does everything that I need it to), but use sh for shell scripting (since it's on every platform I work on).
True, true. There are times though that one has to type on the prompt things like:
$ for fname in $( cmd | sed | awk | grep ) ; do \
stuff "${fname}" ; done
The scriptability of the shell right there on the command prompt, is probably the only reason I use bash as my login shell even on BSDs.
> lack of knowledge, time, technical skills, > etc... > > you forgot the most important one. Refusing > to let MS ownz your system with Service Pack > EULAs. EVIL SP, EVIL EULA.... but, I need > that security patch. Damn them....
Pardon my ignorance in Microsoft lore, but...
Do they really do this? I mean has anyone noticed that the license of a service pack lets them "have control" over your system and the way it works?
I'm being told that although PeopleSoft claims to support HTTPS, they typically don't recommend the use of HTTPS as a best practice, because they've seen 'unspecified' problems at other sites, and claim that our switched network will protect us.
That's b*shit!
You should never, EVER, rely on claims or rumours for "unspecified" problems. What were those problems? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of sites that use HTTPS. The PeopleSoft people should present verifiable, repeatable cases where HTTPS was the cause of problems that HTTP could "magically" solve.
Sacrifising security just because someone says "HTTPS will cause problems" is something you shouldn't accept. At all. Ask the one who makes such silly claims to provide more data.
Re:Well, you can't be all that l33t
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 1
> Well, you can't be all that l33t > If you're still living in the same small-ish town
Sort of. Workin' from home isn't such a bad idea:)
In DOS, a handful only of commands are available, without any easy way to find out what those commands are (think "tab completion" here), pipes are a childish toy in comparison to the way Unix shells work, there is no `backquote`, and the batch language is a minimalistic version of BASIC which can probably do a lot, but not as much as sh(1).
It's not about "the ability" to write scripts. It's all about the way those scripts can be written, the number of available tools that can be used in scripts, etc. etc.
Why not vim? I regularly read works of quite some length in vim or emacs. Both editors run fine in an xterm with colours of your choise and have bookmarking capabilities.
I've read quite a few books in xterms with -bg steelblue4 -fg #e8e8e8. Your preferred colours might vary slightly or a lot, but isn't it nice to be able to read a document in X11, bookmark it there, then open it later while on a virtual console and still be able to find the bookmarks?:-)
Similar things have happened here in Greece, on a nation wide scale. At first, mobiles were 09x-xxxxxx.
The area code for my city, Patras, was 061, so the numbers for local phones were 061-xxxxxx.
Then a single zero was added after the area code for local phones and the first zero was changed to 2. They were changed to 2610-xxxxxx.
Just a few days ago, the mobile phone numbers were changed to start with 6 instead of 0. They're now 69x-xxxxxx.
Apparently, it's not England and/or London that is mad. The guys that work on Telco companies are the mad ones, or just fiendishly sadistic monsters who like wreaking havoc once in a while just for the fun of it all:)
> Does OpenBSD simply "ripoff" NetBSD development?
Nope. The sharing of code and ideas among the
various *BSD implementations is a Good Thing(TM).
Developers from more than one groups that join
their efforts and write code that is easy to port,
clean, and useful to more than one of the BSDs
are out there. And they have been doing a great
job for quite some time. There's no ripping off,
but a cooperative spirit that we should be glad
for.
To use your example, what if the "ripping off" of
code that OpenBSD is accused for, helps in
revealing some bug that is caused by assumptions
that are true only for NetBSD? Is then the
"ripping off" justified and part of a "development
process" or is it still a bad thing? What if the
OpenBSD folks write back to the original authors
and help in fixing possible problems with the
NetBSD codebase? Aren't they then assisting in
making NetBSD a better OS too?
Slashdot has what, 10,000 users?
Would you rather we all have the same opionion?
Oh my goodness! You don't mean they discovered
yet another particle... the "opionion", the one
that carries opinions from one particle to another, and helps us 'too large to be considered
quantum objects' form opinions?
Tell me you don't mean THAT...
(BTW Mozilla rocks. I don't need to use Netscape
anymore, when Moz is around. It has a few nasty bugs, but if 1.0 means less bugs, I'm all for it.
Mozilla already does more than enough for me:-)
> At the moment I'm trying to find the best
> algorithm for finding the common elements
> between two arrays.
The best way might depend on what the "values"
of the array elements can be. But your point is
well put and clear. It also falls under the
"quality is more important than quantity" part
of the original article.
There are other things that one might consider
important too. At the FreeBSD committer's guide
there is a part that reads:
Being able to work together long term is this
project's greatest asset, one far more
important than any set of changes to the
code, and turning arguments about code into
issues that affect our long-term ability to
work harmoniously together is just not worth
the trade-off by any conceivable stretch of
the imagination.
Therefore, the metrics one will use to find out
who is productive and who is not, are closely
related to those things that are deemed important
for the project/company/group at hand.
Quality of code?
Quantity of code?
Documentation of code?
Simplicity of code?
(Small) size of code?
Comments or no comments?
Not missing deadlines?
Maintainability of resulting code?
Choise of the proper tools?
Being able to report to managers?
Working harmoniously with others?
These are a few of the things that might need
to be considered, when asking "is John Doe as
productive as we wish him to be?" Several of
them are conflicting with each other too. I'm
arguing that before one chooses metrics to start
checking who is productive and who is not, there
is a need to define in clear and simple words
what the "targets we have" are. I'm deliberately
choosing "we" here, to emphasize that the targets
are something that is a property of "the team"
that includes both managers and programmers.
It is very important to know what the team
strives for. Then, after the message has been
passed to the hordes of programmers, a choise is
made about the metrics. Bearing in mind that
it's well-known what is "getting us closer to
our aims" now, the choise of appropriate metrics
is bound to be easier.
Note though that the article mentioned in the original Slashdot article does not
include any kind of information about anti-spam
techniques that Verizon is using. Okay, I know
that some of the stuff they use might be their
own copyright, and they do not want to include
any information about how it works (which,
apparently should be replaced with how it
does not work, given the recent facts).
However, they could simply say something like:
The anti-spam tools used at Verizon were somehow bypassed by the malicious offender, resulting in a ton of messages being relayed.
The article, being as it is now, does not indicate that any kind of anti-spam technique is being used at Verizon. Which, bearing the recent events in mind, probably means
that they do not have or use any kind of anti-spam policy and/or tools.
Pardon me, but I think that I would not like
being a customer of such an ISP. Period.
Actually they haven't. They only admitted that it is time consuming for their customers to install from scratch on their own. It is a good start, though...
"Highlight the fact that the PC will not work without an operating system."
Who said I am gonna leave it without one? I just don't want the stuff you wish me to install.
"Mention that preinstalling the operating system on the new PC saves considerable time, expense and trouble."
Whose time does it save? When that poor OEM will discover that they lost half an hour to Ghost Windows on my new hard disk, and I simply fdisk'ed and newfs'ed the hell out of it, in order to install FreeBSD, they will probably think that they lost time, instead of saving any of it.
"After all, your expertise is valuable."
Not to sound like I do not respect the time and effort that OEM vendors have taken to learn how to use and administer Windows machines. But I have yet to find one vendor with expertise in FreeBSD or Linux. And `Windows expertise' is not valuable to me. At all.
What I am trying to say until now is that, every single sentence of that article in Microsoft's site--every single part of it--can be contradicted or found in error.
The subject of my posting is however about the fact that I still do not believe that I have already shown this article to my manager and he found everything said by Microsoft reasonable.
The idea that my boss, or anyone else's boss for that matter, is reading his email, is not that nice, IMHO. Even things like PGP can not help much, since knowing even where I post mail, or who has emailed me, and when, is some information that has it's own value.
I still do not know what I would reply to a boss that asked me, being responsible for the mail server, to monitor other people's mail (including myself) for this or that. Perhaps, explaining that moral reasons do not allow me to do something like that, will be enough. However, I suspect that there will be times that leaving the job will be my only way out of this mess.
Maybe I'm all wrong here, but how can napster be blocked?</i> I found out that 6699 port was blocked and changed my gnapster port in the preferences.. and lo, I was in again.
Well, apart from the really IE-specific crap that most Office programs will spit out, when I use that "Save as HTML" menus, they seem to be quite nice.
Unless of course you want to re-open the thing in Emacs or another editor and actually change something later. All that used for alignment are just too scary for me to touch...
Using Emacs to edit HTML and open it later in some Office program has worked just fine though. Plus, Emacs supports my CVS at home, which no Office-suite has ever dreamed of working with -- at least, not until now.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure... For instance, the safest way to "copy" when renaming it, in one, atomic operation, is to use hard links. The last time I checked, FAT didn't support those :-(
True, true. There are times though that one has to type on the prompt things like:
The scriptability of the shell right there on the command prompt, is probably the only reason I use bash as my login shell even on BSDs.
--
> lack of knowledge, time, technical skills, ... .... but, I need
> etc
>
> you forgot the most important one. Refusing
> to let MS ownz your system with Service Pack
> EULAs. EVIL SP, EVIL EULA
> that security patch. Damn them....
Pardon my ignorance in Microsoft lore, but...
Do they really do this? I mean has anyone noticed that the license of a service pack lets them "have control" over your system and the way it works?
Scary!
That's b*shit!
You should never, EVER, rely on claims or rumours for "unspecified" problems. What were those problems? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of sites that use HTTPS. The PeopleSoft people should present verifiable, repeatable cases where HTTPS was the cause of problems that HTTP could "magically" solve.
Sacrifising security just because someone says "HTTPS will cause problems" is something you shouldn't accept. At all. Ask the one who makes such silly claims to provide more data.
> Well, you can't be all that l33t
:)
> If you're still living in the same small-ish town
Sort of.
Workin' from home isn't such a bad idea
--
> (Okay, again, DOS can be scripted...
Well, yes. But what a big difference there is!
In DOS, a handful only of commands are available, without any easy way to find out what those commands are (think "tab completion" here), pipes are a childish toy in comparison to the way Unix shells work, there is no `backquote`, and the batch language is a minimalistic version of BASIC which can probably do a lot, but not as much as sh(1).
It's not about "the ability" to write scripts. It's all about the way those scripts can be written, the number of available tools that can be used in scripts, etc. etc.
--
Why not vim? I regularly read works of quite some length in vim or emacs. Both editors run fine in an xterm with colours of your choise and have bookmarking capabilities.
:-)
I've read quite a few books in xterms with -bg steelblue4 -fg #e8e8e8. Your preferred colours might vary slightly or a lot, but isn't it nice to be able to read a document in X11, bookmark it there, then open it later while on a virtual console and still be able to find the bookmarks?
Similar things have happened here in Greece, on a nation wide scale. At first, mobiles were 09x-xxxxxx.
:)
The area code for my city, Patras, was 061, so the numbers for local phones were 061-xxxxxx.
Then a single zero was added after the area code for local phones and the first zero was changed to 2. They were changed to 2610-xxxxxx.
Just a few days ago, the mobile phone numbers were changed to start with 6 instead of 0. They're now 69x-xxxxxx.
Apparently, it's not England and/or London that is mad. The guys that work on Telco companies are the mad ones, or just fiendishly sadistic monsters who like wreaking havoc once in a while just for the fun of it all
> How can prefixing a '1' to every phone number
> increase the amount of combinations?
Adding a '1' doesn't increase the currently used number of combinations.
Changing that first digit later on, say by announcing that cell phones start with '6' instead of '1' from now on, does.
Nope. The sharing of code and ideas among the various *BSD implementations is a Good Thing(TM). Developers from more than one groups that join their efforts and write code that is easy to port, clean, and useful to more than one of the BSDs are out there. And they have been doing a great job for quite some time. There's no ripping off, but a cooperative spirit that we should be glad for.
To use your example, what if the "ripping off" of code that OpenBSD is accused for, helps in revealing some bug that is caused by assumptions that are true only for NetBSD? Is then the "ripping off" justified and part of a "development process" or is it still a bad thing? What if the OpenBSD folks write back to the original authors and help in fixing possible problems with the NetBSD codebase? Aren't they then assisting in making NetBSD a better OS too?
- Giorgos
Would you rather we all have the same opionion?
Oh my goodness! You don't mean they discovered yet another particle... the "opionion", the one that carries opinions from one particle to another, and helps us 'too large to be considered quantum objects' form opinions?
Tell me you don't mean THAT...
(BTW Mozilla rocks. I don't need to use Netscape anymore, when Moz is around. It has a few nasty bugs, but if 1.0 means less bugs, I'm all for it. Mozilla already does more than enough for me :-)
And what abou having win XP not boot because of activation? Must be worse....
You know what a "kernel" is. Your case cannot be helped, sorry...
> algorithm for finding the common elements
> between two arrays.
The best way might depend on what the "values" of the array elements can be. But your point is well put and clear. It also falls under the "quality is more important than quantity" part of the original article.
There are other things that one might consider important too. At the FreeBSD committer's guide there is a part that reads:
Therefore, the metrics one will use to find out who is productive and who is not, are closely related to those things that are deemed important for the project/company/group at hand.
These are a few of the things that might need to be considered, when asking "is John Doe as productive as we wish him to be?" Several of them are conflicting with each other too. I'm arguing that before one chooses metrics to start checking who is productive and who is not, there is a need to define in clear and simple words what the "targets we have" are. I'm deliberately choosing "we" here, to emphasize that the targets are something that is a property of "the team" that includes both managers and programmers.
It is very important to know what the team strives for. Then, after the message has been passed to the hordes of programmers, a choise is made about the metrics. Bearing in mind that it's well-known what is "getting us closer to our aims" now, the choise of appropriate metrics is bound to be easier.
Giorgos.
nice style. exactly the kind of clear, small, simple and easy to follow code, that the article is talking about :-P
Read the license again. The BSDL is definitely not about
"do with it as you please". It also says that
you as long as you don't claim having written
this, then you can do as you please.
Note though that the article mentioned in the original Slashdot article does not include any kind of information about anti-spam techniques that Verizon is using. Okay, I know that some of the stuff they use might be their own copyright, and they do not want to include any information about how it works (which, apparently should be replaced with how it does not work, given the recent facts). However, they could simply say something like:
The article, being as it is now, does not indicate that any kind of anti-spam technique is being used at Verizon. Which, bearing the recent events in mind, probably means that they do not have or use any kind of anti-spam policy and/or tools.
Pardon me, but I think that I would not like being a customer of such an ISP. Period.
Actually they haven't. They only admitted that it is time consuming for their customers to install from scratch on their own. It is a good start, though...
Who said I am gonna leave it without one? I just don't want the stuff you wish me to install.
Whose time does it save? When that poor OEM will discover that they lost half an hour to Ghost Windows on my new hard disk, and I simply fdisk'ed and newfs'ed the hell out of it, in order to install FreeBSD, they will probably think that they lost time, instead of saving any of it.
Not to sound like I do not respect the time and effort that OEM vendors have taken to learn how to use and administer Windows machines. But I have yet to find one vendor with expertise in FreeBSD or Linux. And `Windows expertise' is not valuable to me. At all.
What I am trying to say until now is that, every single sentence of that article in Microsoft's site--every single part of it--can be contradicted or found in error.
The subject of my posting is however about the fact that I still do not believe that I have already shown this article to my manager and he found everything said by Microsoft reasonable.
Oops! Something wrong here...
---
The idea that my boss, or anyone else's boss for that matter, is reading his email, is not that nice, IMHO. Even things like PGP can not help much, since knowing even where I post mail, or who has emailed me, and when, is some information that has it's own value.
I still do not know what I would reply to a boss that asked me, being responsible for the mail server, to monitor other people's mail (including myself) for this or that. Perhaps, explaining that moral reasons do not allow me to do something like that, will be enough. However, I suspect that there will be times that leaving the job will be my only way out of this mess.
--
Maybe I'm all wrong here, but how can napster
be blocked?</i> I found out that 6699 port was
blocked and changed my gnapster port in the
preferences.. and lo, I was in again.
Well, apart from the really IE-specific crap that most Office programs will spit out, when I use that "Save as HTML" menus, they seem to be quite nice.
Unless of course you want to re-open the thing in Emacs or another editor and actually change something later. All that used for alignment are just too scary for me to touch...
Using Emacs to edit HTML and open it later in some Office program has worked just fine though. Plus, Emacs supports my CVS at home, which no Office-suite has ever dreamed of working with -- at least, not until now.
Just my $.2