Am I the only one that remembers the flat-fee national plans cell companies offer? They're roaming-charge free. Someday I expect local plans will go away entirely.
Back when I did telephony programming, it was all on OS/2, largely because OS/2 was a realtime OS, while Windows is not. *nix also generally has realtime kernel support available as well, and the high-end switching software that isn't proprietary generally runs on *nix.
At the time, however, hardware providers were working on Windows APIs, probably because of the prevalence of Windows in the workplace. There was a big push years ago towards PC-managed telephony over old proprietary PBX systems. It gave businesses the ability to have their IT staff do a lot of customization without very much training.
The important thing to note is that the migration to Windows was on the corporate end, not on the provider end. There's no way any seriously critical switching software is going to be running on Windows.
Other people have mentioned that the internet isn't as decentralized as would first appear (DNS being a particular problem). But the article seems to focus specifically on breaking a single server into a decentralized (and potentially redundant) data cluster. The idea seems to be to eliminate subnet access from being a single point of falue for access to data stored on a single "server." I imagine a lot of what they want could be done now with mirroring and a bit of client-side coding, but it sounds like they want to make the server-side more than just a collection of redundant data sources.
A single instance of Mozilla is faster than a single instance of ie, but in my experience the scales tip the other way when you've got 15 browser windows open. ie scales fairly gracefully while mozilla begins act a tad quirky.
I still prefer and use mozilla exclusively, but don't think the battle is wone yet. One of the prices of portability is that it becomes more difficult to exploit platform-specific features... and the optimal method for socket communications in windows is not bsd-style sockets. That said, I haven't looked at the mozilla code so I suppose it's possible they're using iocp like they should be.
It likely wouldn't be on my Ultra160 bus which is where all my hard drives are. And I've already got some slow CD drives on the old 50-pin bus. As for under-runs, I've defragmented hard drives at the same time I was burning a CDROM... and I've never in my life burnt a coaster. It's too bad consumers have latched so firmly onto IDE or SCSI prices might be a tad more reasonable.
so much as Padme's motivation. For the first half of the film, Padme saw Anakin as a slightly annoying lovestruck boy. Then all of a sudden she was in love with him and they were giggling like children. Later, Anakin tells Padme about how he gloried in the slaughter of a village of Sand People, and in response Padme decides to have sex with him. This isn't even to consider the fact that in the approximately 10 years between episode 1 and episode 2, Padme apparently didn't age at all. Perhaps Padme spent a brief stint in a Black Hole to let Anakin catch up with her so they could have their horribly contrived love tryst.
i don't care what Lucas does so long as it has some semblance of internal consistency. AotC was even worse than PM in this regard (and many others). As much as I disliked PM I thought it a far better film than AotC.
So far as I can tell, the hardware industry has written off the DVD format as a consumer medium. Why? Unlike CDROM drives, there are basically no SCSI DVD drives in existence. Call me a SCSI purist, but I won't buy a DVD drive until I can stick it on my SCSI chain.
Just disable background downloading from the appropriate menu. No need to edit the registry, hex edit files, do backflips down your stairs, or sacrifice chickens.
Seems like the best way to hacker-proof something is to make it glaringly simple.
First, it's obscenely long. I fell asleep two times just skimming the index. And all it does so far as I can tell is tell an application designer how to play nice with everyone else. Windows programmers can do this just as easily. The problem is: most people don't bother.
Until operating systems have a generic installer and application designers don't have to do any more tell this installer "here are my files, i need to store this config info, and these are my dependncies, do what you will" the problem will continue. MacOS was always great in this regard because all a user had to do to de/install an application was drag the icon to the trash/desktop.
An application designer should not be forced to know the intracacies of all the platforms his application may run on any more than a web designer should have to write custom HTML for each browser that may hit his website. That's the point of abstraction -- let the one who knows the details be the one to handle them.
I think it's kind of funny that so much controversy has been going on over what is basically a re-engineeering of one of the oldest internet services. Why not just resurrect Archie?
One important issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the dramatic difference in broadcasting models between traditional broadcast media and webcasting. If a radio station obtains an FCC license, their potential audience can number in the millions for no operating costs beyond the maintenance of that broadcasting license. That is, traditional radio broadcasting is limited only by antenna location and wattage. Webcasting, on the other hand, does not have to obtain a similar FCC license, but instead is drastically constrained by bandwidth, and furthermore, must pay for this (metered) bandwidth. Thus webcasters must effectively pay a (not insignificant) per-listener fee in order to broadcast. And this fee dictates that smaller webcasters with limited revenue are able only to broadcast to a severely limited audience (frequently only 8-16 listeners, for those webcasting from home). This is a number of orders of magnitude less than a similar station would have were they broadcasting over the airwaves, with little or no advertising revenue to subsidize their broadcast. And yet the RIAA wants these people to pay MORE than an equivalent radio station?
IMO a much better parallel for webcasting is a DJ playing music in a dance club rather than a radio station broadcast. There is a limited audience, no revenue, and webcasting is a subscription-based service very similar to a person entering a dance club. That is, at any time, a webcaster can retrieve a list of exactly who is listening to their webcast. Radio stations cannot make a similar claim.
provided someone managed to break the tamperproofing (which Bruce Schneier has pointed out is really a matter of money and time), decrypting the message would implicitly give the MitM the location of the intended recipient. Provided the message could be cracked fairly quickly, this could seriously compromise the safety of the recipients, were the device to be used in a combat situation.
but by the same token, releasing information about a vulnerability is admitting that your application is flawed. This also harms the reputation of your product among some user groups. With Windows XP Microsoft has conclusively proven that their target market is People Who Don't Know What A Mouse Is; these are the same people who would react most negatively to MS security alerts.
In the case of national security, the government has strong motivations to fix any security leak they find. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out in the past, commercial software isn't held to the same high standards... although we're entering an era where perhaps it should be, at least in part.
It's a mainboard with an integrated GeForce 2 MX and Dolby audio processor as well as some other nifty features. It's nVidia's first forey into the realm of mainboards and looks quite promising.
Ars Technica did an article on this topic a year ago. Check this link for the article.
Because MS' socket model is vastly different
on
OSX/Win2K Deathmatch
·
· Score: 1
MS may support BSD sockets but seems more of a token gesture. To get real server performance out of the Windows socket lib (and you can) you really need to use overlapped i/o with IOCP. If you do, a process is only limited by the number of sockets Windows can support. I believe it's 32k.
Apache only sucks on Windows because they didn't feel like retooling the entire socket layer. Remember, there's still IIS.
It seems like the main goal of this technology isn't to obscure the source of web browsing, as another poster assumed, but rather to make sniffing a session much more difficult. Since both ends need to be running this software, I don't see it being useful for anything else.
Still, I wonder about a few things. First, how can you implement time-based IP-hopping when IP is not time-dependent? That is, what happens when the connection between the two machines encounters a bit of congestion? The destination will have hopped on to a new address and the packetes will never arrive... unless there's something I'm missing.
Second, don't the packets contain things like the MAC address of the ethernet card? Are they saying that their technology either will not include this information, or switch it right along with the IP address?
As glorious as it sounds, somehow I don't see this being nearly as effective against MitM as signal-hopping with radio frequencies. With a radio scanner you would either have to monitor all available frequencies to try to put the session together or synch with the session and hop along with it, which is fairly difficult. However with packet sniffing, everything that passes is available for reading. The only way I can see this being halfway useful is if somehow every address used had a different route between the two machines, which isn't really feasible.
So... it's a nice idea I suppose but it sounds to me like it's mostly hype.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently this will also be the first base 10 computer system. Way to go IBM!
Am I the only one that remembers the flat-fee national plans cell companies offer? They're roaming-charge free. Someday I expect local plans will go away entirely.
Back when I did telephony programming, it was all on OS/2, largely because OS/2 was a realtime OS, while Windows is not. *nix also generally has realtime kernel support available as well, and the high-end switching software that isn't proprietary generally runs on *nix.
At the time, however, hardware providers were working on Windows APIs, probably because of the prevalence of Windows in the workplace. There was a big push years ago towards PC-managed telephony over old proprietary PBX systems. It gave businesses the ability to have their IT staff do a lot of customization without very much training.
The important thing to note is that the migration to Windows was on the corporate end, not on the provider end. There's no way any seriously critical switching software is going to be running on Windows.
The average user may be adept at breaking his PC, but he's much less likely to, say, flood the network with bad packets.
Other people have mentioned that the internet isn't as decentralized as would first appear (DNS being a particular problem). But the article seems to focus specifically on breaking a single server into a decentralized (and potentially redundant) data cluster. The idea seems to be to eliminate subnet access from being a single point of falue for access to data stored on a single "server." I imagine a lot of what they want could be done now with mirroring and a bit of client-side coding, but it sounds like they want to make the server-side more than just a collection of redundant data sources.
A single instance of Mozilla is faster than a single instance of ie, but in my experience the scales tip the other way when you've got 15 browser windows open. ie scales fairly gracefully while mozilla begins act a tad quirky.
I still prefer and use mozilla exclusively, but don't think the battle is wone yet. One of the prices of portability is that it becomes more difficult to exploit platform-specific features... and the optimal method for socket communications in windows is not bsd-style sockets. That said, I haven't looked at the mozilla code so I suppose it's possible they're using iocp like they should be.
It likely wouldn't be on my Ultra160 bus which is where all my hard drives are. And I've already got some slow CD drives on the old 50-pin bus. As for under-runs, I've defragmented hard drives at the same time I was burning a CDROM... and I've never in my life burnt a coaster. It's too bad consumers have latched so firmly onto IDE or SCSI prices might be a tad more reasonable.
so much as Padme's motivation. For the first half of the film, Padme saw Anakin as a slightly annoying lovestruck boy. Then all of a sudden she was in love with him and they were giggling like children. Later, Anakin tells Padme about how he gloried in the slaughter of a village of Sand People, and in response Padme decides to have sex with him. This isn't even to consider the fact that in the approximately 10 years between episode 1 and episode 2, Padme apparently didn't age at all. Perhaps Padme spent a brief stint in a Black Hole to let Anakin catch up with her so they could have their horribly contrived love tryst.
i don't care what Lucas does so long as it has some semblance of internal consistency. AotC was even worse than PM in this regard (and many others). As much as I disliked PM I thought it a far better film than AotC.
So far as I can tell, the hardware industry has written off the DVD format as a consumer medium. Why? Unlike CDROM drives, there are basically no SCSI DVD drives in existence. Call me a SCSI purist, but I won't buy a DVD drive until I can stick it on my SCSI chain.
I've never had any problems disabling background downloading and it doesn't reset when I reload the app.
Just disable background downloading from the appropriate menu. No need to edit the registry, hex edit files, do backflips down your stairs, or sacrifice chickens.
Seems like the best way to hacker-proof something is to make it glaringly simple.
First, it's obscenely long. I fell asleep two times just skimming the index. And all it does so far as I can tell is tell an application designer how to play nice with everyone else. Windows programmers can do this just as easily. The problem is: most people don't bother.
Until operating systems have a generic installer and application designers don't have to do any more tell this installer "here are my files, i need to store this config info, and these are my dependncies, do what you will" the problem will continue. MacOS was always great in this regard because all a user had to do to de/install an application was drag the icon to the trash/desktop.
An application designer should not be forced to know the intracacies of all the platforms his application may run on any more than a web designer should have to write custom HTML for each browser that may hit his website. That's the point of abstraction -- let the one who knows the details be the one to handle them.
This is their build machine:
;-)
"Complete build time is 8 hours on 4 way PIII Xeon 550 with 50Gb disk and 512k RAM"
Last machine I had with 512k was an 8086. I think the quad xeon they've got in that box is slight overkill
I think it's kind of funny that so much controversy has been going on over what is basically a re-engineeering of one of the oldest internet services. Why not just resurrect Archie?
Unfortunately.
One important issue I haven't seen anyone mention is the dramatic difference in broadcasting models between traditional broadcast media and webcasting. If a radio station obtains an FCC license, their potential audience can number in the millions for no operating costs beyond the maintenance of that broadcasting license. That is, traditional radio broadcasting is limited only by antenna location and wattage. Webcasting, on the other hand, does not have to obtain a similar FCC license, but instead is drastically constrained by bandwidth, and furthermore, must pay for this (metered) bandwidth. Thus webcasters must effectively pay a (not insignificant) per-listener fee in order to broadcast. And this fee dictates that smaller webcasters with limited revenue are able only to broadcast to a severely limited audience (frequently only 8-16 listeners, for those webcasting from home). This is a number of orders of magnitude less than a similar station would have were they broadcasting over the airwaves, with little or no advertising revenue to subsidize their broadcast. And yet the RIAA wants these people to pay MORE than an equivalent radio station?
IMO a much better parallel for webcasting is a DJ playing music in a dance club rather than a radio station broadcast. There is a limited audience, no revenue, and webcasting is a subscription-based service very similar to a person entering a dance club. That is, at any time, a webcaster can retrieve a list of exactly who is listening to their webcast. Radio stations cannot make a similar claim.
provided someone managed to break the tamperproofing (which Bruce Schneier has pointed out is really a matter of money and time), decrypting the message would implicitly give the MitM the location of the intended recipient. Provided the message could be cracked fairly quickly, this could seriously compromise the safety of the recipients, were the device to be used in a combat situation.
but by the same token, releasing information about a vulnerability is admitting that your application is flawed. This also harms the reputation of your product among some user groups. With Windows XP Microsoft has conclusively proven that their target market is People Who Don't Know What A Mouse Is; these are the same people who would react most negatively to MS security alerts.
In the case of national security, the government has strong motivations to fix any security leak they find. As Bruce Schneier has pointed out in the past, commercial software isn't held to the same high standards... although we're entering an era where perhaps it should be, at least in part.
It's a mainboard with an integrated GeForce 2 MX and Dolby audio processor as well as some other nifty features. It's nVidia's first forey into the realm of mainboards and looks quite promising.
Ars Technica did an article on this topic a year ago. Check this link for the article.
MS may support BSD sockets but seems more of a token gesture. To get real server performance out of the Windows socket lib (and you can) you really need to use overlapped i/o with IOCP. If you do, a process is only limited by the number of sockets Windows can support. I believe it's 32k. Apache only sucks on Windows because they didn't feel like retooling the entire socket layer. Remember, there's still IIS.
Still, I wonder about a few things. First, how can you implement time-based IP-hopping when IP is not time-dependent? That is, what happens when the connection between the two machines encounters a bit of congestion? The destination will have hopped on to a new address and the packetes will never arrive... unless there's something I'm missing.
Second, don't the packets contain things like the MAC address of the ethernet card? Are they saying that their technology either will not include this information, or switch it right along with the IP address?
As glorious as it sounds, somehow I don't see this being nearly as effective against MitM as signal-hopping with radio frequencies. With a radio scanner you would either have to monitor all available frequencies to try to put the session together or synch with the session and hop along with it, which is fairly difficult. However with packet sniffing, everything that passes is available for reading. The only way I can see this being halfway useful is if somehow every address used had a different route between the two machines, which isn't really feasible.
So... it's a nice idea I suppose but it sounds to me like it's mostly hype.