While I was there, I would naturally run W2K Advanced Server, SQL Enterprise, VS Enterprise, and Office Pro and my desktop, because the licenses were free to me! (Probably $20,000 worth of software on all my PCs).
No - because that's your dev box rather than your enterprise server.
You just need licenses for your desktop OS and Office plus MSDN Universal. (Go 'Microsoft Certified Partner' and it's cheaper still.) True, its then economic to lose Advanced Server from your desktop but you can use an MSDN licence to run Advanced Server test machines.
You acted as a creative consultant for Rage's Hostile Waters game, and it showed: the story line is a cut above anything I've played for some time and the cut-scene narratives beautifully eloquent.
How satisfying did you find the experience? (Did you get a say in the voice cast?) Would you do it again?
If you could try another media to work with, which would it be?
"What human invention gives with one hand it takes with the other: hell lies implicit in a gift of Eden."
I doubt that a SQL server will use much more CPU and it shouldn't be too hard to re-write the access stuff from SQL.
You're shifting the responsibility, though.
The access solution is just using the 'server' machine as a file server; high bandwidth but low server load. Running SQL server shifts most of the operation to the server machine; lower bandwidth for DB access but high server load.
You really do need a dedicated machine for SQL server, and one with *lots* of RAM. Obviously you can distribute the databases between machines as long as you're willing to buy the licences.
I already had an MSDN window open for something else, so I typed in "vbscript select case"
If you just type 'select case' instead then this is the first hit.
And you really don't want to use MSDN web's search - you want an offline MSDN's index which I can't see on the web version. Type 'select case' into that and you get: (mangled since I can't table)
Index Results for Select Case statement - 6 topics found Visual Basic Language Specification - 8.9.2 Select...Case Statements Visual Basic Language Concepts - Decision Structures Microsoft Scripting Technologies - Select Case Statement Visual Basic Language Concepts - Select...Case Statements (Conceptual) Visual Basic Language Reference - Select...Case Statements (Language Reference) Microsoft Scripting Technologies - Using Conditional Statements
the third of which is what you want. Better still, use context help in Visual Studio.NET and I think it'll even pick the right one for you.
And Microsoft's documentation is very good in general - I'd pick MSDN over most third parties for things like that.
Came across this in my metamod list. Obviously I'm not an RSA customer so all I know about RC4 is from Schneier.
Not quite. RC4 has several pretty serious flaws, both in design and popular implementation.
What are the design flaws? I've never heard of any. It's a neat, simple stream cipher with a ridiculuously long cycle. I can't remember if you can prove there's only a single cycle or not.
Implemenation - there's no reason to bash RC4 because it's been used in a bad protocol. Skimming your links it looks like any stream cipher would have had the same problem. Or any block cipher, including AES, if they'd used dropped it in in CFB mode using the same IV, etc.
Padding your keys with any number, especially zero, is not a good encryption scheme. Did I mention that RC4 calls for this?
No, you repeat the key to get 256 bytes, i.e. from "ABCD" you'd use "ABCD" 64 times rather than "ABCD" then 252 zeros.
Spammers would no longer just be able to blast out one E-mail to a huge list,
Yes they would.
GPG/PGP work by first encrypting a message with a symmetric block cipher and then encrypting the symmetric cipher key with everybody's private key. You encrypt your spam with a single symmetric key and you only need one PKI operation per recipient. Furthermore, this can be done ahead of time by the spam list vendors - they just sell you a symmetric key with a list of emails and precomputed PKI for that symmetric key.
To stop that, you'd have to implement a symmetric key blacklist - but there are huge security and privacy issues with that.
Those that know you (or have your key) would know enough about you that any non-PGP e-mails would be suspect, but that's what,.000001% of the internet?
So you need to get OpenPGP code in *all* mail readers (especially Outlook + Express), have the install scripts prompt for key generation, make signing all mails the default setting and have it whinge about unsigned mail. A few years down the line, signed mail will be the de-facto standard.
*However* this won't address the web-of-trust problem. They only way you're going to get everyone in the same web of trust is to have a single (or handful) of trusted roots similar to the current SSL certificate CAs. Everyone will have to apply to these CAs for a signature on your key. Which, to prevent spoofing, you'll have to provide some sort of ID. Which means your mail address is strongly tied to your real identity. Which will upset civil liberties types.
Really, the only way to combat this kind of identiy fraud is with PGP. It would be ideal if every mail-program out there supported PGP.
You mean make signing mails mandatory (or de-facto mandatory)? What's to stop spammers just generating a key with your email address in it?
There's no way you can set up a universal web of trust (it'd have to have a centralised provider) that prevents spoofing *and* that will keep the i-want-to-be-anonymous civil liberties types happy.
about their marketing blurb, which is problably what the "didn't bother trying to understand the product" comment was aimed at.
The description made me think of the methaphorical million monkeys,
If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters for a million years, one of them will type your data. We record the time and coordinate of that monkey and encrypt it.
To do that effectively they'd have to chop the data into smallish blocks, i.e. it's a sort of blockwise inverse stream cipher against a stream that only you and the recipient have.
But that's my first-glance uninformed interpretation. Seems reasonable, but can't see benefits over a normal block cipher.
I had severe misgivings when I read that.Net generates its own HTML for some of its features, AND it was doing so in a browser specific way.
It does it in a per-browser way. Its intention is understand and exploit advanced features of your browser.
Yes, MS can do this better for IE than anything else because they control it. It'd be irresponsible of them to start making assumptions about what Mozilla does / doesn't support without talking to the Mozilla folks and some heavy QA.
Presumably this isn't (yet) in their commerical interests.
Even if you ignore the.NET controls, you're still left with an excellent business-friendly replacement for.ASP.
FYI: you should be able to download the latest Platform SDK from microsoft which includes the latest build tools.
Don't think so. There's the latest IA64 compiler, yes, but no IA32 compiler.
It doesn't have MFC/ATL, but you should be able to still use the versions from VC6 with the new compiler/linker.
I'd be surprised - they've changed the.pdb (debug info) format. That said, the interface for mspdb70.dll and mspdb60.dlls look roughly the same, so you might get away renaming dropping the 70 version into VS6.
IBM seems good at producing reference designs, but not at actually moving out lower end commercial products like this.
Maybe they've decided they can't compete against established PDA players. Instead, they're hoping one of those will adopt the technology which is still good money, promote PowerPC, etc.
Maybe they just don't have the manufacturing capacity to do this profitably and they don't want to take the risk.
Why wouldn't they run a Linux version on it with a regular PC chip and be able to sell the device cheaper?
You mean an x86? They eat too much power to use portably.
There are a couple of low-power x86 compatibles - the Transmeta Crusoe and VIA Epic - but don't know if they're low power enough. Plus they're someone else's technology whereas PowerPC is IBM's own.
And, I don't know how you should interpret this, but svn has a handful of paid developers -- arch has none and, in fact, I'm literally days away from homelessness.
There once was a company called Madge Networks (well, still is). In the early days, they made Token Ring cards that were clones of IBM cards. They didn't have the big name and reputation of IBM. They didn't have a significantly better product. So how did they compete? They were easier to deal with than IBM.
Are you as easy to deal with as the SVN team?
My impression is that you're trying to highjack funding from the SVN team by telling them that your product is better and collab.net should pay you instead. But collab.net want a CVS replacement for sourcecast and that's what they're paying for.
In comparison, CVS over ssh is secure and works pretty much everywhere. Many machines don't need to run a web server, let alone Apache 2, while ssh pretty much runs everywhere.
As noted above, there is a standalone protocol in development. There's also a pipe module to exactly mimic cvs over ssh.
If you strip down apache's configuration enough, it doesn't eat too many resources, though (can't get exact numbers from here, sorry) and it pretty much runs everywhere itself.
Sure it might be a strong sucessor, but if its stable series will not configure/compile on my box then it's useless. (it has issues when you tell it to compile without apache).
If you haven't already, please report this to the developers. (Or fix it yourself:-) )
I've had no problems building subversion here and virtually all my builds are without apache.
Our one i810 here has 4mb video ram only. Most 2001+ games won't run or struggle with 8mb or less - I'd be very surprised if an i810 or a Voodoo 3 could run America's army playably.
No-one's going to buy 10-20 copies of a game for the office unless they can be sure it'll be a hit. More than likely they'll buy one, find a crack on the net and install that everywhere.
it's an entirely different game with/without sound; need to make sure everyone's on a level playing field and preferably that's *with* sound
most people won't have played it before; particularly
they'll take some time to 'get' the mouse/keyboard FPS-UI thing and experienced players will hammer them into the ground, frustrating them
they won't know the levels
Clan Arena's a good compromise here (team game with no items on the level) but it's still not something you can throw a newbie at.
I've never had any problem running QW on NT/2k. I still find software mode easier to play in out-of-the-box than GL, and modern 3d cards get lousy framerates in software - my old Matrox G200 beats most of them.
But they release testcases and detailed descriptions...
It looks like they gave all the affected vendors reasonable notice. Almost all the vendors have released fixed versions. These are not full-disclosure weenies.
They probably mean there's no workaround if you don't/can't update your software.
The only possible reason I can think of why Sun would not want OpenBSD to be easily ported to the newer Sparc chips is because OpenBSD could offer people an easy migration strategy away from Sparc to other less expensive platforms.
Sun's big marketing angle is enterprise reliability and scalability. They might not think other OSes manage that as well as Solaris and so Sun boxes running non-Solaris might injure their hardware reputation.
Slashdot Mirror
While I was there, I would naturally run W2K Advanced Server, SQL Enterprise, VS Enterprise, and Office Pro and my desktop, because the licenses were free to me! (Probably $20,000 worth of software on all my PCs).
No - because that's your dev box rather than your enterprise server.
You just need licenses for your desktop OS and Office plus MSDN Universal. (Go 'Microsoft Certified Partner' and it's cheaper still.) True, its then economic to lose Advanced Server from your desktop but you can use an MSDN licence to run Advanced Server test machines.
You acted as a creative consultant for Rage's Hostile Waters game, and it showed: the story line is a cut above anything I've played for some time and the cut-scene narratives beautifully eloquent.
How satisfying did you find the experience? (Did you get a say in the voice cast?) Would you do it again?
If you could try another media to work with, which would it be?
"What human invention gives with one hand it takes with the other: hell lies implicit in a gift of Eden."
I doubt that a SQL server will use much more CPU and it shouldn't be too hard to re-write the access stuff from SQL.
You're shifting the responsibility, though.
The access solution is just using the 'server' machine as a file server; high bandwidth but low server load. Running SQL server shifts most of the operation to the server machine; lower bandwidth for DB access but high server load.
You really do need a dedicated machine for SQL server, and one with *lots* of RAM. Obviously you can distribute the databases between machines as long as you're willing to buy the licences.
If you just type 'select case' instead then this is the first hit.
And you really don't want to use MSDN web's search - you want an offline MSDN's index which I can't see on the web version. Type 'select case' into that and you get: (mangled since I can't table)the third of which is what you want. Better still, use context help in Visual Studio.NET and I think it'll even pick the right one for you.
And Microsoft's documentation is very good in general - I'd pick MSDN over most third parties for things like that.
I used to have an ear ring that could run seti@home.
Point is consumer electronics manufacturers can use it to internet enable their devices at very low R&D cost.
Assuming, that is, they're willing to bump the retail price by $30 - $50.
Which they won't be. Until there's *serious* demand for this stuff.
Came across this in my metamod list. Obviously I'm not an RSA customer so all I know about RC4 is from Schneier.
Not quite. RC4 has several pretty serious flaws, both in design and popular implementation.
What are the design flaws? I've never heard of any. It's a neat, simple stream cipher with a ridiculuously long cycle. I can't remember if you can prove there's only a single cycle or not.
Implemenation - there's no reason to bash RC4 because it's been used in a bad protocol. Skimming your links it looks like any stream cipher would have had the same problem. Or any block cipher, including AES, if they'd used dropped it in in CFB mode using the same IV, etc.
Padding your keys with any number, especially zero, is not a good encryption scheme. Did I mention that RC4 calls for this?
No, you repeat the key to get 256 bytes, i.e. from "ABCD" you'd use "ABCD" 64 times rather than "ABCD" then 252 zeros.
Spammers would no longer just be able to blast out one E-mail to a huge list,
Yes they would.
GPG/PGP work by first encrypting a message with a symmetric block cipher and then encrypting the symmetric cipher key with everybody's private key. You encrypt your spam with a single symmetric key and you only need one PKI operation per recipient. Furthermore, this can be done ahead of time by the spam list vendors - they just sell you a symmetric key with a list of emails and precomputed PKI for that symmetric key.
To stop that, you'd have to implement a symmetric key blacklist - but there are huge security and privacy issues with that.
Those that know you (or have your key) would know enough about you that any non-PGP e-mails would be suspect, but that's what, .000001% of the internet?
So you need to get OpenPGP code in *all* mail readers (especially Outlook + Express), have the install scripts prompt for key generation, make signing all mails the default setting and have it whinge about unsigned mail. A few years down the line, signed mail will be the de-facto standard.
*However* this won't address the web-of-trust problem. They only way you're going to get everyone in the same web of trust is to have a single (or handful) of trusted roots similar to the current SSL certificate CAs. Everyone will have to apply to these CAs for a signature on your key. Which, to prevent spoofing, you'll have to provide some sort of ID. Which means your mail address is strongly tied to your real identity. Which will upset civil liberties types.
Really, the only way to combat this kind of identiy fraud is with PGP. It would be ideal if every mail-program out there supported PGP.
You mean make signing mails mandatory (or de-facto mandatory)? What's to stop spammers just generating a key with your email address in it?
There's no way you can set up a universal web of trust (it'd have to have a centralised provider) that prevents spoofing *and* that will keep the i-want-to-be-anonymous civil liberties types happy.
The description made me think of the methaphorical million monkeys,To do that effectively they'd have to chop the data into smallish blocks, i.e. it's a sort of blockwise inverse stream cipher against a stream that only you and the recipient have.
But that's my first-glance uninformed interpretation. Seems reasonable, but can't see benefits over a normal block cipher.
I had severe misgivings when I read that .Net generates its own HTML for some of its features, AND it was doing so in a browser specific way.
.NET controls, you're still left with an excellent business-friendly replacement for .ASP.
It does it in a per-browser way. Its intention is understand and exploit advanced features of your browser.
Yes, MS can do this better for IE than anything else because they control it. It'd be irresponsible of them to start making assumptions about what Mozilla does / doesn't support without talking to the Mozilla folks and some heavy QA.
Presumably this isn't (yet) in their commerical interests.
Even if you ignore the
FYI: you should be able to download the latest Platform SDK from microsoft which includes the latest build tools.
.pdb (debug info) format. That said, the interface for mspdb70.dll and mspdb60.dlls look roughly the same, so you might get away renaming dropping the 70 version into VS6.
Don't think so. There's the latest IA64 compiler, yes, but no IA32 compiler.
It doesn't have MFC/ATL, but you should be able to still use the versions from VC6 with the new compiler/linker.
I'd be surprised - they've changed the
IBM seems good at producing reference designs, but not at actually moving out lower end commercial products like this.
Maybe they've decided they can't compete against established PDA players. Instead, they're hoping one of those will adopt the technology which is still good money, promote PowerPC, etc.
Maybe they just don't have the manufacturing capacity to do this profitably and they don't want to take the risk.
Why wouldn't they run a Linux version on it with a regular PC chip and be able to sell the device cheaper?
You mean an x86? They eat too much power to use portably.
There are a couple of low-power x86 compatibles - the Transmeta Crusoe and VIA Epic - but don't know if they're low power enough. Plus they're someone else's technology whereas PowerPC is IBM's own.
Considering that this is called "LinuxWorld", what product will you release next for Linux?
Wasn't their a slashdot article about MS releasing Media Player for Linux? Otherwise, probably Linux to Win interoperability or migration tools.
Ask them if they're going to revive their Unix IE and Media Player and/or target Linux as well as Solaris, etc.
And, I don't know how you should interpret this, but svn has a handful of paid developers -- arch has none and, in fact, I'm literally days away from homelessness.
There once was a company called Madge Networks (well, still is). In the early days, they made Token Ring cards that were clones of IBM cards. They didn't have the big name and reputation of IBM. They didn't have a significantly better product. So how did they compete? They were easier to deal with than IBM.
Are you as easy to deal with as the SVN team?
My impression is that you're trying to highjack funding from the SVN team by telling them that your product is better and collab.net should pay you instead. But collab.net want a CVS replacement for sourcecast and that's what they're paying for.
In comparison, CVS over ssh is secure and works pretty much everywhere. Many machines don't need to run a web server, let alone Apache 2, while ssh pretty much runs everywhere.
As noted above, there is a standalone protocol in development. There's also a pipe module to exactly mimic cvs over ssh.
If you strip down apache's configuration enough, it doesn't eat too many resources, though (can't get exact numbers from here, sorry) and it pretty much runs everywhere itself.
Sure it might be a strong sucessor, but if its stable series will not configure/compile on my box then it's useless. (it has issues when you tell it to compile without apache).
:-) )
If you haven't already, please report this to the developers. (Or fix it yourself
I've had no problems building subversion here and virtually all my builds are without apache.
http://www.moonbasecommander.com/
Simple and fun to play, low system requirements. Only four players at once, though.
Heh, forgot PC spec in article.
Our one i810 here has 4mb video ram only. Most 2001+ games won't run or struggle with 8mb or less - I'd be very surprised if an i810 or a Voodoo 3 could run America's army playably.
Squad action free. www.americasarmy.com
Needs fairly modern PCs, though, and decent 3d accelerators to boot. Unless your IS dept runs wild with its budget, your office PC won't cut it.
Er, what legal issues?
No-one's going to buy 10-20 copies of a game for the office unless they can be sure it'll be a hit. More than likely they'll buy one, find a crack on the net and install that everywhere.
- it's an entirely different game with/without sound; need to make sure everyone's on a level playing field and preferably that's *with* sound
- most people won't have played it before; particularly
I've never had any problem running QW on NT/2k. I still find software mode easier to play in out-of-the-box than GL, and modern 3d cards get lousy framerates in software - my old Matrox G200 beats most of them.- they'll take some time to 'get' the mouse/keyboard FPS-UI thing and experienced players will hammer them into the ground, frustrating them
- they won't know the levels
Clan Arena's a good compromise here (team game with no items on the level) but it's still not something you can throw a newbie at.But they release testcases and detailed descriptions...
It looks like they gave all the affected vendors reasonable notice. Almost all the vendors have released fixed versions. These are not full-disclosure weenies.
They probably mean there's no workaround if you don't/can't update your software.
The only possible reason I can think of why Sun would not want OpenBSD to be easily ported to the newer Sparc chips is because OpenBSD could offer people an easy migration strategy away from Sparc to other less expensive platforms.
Sun's big marketing angle is enterprise reliability and scalability. They might not think other OSes manage that as well as Solaris and so Sun boxes running non-Solaris might injure their hardware reputation.