I prefer to just use IMAP and access it on the server. But if you really want to have it on the laptop without a net connection, look up the "cp" command under Unix. Yep, just copy the mail files to the laptop. Assumes you have control of the server, but that is a given in the question, so go to it!
There aint nothing wrong with voluntary socialism. Forced socialism has problems, in that people are lazy, so relying on people to give something for no reward doesn't always work. But if people voluntarily do it, that's called a good thing. Socialism that actually works if you will.
Re Viewing - me thinks this fool is trying to implement security by obscurity. Why else this silly request?
Re Editing - of course if you have root access you can edit *anything*. Of course if you turn it into a binary, they won't be able to directly edit it, but they could reverse engineer it, re-create it, and edit that. Why stop them? Me thinks this fool wants security by obscurity.
I'd like to hear from the people who've seen the code, but I suspect the solaris kernel is a bloated somewhat krufty collection of code that hackers won't want to touch or improve. That means it won't have the rapid development, driver support, general hackability of the Linux kernel. The Linux code is now big, but it is well sorted and continually being refined.
That's not really the point. First of all you CAN alter the source if your need is desperate enough. Thus if some app needs your change you can weigh the pros and cons of blowing support vs getting the enhancement. - CHOICE. Secondly, if Red Hat dies and goes broke you have the source. Thirdly, you can make your enhancement and submit it to the maintainer and with a bit of luck it will come out in the next version of RedHat as the official supported version. Fourthly, somebody else might scratch the same itch and submit the patch which comes out in the next version.
A lot of waffly claims that "Google is changing the law".
No they're not. They're testing the law in a whole new field of endeavour. The courts will decide what the law is, and clearly neither side can claim a cut and dried legal watertight case till the court rules. Neither side can claim the other is "changing the law". The field is too new. Personally, I hope Google wins. We shall see.
This "Service Pack" is not good enough except as an interim solution. As soon as you put the disk back in, the rootkit is installed right again. Yes I know the geeks here can get around it, but they always could get around it. Sony should replace all these disks. And what about Windows Vista? How much damage does it do to future versions of Windows?
It's not just a matter any more of coming up with a better ipod than ipod. You've also got to come up with a better iTunes than iTunes. You've got to open a music store. You've got to have all the accessories that iPod has. You've got to have the distribution channels and the brand awareness that Apple now has. You've got to have the economies of scale to buy components cheaply that Apple has so you can sell it at a reasonable price.
Oh yeah, and building a better iPod than iPod isn't that easy either.
Steve Jobs could design a stylish nuclear waste facility ("iNuke") that really sells well, and looks stylish in the comfort of your own home, followed by a pocket version ("iNukePod") which allows you to easily take your nuclear waste around with you and enjoy it on the road.
>Any program that deletes files ought to be vaguely symlink aware, as you need to know whether you are following >and deleting stuff under symlinks or not.
I don't see why any program needs to know that. Some might sure, but not all.
>I wonder if this attitude leads to all those race conditions when creating files in/tmp, which can be exploited >by planting symlinks at the right time.
Uh, nope. Sorry, no cigar. If you did manually check if it was a symlink, there would still be a race condition because it could be a symlink by the time you actually try to creat/open the file. Thus the race condition is not avoided by checking. Other solutions are needed.
>1) When you move a destination object, symlinks don't follow the target . This leaves "broken" symlinks that >refer to nothing. Why doesn't the mv command move these too?
Because some time in the future they may become unbroken. Just because a link is broken at certain times doesn't mean it will always be broken. Automatically moving them could have undesired consequences.
Also, it would be darned hard to implement in the traditional UNIX file system, but that's another story.
> 2) When you symlink a symlinked folder, the root symlink is ignored.
That's just another case of (1) and the same answer applies.
>3) Symlinks cause all kinds of weirds around chrooted file systems
It may or may not be wierd depending on what you want to do. If it seems wierd, maybe you should have used relative paths, or absolute paths or vice-versa.
>Any de1cent OS will detect an attempt to infinitely traverse a symlink, but what's it >supposed to do? >It can: > > * Close the program (= Possible data loss) > * Slow the speed at which the program is allowed to access certain files (= Increase >the chance of race conditions, sometimes by a lot. It doesn't really solve anything >either) > * Make the symlinks "disappear" after a certain level of recursion (= Inconsistent data) > * Do nothing (= Solves nothing)
WTF.....
The answer is "none of the above". The open() call returns -1 with an error code of EMLINK, which if the program is any good will be passed onto the user as "Error opening file: Too many links", for the user to do with as he pleases.
>None of these options are as good as the software actually detecting the symlinks itself. >When I say "most" UNIX software checks for symlinks, I am only referring to software >which would otherwise be at risk of infinite recursion.
And what pray tell is the software supposed to do if it detects a symlink and/or a recursive one with special symlink handling code? All it can do is do report it to the user right? So why put in special code to do that? Just checking the return of open() and reporting the code to the user does the exact same thing.
Uh yeah, we really need them. They can solve any manner of tricky problems. Some program expects some file to be someplace for some stupid reason, and you can just symlink it to where it expects it to be. Or you can mount drives in a new place and symlink things to where they used to be. Do you want to be in control of your file system, or at the mercy of it? As I understand it, Plan 9 have given you even more control, but symlinks are better than nothing.
Bullshit. Most unix software is not aware of symlinks because it doesn't have to be. Generally, only system utilities care about the existance of symlinks. The OS will detect an attempt to open an infinitely recursive symlink.
Who cares? Anything that mitigates the Microsoft monopoly, is a good thing. If MS has 90% of the market, does that mean that we want to hear about MS 90% of the time?? NO!!!
Yeah, and how are they going to do that without western technology like big tractors, combine harvesters, bio technology etc etc? And how do you buy that without foreign currency? And how do you get foreign currency without a modern trading economy?
>In many cases, what they need is food, clean drinking water, and shelter. Let's get >those bases covered before we start doling out the software, shall we?
Sure they need food. But to feed themselves they need a competitive modern economy. To get that, computers can help.
Maybe they do need training, but once a few of them are trained, they could train others, and so on and on. Plus, they are smart people, I'm sure they are quite capable of teaching themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to just use IMAP and access it on the server. But if you really want to have it on the laptop without a net connection, look up the "cp" command under Unix. Yep, just copy the mail files to the laptop. Assumes you have control of the server, but that is a given in the question, so go to it!
>Have we placed too much emphasis on making GUI-based applications, and left behind
>what was a perfectly good way of doing things?
Yes.
Next question for the guru to answer?
There aint nothing wrong with voluntary socialism. Forced socialism has problems, in that people are lazy, so relying on people to give something for no reward doesn't always work. But if people voluntarily do it, that's called a good thing. Socialism that actually works if you will.
Re Viewing - me thinks this fool is trying to implement security by obscurity. Why else this silly request?
Re Editing - of course if you have root access you can edit *anything*. Of course if you turn it into a binary, they won't be able to directly edit it, but they could reverse engineer it, re-create it, and edit that. Why stop them? Me thinks this fool wants security by obscurity.
I'd like to hear from the people who've seen the code, but I suspect the solaris kernel is a bloated somewhat krufty collection of code that hackers won't want to touch or improve. That means it won't have the rapid development, driver support, general hackability of the Linux kernel. The Linux code is now big, but it is well sorted and continually being refined.
That's not really the point. First of all you CAN alter the source if your need is desperate enough. Thus if some app needs your change you can weigh the pros and cons of blowing support vs getting the enhancement. - CHOICE. Secondly, if Red Hat dies and goes broke you have the source. Thirdly, you can make your enhancement and submit it to the maintainer and with a bit of luck it will come out in the next version of RedHat as the official supported version. Fourthly, somebody else might scratch the same itch and submit the patch which comes out in the next version.
The biggest thing needed is the ability to return rows of differing column makeup for object oriented purposes. You need to be able to go:
SELECT FROM base-class
and get back all the fields from sub-classes so that you can populate entire objects from them. Real object oriented databases let you do that.
A lot of waffly claims that "Google is changing the law".
No they're not. They're testing the law in a whole new field of endeavour. The courts will decide what the law is, and clearly neither side can claim a cut and dried legal watertight case till the court rules. Neither side can claim the other is "changing the law". The field is too new. Personally, I hope Google wins. We shall see.
This "Service Pack" is not good enough except as an interim solution. As soon as you put the disk back in, the rootkit is installed right again. Yes I know the geeks here can get around it, but they always could get around it. Sony should replace all these disks. And what about Windows Vista? How much damage does it do to future versions of Windows?
It's not just a matter any more of coming up with a better ipod than ipod. You've also got to come up with a better iTunes than iTunes. You've got to open a music store. You've got to have all the accessories that iPod has. You've got to have the distribution channels and the brand awareness that Apple now has. You've got to have the economies of scale to buy components cheaply that Apple has so you can sell it at a reasonable price.
Oh yeah, and building a better iPod than iPod isn't that easy either.
Steve Jobs could design a stylish nuclear waste facility ("iNuke") that really sells well, and looks stylish in the comfort of your own home, followed by a pocket version ("iNukePod") which allows you to easily take your nuclear waste around with you and enjoy it on the road.
>Any program that deletes files ought to be vaguely symlink aware, as you need to know whether you are following
>and deleting stuff under symlinks or not.
I don't see why any program needs to know that. Some might sure, but not all.
>I wonder if this attitude leads to all those race conditions when creating files in /tmp, which can be exploited
>by planting symlinks at the right time.
Uh, nope. Sorry, no cigar. If you did manually check if it was a symlink, there would still be a race condition because it could be a symlink by the time you actually try to creat/open the file. Thus the race condition is not avoided by checking. Other solutions are needed.
>1) When you move a destination object, symlinks don't follow the target . This leaves "broken" symlinks that
>refer to nothing. Why doesn't the mv command move these too?
Because some time in the future they may become unbroken. Just because a link is broken at certain times doesn't mean it will always be broken. Automatically moving them could have undesired consequences.
Also, it would be darned hard to implement in the traditional UNIX file system, but that's another story.
> 2) When you symlink a symlinked folder, the root symlink is ignored.
That's just another case of (1) and the same answer applies.
>3) Symlinks cause all kinds of weirds around chrooted file systems
It may or may not be wierd depending on what you want to do. If it seems wierd, maybe you should have used relative paths, or absolute paths or vice-versa.
>Any de1cent OS will detect an attempt to infinitely traverse a symlink, but what's it
>supposed to do?
>It can:
>
> * Close the program (= Possible data loss)
> * Slow the speed at which the program is allowed to access certain files (= Increase
>the chance of race conditions, sometimes by a lot. It doesn't really solve anything
>either)
> * Make the symlinks "disappear" after a certain level of recursion (= Inconsistent data)
> * Do nothing (= Solves nothing)
WTF.....
The answer is "none of the above". The open() call returns -1 with an error code of EMLINK, which if the program is any good will be passed onto the user as "Error opening file: Too many links", for the user to do with as he pleases.
>None of these options are as good as the software actually detecting the symlinks itself.
>When I say "most" UNIX software checks for symlinks, I am only referring to software
>which would otherwise be at risk of infinite recursion.
And what pray tell is the software supposed to do if it detects a symlink and/or a recursive one with special symlink handling code? All it can do is do report it to the user right? So why put in special code to do that? Just checking the return of open() and reporting the code to the user does the exact same thing.
Uh yeah, we really need them. They can solve any manner of tricky problems. Some program expects some file to be someplace for some stupid reason, and you can just symlink it to where it expects it to be. Or you can mount drives in a new place and symlink things to where they used to be. Do you want to be in control of your file system, or at the mercy of it? As I understand it, Plan 9 have given you even more control, but symlinks are better than nothing.
Bullshit. Most unix software is not aware of symlinks because it doesn't have to be. Generally, only system utilities care about the existance of symlinks. The OS will detect an attempt to open an infinitely recursive symlink.
Who cares? Anything that mitigates the Microsoft monopoly, is a good thing. If MS has 90% of the market, does that mean that we want to hear about MS 90% of the time?? NO!!!
If they have that problem it is self-induced. They are sovereign states, just don't pass copyright laws on bio-tech.
Yeah, and how are they going to do that without western technology like big tractors, combine harvesters, bio technology etc etc? And how do you buy that without foreign currency? And how do you get foreign currency without a modern trading economy?
>In many cases, what they need is food, clean drinking water, and shelter. Let's get
>those bases covered before we start doling out the software, shall we?
Sure they need food. But to feed themselves they need a competitive modern economy. To get that, computers can help.
Maybe they do need training, but once a few of them are trained, they could train others, and so on and on. Plus, they are smart people, I'm sure they are quite capable of teaching themselves.
I guess your Dell plays MP3s too right?
Obviously the point of a Video ipod is to take entertainment with you to places you would not bother to lug a laptop.
>It may provide tantalising evidence that powered flight evolved twice.
Either that, or evidence that the theory of evolution is falling apart at the seams.
biting off more than you can chew.