are now able to work on some XML-to-HTML transformer that matches closely what the average office user is spending his time creating
The guys at Typo3 have done exactly this. They write an extension that takes a normal Office 2003 XML document (like this one) and displays it as normal HTML (like this). The resulting HTML is subject to the same rules as all of the other HTML produced by Typo3, which means the appearance of everything can still be changed by modifying a template.
Typo3 has always been feature-rich (though terribly complex), and an XML-based document interchange system that can handle documents made in common word processors is a very useful feature indeed.
Is there anyway I can turn this service off? I disagree with the terms.
I've been discussing this with Verisign for a week now, and Verisign legal is supposed to get back to me on that exact question.
From the Terms of Service:
10. Sole Remedy. YOUR USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED... YOUR SOLE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES OR OUR SITE.
My question to Verisign was "I'm dissatisfied. What does 'to discontinue use of the Verisign services' mean? I can move many domains to other TLDs, pull the Verisign root certificates from a few hundred workstations, cancel a PayFlow account that handles a few hundred thousand dollars per month, and have my clients cancel several thousand dollars worth of SSL certificates. Is that what you want me to do?"
In that case, uou can e-mail Christopher Parente directly -- the guy that used to be associated with that address -- at CParente@verisign.com. But don't tell him I sent you.:-)
If you really want to make sure Verisign hears you, try some of my suggestions from otherposts, duplicated below.
A list of contact information is here. The Verisign main number is 1-877-438-8776, which gives you a long list of options. Depending on what you pick, you'll probably end up talking to a Network Solutions guy. Tell him you're distressed about the SiteFinder service, ask about what your options are, and ask if there's anyone else to talk to. They probably won't be much help, but write down everything they tell you, get their employee ID, and keep track of date/time for calls as well as time on hold (might be helpful).
After some lengthy conversation, I found out that I should be talking to the Verisign Global Registry, but that they can't give me a phone number, because (supposedly) NSI doesn't even have a phone number. However, I did get an e-mail address -- sitefinder@verisign-grs.com, which is routed to someone's inbox (as in, a person, not a support center), which currently yields an "Out-of-office reply" that gives out a cell phone number (!). I don't think I'm going to call it, but at least I have more contact information on file now and an e-mail that will get read.
Additionally, you might want to try calling the office of Russel Lewis, who's the VP of the Verisign directory services. He's at the Virginia office (1-703-742-0400), but I got disconnected instead of transferred and haven't called a second time (yet). If you try this number, you'll probably get a secretary, to whom you should explain that the standard procedures for communicating with Verisign have failed, that you are "very disappointed" and that you "want to make things right". (It works better if you're actually a Verisign customer.) If you're nice about it -- knowing that the secretary probably doesn't know anything about it and can't do anything anyway -- you can probably get routed to someone in the directory services division, where you can register further complaints.
[...]
I have been unable to raise the Chicago local office by phone, and when I went to visit, the visitor center couldn't even get a hold of them. Weird.
I called their headquarters in CA a few times now. I was hung up on, randomly transferred to someone's voice mail (I'm not sure who), and finally talked to a particularly helpful representative who passed my queries to his manager. They said that SiteFinder was run by NSI, to which I responded that NSI said that SiteFinder was run by Verisign, to which I added that Verisign (as a global registry) is the only organization with the power to do something like that. He went to talk to his manager, told me that they were promised more information on SiteFinder by the end of today (9/17), and promised me a call-back in 24 hours.
I have been unable to raise the Chicago local office by phone, and when I went to visit, the visitor center couldn't even get a hold of them. Weird.
I called their headquarters in CA a few times now. I was hung up on, randomly transferred to someone's voice mail (I'm not sure who), and finally talked to a particularly helpful representative who passed my queries to his manager. They said that SiteFinder was run by NSI, to which I responded that NSI said that SiteFinder was run by Verisign, to which I added that Verisign (as a global registry) is the only organization with the power to do something like that. He went to talk to his manager, told me that they were promised more information on SiteFinder by the end of today (9/17), and promised me a call-back in 24 hours.
Actually, I've made several support calls, and plan to visit to their Chicago office in a few hours. (No one was answering the phone, so I guess I have to walk in there before I can talk to someone.)
A list of contact information is here. The Verisign main number is 1-877-438-8776, which gives you a long list of options. Depending on what you pick, you'll probably end up talking to a Network Solutions guy. Tell him you're distressed about the SiteFinder service, ask about what your options are, and ask if there's anyone else to talk to. They probably won't be much help, but write down everything they tell you, get their employee ID, and keep track of date/time for calls as well as time on hold (might be helpful).
After some lengthy conversation, I found out that I should be talking to the Verisign Global Registry, but that they can't give me a phone number, because (supposedly) NSI doesn't even have a phone number. However, I did get an e-mail address -- sitefinder@verisign.com, which is routed to someone's inbox (as in, a person, not a support center), which currently yields an "Out-of-office reply" that gives out a cell phone number (!). I don't think I'm going to call it, but at least I have more contact information on file now and an e-mail that will get read.
Additionally, you might want to try calling Russel Lewis, who's the VP of the Verisign directory services. He's at the Virginia office (1-703-742-0400), but I got disconnected instead of transferred and haven't called a second time (yet). If you try this number, you'll probably get a secretary, to whom you should explain that the standard procedures for communicating with Verisign have failed, that you are "very disappointed" and that you "want to make things right". (It works better if you're actually a Verisign customer.) If you're nice about it (knowing that the secretary probably doesn't know anything about it and can't do anything anyway), you can probably get routed to someone in the directory services division, where you can register further complaints.
I'll post more information as I get it.
Try it ylrsuoef -- smcbrlae aritarbry txet
on
Echolocation for Humans
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I wrtoe a llitte sprcit in PHP taht dtaemrntesos tihs bivaoher. Cehck it out. I tnhik it's ptetry cool.
(Of crouse, scroue cdoe is mdae aivllabae uednr the GPL.)
So.....this means that SCO is (hypothetically) going to send me an invoice for $699 for each Linux box I'm running, having offered no actual proof that they own any of the code therein.
Sure, they can. And it's perfectly legal for them too. Why? Invoices mean squat. They have no legal means to force you to pay. If you don't pay, the entity issuing an invoice could take legal action against you -- in this instance, SCO could sue you -- but the invoice itself means nothing.
I could just as reasonably send my clients an invoice for the use of the proprietary PHP code on my web page.
Yep. Heck, I could invoice you for consuming oxygen from the air. It simply doesn't matter.
BTW, I've called SCO several times now. They are expecting a press release detailing the pricing structure and payment plans for "Linux IP Licensing" sometime this week... should be interesting. If you want to find out more, call SCO at 1-800-726-8649, hit option 5, and ask about "Linux IP Licensing".
Ever heard of InnoDB? MySQL lets you choose -- on a table-by-table basis -- exactly what parts of your application need to support transactions, foreign keys, etc.
Adding extra memory, CPUs, or slave servers obviously has no impact on server performance. (Yes, replication is... clumsy, at best, but depending on the application, it can work quite well.)
Like I'm supposed to go out every day and check every credit card site, all my bank account sites, every mutual fund site, every stock brocker site, etc, etc, etc?
Worse yet, even if you were to somehow check every website on a regular basis, and somehow find the notice (which the law does not give guidelines for, AFAIK), this only covers part of the issue. The other and far more difficult problem: what about when this information gets stolen and the company doesn't notice?
This seems like a step in the right direction, but the law seems far too loose to be of any practical value.
So no GIF support in the GD library for another year.:-(
If you're in the U.S. (or some other place with an expired patent), you can now legally use an unofficial set of patches [down? see Wayback] to get GIF support under GD.
[A]s usual some people really don 't get it (not a big deal - dynossaurs got extint anyway) and will try all sorts of dirty tricks like this one...
True, but by the same token, a lot of people do get it.
I'm the lead developer of LISSARD, an open-source school administration system. I am having discussions with someone in the U.K. who is very interested in free software, and in particular, using LISSARD in several of the schools he represents.
As I understand it, some U.K. courts have recently ordered their current proprietary administrative system to open up their database backend, opening that market to competition. That's where LISSARD comes in. Anyway, no one (in those schools, at least) likes the idea of being tied to a single vendor, which is why the open-source model is much more attractive. (Don't like it? Hire someone to change it.)
Also, this person is actively trying to deploy open-source software wherever possible, with moderate amounts of success so far. The real obstacle, as far as he can tell, is that most people are of the "you get what you pay for" mindset. (To which I respond "I'll take your money;-)", of course.) At any rate, they are excited about what what open-source software has to offer over their proprietary counterparts, and are looking forward to a potential wide-scale deployment of many free software products in 12-15 months.
Microsoft will force their product down our throats and will kill more competition.
Precisely. About a year ago, a Microsoft representative told me -- and a group of a few hundred other people -- that Microsoft was not allowed to produce an antivirus product as part of their anti-trust settlement. This stipulation was (apparently) one of the many similar provisions that formed the DoJ's wrist-slap.
For once, I'm somewhat intrigued by Microsoft's latest dubious move.
That sale specifically excluded copyrights from the transfer.... The amendment, dated Oct. 16, 1996, was signed about a year after the original transfer agreement.... Novell said it doesn't have a copy of the amendment.
The amendment "that came to Novell's attention today appears to bear a valid Novell signature, and the language, though convoluted, seems to support SCO's claim..."
Fishy.
Of course, we all know that manipulation of stock prices could not possibly be a motivation behind this fiasco.
Set up your own Linux firewall with iptables and create your own rules.<sigh>
Network security is slightly more complicated than simply using iptables. Packet filtering is important, but recognizing possibile vulnerabilities in exposed services is also important. (For instance, did you know that -- by default -- most SSHDs allow any authenticated users to establish TCP connections to arbitrary remote machines? This can easily let users, regardless of how much you trust them, punch holes through your firewall.)
Furthermore, another large part of network security is network design. I've seen networks that have two or three DMZs, each guarded by independent machines with different configuartions: authentication systems, CPU architecture, and operating system (i.e. one OpenBSD, one Solaris, one <ack> Windows).
Continuing, most good network security folks can work on either side of the line between attacker and defender. Network security can only be built when you have learned to think like an attacker. (If I expose this port, what can that reveal about my configuration? What happens if this particular protection fails? What could happen if there was a root exploit on server 834?)
Sadly, there are many "security experts" that agree with you.
There's no equivalent on Windows -- if SMB-based filesharing goes down on an NT box, you're restarting the computer, there is no other choice.
How about restarting the "Server" service?
Depending on how file sharing "goes down", you may need to restart a different service. Don't be ignorant: it is usually possible to fix an NT box while it's running. However, it's usually easier to reboot, and if it's not too big of a big deal, Windows admins usually choose to reboot rather to go in and figure out what processes they have to kick.
Yes, but can you explain why books I buy at Borders bookstores have UPCs on stickers that they put over the UPCs that come preprinted on the book?
Possibly. First, it may not actually be a UPC that it is covering -- it could be EAN-13 or some other type. Second, even if it is covering a UPC, it may not be replacing it with UPC. Borders may use their own internal barcoding system.
Third, a fair number of manufacturers don't always obtain a valid block of UPCs, they just print with a number that they hope to be unique. (It's actually quite common to have collisions in any reasonably large store.) Thus, the retailer may have replaced one UPC with a different one to ensure that both items were uniquely identifiable.
Are they hip to this whole number of the beast thing and looking out for my immortal soul or what?:)
Oh, it was a joke.;-)
Anyway, if they actually replaced one UPC with another, you'd still have 666 (if you want to call it that) on your book.
Standard UPC bar codes consist of a set of lines to mark the start of the code, the left hand part of the code itself, another set of marker lines, the right hand part of the code itself, and a third set of marker lines:
True, but there's an important distinction. This only applies to UPC-A, not to other forms of barcodes such as Code 39, Code 128, interleaved 2 of 5, Codabar, etc. (I'm pretty sure it doesn't even apply to UPC-E, for that matter, but I'm not certain.)
To say that every barcode contains 666 is somewhat misleading.
You can install other things under CrossOver Office fairly easily, and a lot of them actually work, but in this case "support" is thorough testing and hacking the WINE codebase to make sure everything works with whatever the application is.
For instance, Photoshop 7 doesn't run under current versions of WINE, WineX, or CrossOver Office 1.2. I'm happy about this.:-)
1) let's clean up ftp. real security options, performance options, etc.
That's a problem with your FTP server. Check out pure-ftpd if you want FTP, or if that doesn't float your boat, pay somebody to write something that suits you.
i really believe that a little key management at the isp level (if enough isp participated) could really make a difference.
Having ISPs authenticate all mail exchange is a really bad idea. Don't get me started.
3) dns. i would drop.com,.org, maybe even.edu and.net. use the ccTLD with other localizations below that.
Great. Check out the multitude of alternative DNS root services (OpenNIC good place to begin), or start your own.
4) more ip addresses. ip6 would be nice, but if i'm starting over from scratch, just increasing the ip address from 32 to 48 or to 64 would help.
Or, you could use IPv6, which is already designed and uses a 128-bit address space...
5) the ability to do a number of things in a slow, throttled-back fashion to run nicely in the background.
QoS flags probably address most of the reason behind your complaint, and if not, you can use iptables to limit the rate of specific traffic.
6) better printing protocols. lpd is a mess and the other printing protocols seem to problematic.
Like IPP? IPP is a dream for network printing; if you are including it in the "problematic" list of "other protocols", it's probably user error.
7) snmp. this seems to be getting better via v3. the real problem seems to be the software, not the protocol.
So use different software.
None of your points give a reason to start over from scratch; in fact, most of them can already be done using existing tools. So, what is the problem?
Right, of course, the final product is almost invariably 44.1 KHz, two channels, 16 bits per sample. But this is the difference: it's downsampled to that, after EQing and lots of other DSP. Except for some live stuff, very few professionals use such low quality initial recordings, choosing instead to have greater precision through the entire mastering process until it is discarded (actually, dithered and filtered away rather than truncated) at the end.
Then again, I have seen some audio equipment capable of higher sampling rates advertised at Best Buy recently. Of course, it was claiming that 96 KHz would make everything sound better and clearer and grander than before despite limitations of speakers, acoustics, and the listener's hearing... nonetheless, the future of audio is sounding better.
Slashdot Mirror
Typo3 has always been feature-rich (though terribly complex), and an XML-based document interchange system that can handle documents made in common word processors is a very useful feature indeed.
From the Terms of Service:My question to Verisign was "I'm dissatisfied. What does 'to discontinue use of the Verisign services' mean? I can move many domains to other TLDs, pull the Verisign root certificates from a few hundred workstations, cancel a PayFlow account that handles a few hundred thousand dollars per month, and have my clients cancel several thousand dollars worth of SSL certificates. Is that what you want me to do?"
Again, no response as yet.
In that case, uou can e-mail Christopher Parente directly -- the guy that used to be associated with that address -- at CParente@verisign.com. But don't tell him I sent you. :-)
If you really want to make sure Verisign hears you, try some of my suggestions from other posts, duplicated below.
A list of contact information is here. The Verisign main number is 1-877-438-8776, which gives you a long list of options. Depending on what you pick, you'll probably end up talking to a Network Solutions guy. Tell him you're distressed about the SiteFinder service, ask about what your options are, and ask if there's anyone else to talk to. They probably won't be much help, but write down everything they tell you, get their employee ID, and keep track of date/time for calls as well as time on hold (might be helpful).
After some lengthy conversation, I found out that I should be talking to the Verisign Global Registry, but that they can't give me a phone number, because (supposedly) NSI doesn't even have a phone number. However, I did get an e-mail address -- sitefinder@verisign-grs.com, which is routed to someone's inbox (as in, a person, not a support center), which currently yields an "Out-of-office reply" that gives out a cell phone number (!). I don't think I'm going to call it, but at least I have more contact information on file now and an e-mail that will get read.
Additionally, you might want to try calling the office of Russel Lewis, who's the VP of the Verisign directory services. He's at the Virginia office (1-703-742-0400), but I got disconnected instead of transferred and haven't called a second time (yet). If you try this number, you'll probably get a secretary, to whom you should explain that the standard procedures for communicating with Verisign have failed, that you are "very disappointed" and that you "want to make things right". (It works better if you're actually a Verisign customer.) If you're nice about it -- knowing that the secretary probably doesn't know anything about it and can't do anything anyway -- you can probably get routed to someone in the directory services division, where you can register further complaints.
[...]
I have been unable to raise the Chicago local office by phone, and when I went to visit, the visitor center couldn't even get a hold of them. Weird.
I called their headquarters in CA a few times now. I was hung up on, randomly transferred to someone's voice mail (I'm not sure who), and finally talked to a particularly helpful representative who passed my queries to his manager. They said that SiteFinder was run by NSI, to which I responded that NSI said that SiteFinder was run by Verisign, to which I added that Verisign (as a global registry) is the only organization with the power to do something like that. He went to talk to his manager, told me that they were promised more information on SiteFinder by the end of today (9/17), and promised me a call-back in 24 hours.
Updates to follow.
I have been unable to raise the Chicago local office by phone, and when I went to visit, the visitor center couldn't even get a hold of them. Weird.
I called their headquarters in CA a few times now. I was hung up on, randomly transferred to someone's voice mail (I'm not sure who), and finally talked to a particularly helpful representative who passed my queries to his manager. They said that SiteFinder was run by NSI, to which I responded that NSI said that SiteFinder was run by Verisign, to which I added that Verisign (as a global registry) is the only organization with the power to do something like that. He went to talk to his manager, told me that they were promised more information on SiteFinder by the end of today (9/17), and promised me a call-back in 24 hours.
Again, updates to follow.
Actually, I've made several support calls, and plan to visit to their Chicago office in a few hours. (No one was answering the phone, so I guess I have to walk in there before I can talk to someone.)
A list of contact information is here. The Verisign main number is 1-877-438-8776, which gives you a long list of options. Depending on what you pick, you'll probably end up talking to a Network Solutions guy. Tell him you're distressed about the SiteFinder service, ask about what your options are, and ask if there's anyone else to talk to. They probably won't be much help, but write down everything they tell you, get their employee ID, and keep track of date/time for calls as well as time on hold (might be helpful).
After some lengthy conversation, I found out that I should be talking to the Verisign Global Registry, but that they can't give me a phone number, because (supposedly) NSI doesn't even have a phone number. However, I did get an e-mail address -- sitefinder@verisign.com, which is routed to someone's inbox (as in, a person, not a support center), which currently yields an "Out-of-office reply" that gives out a cell phone number (!). I don't think I'm going to call it, but at least I have more contact information on file now and an e-mail that will get read.
Additionally, you might want to try calling Russel Lewis, who's the VP of the Verisign directory services. He's at the Virginia office (1-703-742-0400), but I got disconnected instead of transferred and haven't called a second time (yet). If you try this number, you'll probably get a secretary, to whom you should explain that the standard procedures for communicating with Verisign have failed, that you are "very disappointed" and that you "want to make things right". (It works better if you're actually a Verisign customer.) If you're nice about it (knowing that the secretary probably doesn't know anything about it and can't do anything anyway), you can probably get routed to someone in the directory services division, where you can register further complaints.
I'll post more information as I get it.
I wrtoe a llitte sprcit in PHP taht dtaemrntesos tihs bivaoher. Cehck it out. I tnhik it's ptetry cool.
(Of crouse, scroue cdoe is mdae aivllabae uednr the GPL.)
Try posting it to torrent.pl, voracity.net, torrentreactor.com, or any one of the other public trackers.
Of course, I don't know how many of them are likely to survive a good slashdotting...
Yep. Heck, I could invoice you for consuming oxygen from the air. It simply doesn't matter.
BTW, I've called SCO several times now. They are expecting a press release detailing the pricing structure and payment plans for "Linux IP Licensing" sometime this week... should be interesting. If you want to find out more, call SCO at 1-800-726-8649, hit option 5, and ask about "Linux IP Licensing".
Ever heard of InnoDB? MySQL lets you choose -- on a table-by-table basis -- exactly what parts of your application need to support transactions, foreign keys, etc.
Odd, neither Slashdot nor Yahoo! Finance seem to be having corruption problems...
Adding extra memory, CPUs, or slave servers obviously has no impact on server performance. (Yes, replication is... clumsy, at best, but depending on the application, it can work quite well.)
Compared to Postgres?
This seems like a step in the right direction, but the law seems far too loose to be of any practical value.
Works great with Typo3, too.
I'm the lead developer of LISSARD, an open-source school administration system. I am having discussions with someone in the U.K. who is very interested in free software, and in particular, using LISSARD in several of the schools he represents.
As I understand it, some U.K. courts have recently ordered their current proprietary administrative system to open up their database backend, opening that market to competition. That's where LISSARD comes in. Anyway, no one (in those schools, at least) likes the idea of being tied to a single vendor, which is why the open-source model is much more attractive. (Don't like it? Hire someone to change it.)
Also, this person is actively trying to deploy open-source software wherever possible, with moderate amounts of success so far. The real obstacle, as far as he can tell, is that most people are of the "you get what you pay for" mindset. (To which I respond "I'll take your money
All in all, good times to be OSS.
For once, I'm somewhat intrigued by Microsoft's latest dubious move.
Of course, we all know that manipulation of stock prices could not possibly be a motivation behind this fiasco.
Set up your own Linux firewall with iptables and create your own rules.<sigh>
Network security is slightly more complicated than simply using iptables. Packet filtering is important, but recognizing possibile vulnerabilities in exposed services is also important. (For instance, did you know that -- by default -- most SSHDs allow any authenticated users to establish TCP connections to arbitrary remote machines? This can easily let users, regardless of how much you trust them, punch holes through your firewall.)
Furthermore, another large part of network security is network design. I've seen networks that have two or three DMZs, each guarded by independent machines with different configuartions: authentication systems, CPU architecture, and operating system (i.e. one OpenBSD, one Solaris, one <ack> Windows).
Continuing, most good network security folks can work on either side of the line between attacker and defender. Network security can only be built when you have learned to think like an attacker. (If I expose this port, what can that reveal about my configuration? What happens if this particular protection fails? What could happen if there was a root exploit on server 834?)
Sadly, there are many "security experts" that agree with you.
Depending on how file sharing "goes down", you may need to restart a different service. Don't be ignorant: it is usually possible to fix an NT box while it's running. However, it's usually easier to reboot, and if it's not too big of a big deal, Windows admins usually choose to reboot rather to go in and figure out what processes they have to kick.
Hmm?
Third, a fair number of manufacturers don't always obtain a valid block of UPCs, they just print with a number that they hope to be unique. (It's actually quite common to have collisions in any reasonably large store.) Thus, the retailer may have replaced one UPC with a different one to ensure that both items were uniquely identifiable.
Oh, it was a joke.
Anyway, if they actually replaced one UPC with another, you'd still have 666 (if you want to call it that) on your book.
LOL!
To say that every barcode contains 666 is somewhat misleading.
Is Slashdot trying to get an obscene number of duplicates today?
You can install other things under CrossOver Office fairly easily, and a lot of them actually work, but in this case "support" is thorough testing and hacking the WINE codebase to make sure everything works with whatever the application is.
:-)
For instance, Photoshop 7 doesn't run under current versions of WINE, WineX, or CrossOver Office 1.2. I'm happy about this.
Having ISPs authenticate all mail exchange is a really bad idea. Don't get me started.
Great. Check out the multitude of alternative DNS root services (OpenNIC good place to begin), or start your own.
Or, you could use IPv6, which is already designed and uses a 128-bit address space...
QoS flags probably address most of the reason behind your complaint, and if not, you can use iptables to limit the rate of specific traffic.
Like IPP? IPP is a dream for network printing; if you are including it in the "problematic" list of "other protocols", it's probably user error.
So use different software.
None of your points give a reason to start over from scratch; in fact, most of them can already be done using existing tools. So, what is the problem?
Right, of course, the final product is almost invariably 44.1 KHz, two channels, 16 bits per sample. But this is the difference: it's downsampled to that, after EQing and lots of other DSP. Except for some live stuff, very few professionals use such low quality initial recordings, choosing instead to have greater precision through the entire mastering process until it is discarded (actually, dithered and filtered away rather than truncated) at the end.
Then again, I have seen some audio equipment capable of higher sampling rates advertised at Best Buy recently. Of course, it was claiming that 96 KHz would make everything sound better and clearer and grander than before despite limitations of speakers, acoustics, and the listener's hearing... nonetheless, the future of audio is sounding better.