With X11 you *can* sandbox if you want, using Xnest, so that each server your logged into will present you with a full virtual screen with it's own window manager.. But your not forced into it, such a setup is incredibly annoying.. With correctly setup X11 thin clients, you can have each app running from a different system.. The advantage of this is that you get much better usage of shared memory, since each machine will be running many copies of a single binary, and you can better guage what people are doing that's using the most resources.. Also it's much easier to prohibit certain applications at certain times of the day, or restrict some apps to only certain users.
But switching between the 2 RDP sessions is a pain, especially if the apps within them are not fullscreen.. I run lots of remote apps from other unix machines over X11, and they interoperate with each other and apps i have running locally, whereas remote desktop gives you a seperate sandboxed environment for each.. Also the concept of having multiple completely seperate "desktops" instead of a single desktop (or multiple interconnected virtual desktops) and multiple apps is very confusing
Flash is a nuisance, it is holding back people who want to move to pure 64bit platforms... there is no 64bit flash plugin for either windows or linux, which forces you to run a 32bit browser, which on the AMD64 architecture runs noticeably slower and pollutes your system with a slew of 32bit libs aswell.. The 32bit libs can't share memory with the 64bit libs, so you end up with a lot of wasted memory aswell as reduced performance, which defeats the point of moving to 64bit.. When running pure 64bit apps, my AMD64 machine positively flies and works really well for me, there's even a 64bit java plugin from sun, the only thing holding it back is flash.
Eugh, windows remote desktops are a pain to switch between... Why can't they implement something like X11 where the remote apps appear just like the local apps and are managed by the same window manager etc... When your logged into multiple machines, remote desktop is unuseable.. And it also has no support for multiple screens!
But firefox, unlike ie, allows you to have multiple versions installed.. And, being opensource, you can supply a copy of the appropriate version to anyone who requires it. There's no reason someone can't have their own copy of firefox 1.5 for their main browsing and a copy of 1.0.6 for the company webapps... Also firefox differentiates it's behavior according to version, which makes sense that newer versions will change... IE's behavior changes seemingly at random according to the version of windows it's running on, and the mac version is just a completely different app anyway.
It would make far more sense to standardise on Mozilla.. You can pretty much guarantee that whatever diverse hardware and operating systems you have in your organisation can run a given version of mozilla, and you can give employees a copy of it to take home, again regardless of the type or vintage of their system at home.. The latest version of IE only runs on modernish windows machines, the next version will cut off a large portion of the business market and if you want to guarantee compatibility you need everyone running the same version.. Any supplying a licensed copy of windows xp plus the necessary hardware to all home workers would be very costly.. With mozilla, you can supply a standard version to everyone and you can have multiple versions installed so even if you don't supply the latest version, your staff are free to install their own version aswell.
I wouldn't say that was an Anti-IE site.. Judging from the CSS techniques used, i imagine the site would render very poorly or not atall under IE.. Many sites put up nasty messages based on your browser, look at www.raveshack.com, it displays a very offensive looking image to anyone not using IE.. There are many more browser-nazi sites run by IE users than any other browser, and i can quite understand users of more modern browsers becoming frustrated.. Also, If your using modern CSS for your page, it's likely that IE couldn't render it properly anyway, i run a site (www.ev6.net) that works in every current browser except IE/windows, even IE5/mac displays it correctly. Infact, the site is useable in lynx too
IE5/Mac is actually a lot better than the windows version, think of it more like an older version of Mozilla.. It has CSS support which is far in advance of IE6 for windows, but still somewhat behind modern versions of Mozilla or Opera..
And it still doesnt work as transparently as sun's, last i saw it did constant refreshing of a fixed-size screen to simulate the display you'd see on the screen.. unlike the sun terminals, which just scroll down
Well, the Alpha PALCode system makes emulation quite efficient without compromising the cleanliness of the basic design... Once upon a time, Alpha was so far ahead of x86 that it could emulate x86 and still beat it in terms of performance.
It doesnt adapt well to serial consoles.. It has limitations on which parts of the disk it can boot from.. It's not scriptable.. It can't be configured in any ways other than what the "setup" program makes available to you..
OpenFirmware as used by SUN is much nicer, you can run diagnostics, write scripts, and get some low level information about the hardware attached... You can control the whole system from a serial console easily, and even install the OS from there.. You can also explicitely boot from any partition on your disk, instead of requiring a bootloader in the MBR to do the selection for you.
They should build an Alpha clone! The chinese could bring back the Alpha, and possibly legitimately too, i doubt HP would put up much resistance to licensing out the Alpha specs to a chinese company, it's not like they're using it themselves..
Well, virtually all of their hardware is more than capable of running linux, they just push solaris because they have more control over it and solaris has a longer tried and tested reputation in the enterprise than linux.
gcc always seemed to compile much faster on freebsd than on linux, and certain X11 apps such as gnome seemed more responsive and less memory hungry... On the other hand, solid number crunching programs usually seemed to run a little slower on freebsd.. Tho, linux with libc5 seemed to perform in the same way, less memory usage, faster compiles, perhaps a lot of these differences have to do with glibc, while i believe freebsd has it's own libc.
Only the kernel, which was written by the same people.. The rest, the gui, the dos-based commandline interface, the filesystem etc, are microsoft creations and are totally abysmal compared to VMS.. Infact, the kernel has suffered somewhat since it's original incarnation.. microsoft have bolted so much junk into it which compromises the stability of the original, video drivers for instance.. I can understand video drivers being kernel-based on a gaming platform, but they have no business being there on a business workstation or any kind of server - where stability is more important than performance.
Sun are still in a little stronger position than SCO, they don't rely on solaris, they sell hardware and support too, which is where they make most of their money.. Solaris is given away for free and is really used to help boost hardware sales.
If a contract has a non-compete clause in it, then it should be required for the company to continue paying you for the duration of the non-compete clause.. Afterall, in many cases, if you're qualified in a particular field then the only companies you could potentially work for with your skillset may be out of bounds, thus preventing you from getting another job of equal or higher pay.
So diff the source... It's not hard to find out what changed, and then with sufficient coding knowlege you could work out what was vulnerable in the first place.
Well, you can criticise mozilla for not releasing details until thre is a patch, but microsoft and many other vendors have also been long guilty of that.. If anything, mozilla is doing it the right way except that they could have come up with a fix sooner.. No vendors release vulnerability information until after they have a fix available, but some vendors won't even release vulnerability information after the patch and will often deny that the vulnerability ever existed..
Slashdot Mirror
With X11 you *can* sandbox if you want, using Xnest, so that each server your logged into will present you with a full virtual screen with it's own window manager.. But your not forced into it, such a setup is incredibly annoying..
With correctly setup X11 thin clients, you can have each app running from a different system.. The advantage of this is that you get much better usage of shared memory, since each machine will be running many copies of a single binary, and you can better guage what people are doing that's using the most resources.. Also it's much easier to prohibit certain applications at certain times of the day, or restrict some apps to only certain users.
But switching between the 2 RDP sessions is a pain, especially if the apps within them are not fullscreen.. I run lots of remote apps from other unix machines over X11, and they interoperate with each other and apps i have running locally, whereas remote desktop gives you a seperate sandboxed environment for each.. Also the concept of having multiple completely seperate "desktops" instead of a single desktop (or multiple interconnected virtual desktops) and multiple apps is very confusing
Why does your webserver have a locally attached GUI? Can't you manage it from a machine dedicated to the task of being a workstation?
Flash is a nuisance, it is holding back people who want to move to pure 64bit platforms... there is no 64bit flash plugin for either windows or linux, which forces you to run a 32bit browser, which on the AMD64 architecture runs noticeably slower and pollutes your system with a slew of 32bit libs aswell..
The 32bit libs can't share memory with the 64bit libs, so you end up with a lot of wasted memory aswell as reduced performance, which defeats the point of moving to 64bit..
When running pure 64bit apps, my AMD64 machine positively flies and works really well for me, there's even a 64bit java plugin from sun, the only thing holding it back is flash.
Eugh, windows remote desktops are a pain to switch between... Why can't they implement something like X11 where the remote apps appear just like the local apps and are managed by the same window manager etc... When your logged into multiple machines, remote desktop is unuseable.. And it also has no support for multiple screens!
But firefox, unlike ie, allows you to have multiple versions installed..
And, being opensource, you can supply a copy of the appropriate version to anyone who requires it. There's no reason someone can't have their own copy of firefox 1.5 for their main browsing and a copy of 1.0.6 for the company webapps...
Also firefox differentiates it's behavior according to version, which makes sense that newer versions will change... IE's behavior changes seemingly at random according to the version of windows it's running on, and the mac version is just a completely different app anyway.
It would make far more sense to standardise on Mozilla.. You can pretty much guarantee that whatever diverse hardware and operating systems you have in your organisation can run a given version of mozilla, and you can give employees a copy of it to take home, again regardless of the type or vintage of their system at home..
The latest version of IE only runs on modernish windows machines, the next version will cut off a large portion of the business market and if you want to guarantee compatibility you need everyone running the same version.. Any supplying a licensed copy of windows xp plus the necessary hardware to all home workers would be very costly..
With mozilla, you can supply a standard version to everyone and you can have multiple versions installed so even if you don't supply the latest version, your staff are free to install their own version aswell.
Well, the windows version has also gone nearly 5 years without a major upgrade..
I wouldn't say that was an Anti-IE site..
Judging from the CSS techniques used, i imagine the site would render very poorly or not atall under IE..
Many sites put up nasty messages based on your browser, look at www.raveshack.com, it displays a very offensive looking image to anyone not using IE.. There are many more browser-nazi sites run by IE users than any other browser, and i can quite understand users of more modern browsers becoming frustrated..
Also, If your using modern CSS for your page, it's likely that IE couldn't render it properly anyway, i run a site (www.ev6.net) that works in every current browser except IE/windows, even IE5/mac displays it correctly. Infact, the site is useable in lynx too
But ie-centric sites are typically created by non tech savvy people, who are unlikely to be able to select decent stats software either..
IE does exactly the same as Opera, it identifies itself as Mozilla/4.0 and then tags MSIE on the end..
IE5/Mac is actually a lot better than the windows version, think of it more like an older version of Mozilla.. It has CSS support which is far in advance of IE6 for windows, but still somewhat behind modern versions of Mozilla or Opera..
But what if you need to change any boot configuration settings? Using the setup program in that ANSI redraw mode is horrendously slow and awkward!
And it still doesnt work as transparently as sun's, last i saw it did constant refreshing of a fixed-size screen to simulate the display you'd see on the screen.. unlike the sun terminals, which just scroll down
Well, the Alpha PALCode system makes emulation quite efficient without compromising the cleanliness of the basic design... Once upon a time, Alpha was so far ahead of x86 that it could emulate x86 and still beat it in terms of performance.
It doesnt adapt well to serial consoles..
It has limitations on which parts of the disk it can boot from..
It's not scriptable..
It can't be configured in any ways other than what the "setup" program makes available to you..
OpenFirmware as used by SUN is much nicer, you can run diagnostics, write scripts, and get some low level information about the hardware attached... You can control the whole system from a serial console easily, and even install the OS from there..
You can also explicitely boot from any partition on your disk, instead of requiring a bootloader in the MBR to do the selection for you.
They should build an Alpha clone! The chinese could bring back the Alpha, and possibly legitimately too, i doubt HP would put up much resistance to licensing out the Alpha specs to a chinese company, it's not like they're using it themselves..
Well, virtually all of their hardware is more than capable of running linux, they just push solaris because they have more control over it and solaris has a longer tried and tested reputation in the enterprise than linux.
gcc always seemed to compile much faster on freebsd than on linux, and certain X11 apps such as gnome seemed more responsive and less memory hungry...
On the other hand, solid number crunching programs usually seemed to run a little slower on freebsd..
Tho, linux with libc5 seemed to perform in the same way, less memory usage, faster compiles, perhaps a lot of these differences have to do with glibc, while i believe freebsd has it's own libc.
Only the kernel, which was written by the same people..
The rest, the gui, the dos-based commandline interface, the filesystem etc, are microsoft creations and are totally abysmal compared to VMS..
Infact, the kernel has suffered somewhat since it's original incarnation.. microsoft have bolted so much junk into it which compromises the stability of the original, video drivers for instance.. I can understand video drivers being kernel-based on a gaming platform, but they have no business being there on a business workstation or any kind of server - where stability is more important than performance.
Sun are still in a little stronger position than SCO, they don't rely on solaris, they sell hardware and support too, which is where they make most of their money.. Solaris is given away for free and is really used to help boost hardware sales.
If a contract has a non-compete clause in it, then it should be required for the company to continue paying you for the duration of the non-compete clause.. Afterall, in many cases, if you're qualified in a particular field then the only companies you could potentially work for with your skillset may be out of bounds, thus preventing you from getting another job of equal or higher pay.
So diff the source... It's not hard to find out what changed, and then with sufficient coding knowlege you could work out what was vulnerable in the first place.
Well, you can criticise mozilla for not releasing details until thre is a patch, but microsoft and many other vendors have also been long guilty of that..
If anything, mozilla is doing it the right way except that they could have come up with a fix sooner.. No vendors release vulnerability information until after they have a fix available, but some vendors won't even release vulnerability information after the patch and will often deny that the vulnerability ever existed..
But this is a vulnerability in a particular extension that you have to explicitely download and install.