Re:Time is perception relative
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
My view: OS X on a 400MHz G4 is fine. Applications my have a performance constraint due to slow CPU speed, but actual navigation of the OS is not a problem
That is so retarded. That's like saying "Linux on an i386/16 with 4 MB RAM is fine. Applications may have a performance constraint due to slow CPU speed, but typing ls at a shell prompt is not a problem."
I run Windows XP w/ themeing disabled, and Windows GDI is amazingly fast. I also think MacOS9 is fast (until a process hangs...).
I've tried OS 9 and OS X running on the same lamp-y LCD iMacs. OSX is SLOW. Sure it may look cool, but just think of all the processing power required to render all that shiat!
I went to open a csh Terminal, and I seriously had to wait about 30 secs till I received the % prompt. Ridiculous. Plus the font smoothing is overkill. The video seems to choppy as well, probably due to all that complex rendering. Yuck. OS X, you can keep it, thank you. Mac OS X is what made the Mac as popular as it is. Unlike WinXP, however, you can't disable the new overkill GUI and revert to a "Classic" style.
What happens in the router, however, is that the routing table doesn't get flushed... and the entries don't get deleted. When the table fills up, the router freezes. It has a self-timeout that reboots it after 5 minutes or so of lockup.
I'm talking about UDP traffic on the WAN port, NOT the LAN side. The point I was trying to make is that if you can make a 'firewall' shut down by sending packets at it, that kind of defeats the purpose of a firewall in the first place.
It is a handy, very small, little blue box, and if I really needed any more security I'd use a Cisco anyway, but if you've ever had to walk to your room with the router in it > 15 times one night to power cycle that mofo, you'd be pissed too.
I hate Linksys. I have that router, and it kept crashing on me. Changed the cable, everything, etc. Nothing. Even thought it was the cable modem for a while (would lose net access, but I finally found out the router wouldn't accept internal pings either). They sent me a new one (made ME pay for shipping), and it did the same thing. Tried all firmware versions, nothing.
Well, guess what. When you fire a bunch of UDP packets at it, the NAT routing table overflows and the router crashes (it happens faster if you have your DMZ host address set to a nonexistent address on the network), only to reboot itself in a few minutes. This has been tested and proven, but Linksys' response to me is "it's your software firewall, sir, you shouldn't run both at the same time." What a bunch of ignorant assholes. I informed them of the routing table overflow bug, but they ignored me.
Now, this bug shouldn't really affect anybody cause you really shouldn't run remote admin on your router, but with their shoddy firmware, it doesn't surprise me in the bit!
Re:Would that be Michael Meyers?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Seeing as how he killed the Censorware project, I see how you can easily get the two confused.
Does IE let you do that? Why do you need JavaScript in Mail anyway? I won't even accept HTML email.
First of all, IE is a web browser, not an e-mail client.
Second, I get a little yellow bar that says "This HTML message contains script, which Outlook cannot display. This may affect how the message appears."
But I'm really fuzzy on what actually happens when "Integrated Windows authentication" gets used.
Okay, this is where the NT + IIS + IE combination really shines (for Intranets). There is a setting in IE for authentication that is usually set by default to "Automatic logon only in Intranet Zone." Let's say that you're on a Windows 2000 machine logged into a domain called VINMAN. Let's use the example of setting permissions on just a regular directory of private files on the IIS server that you only want the group "Authorized" on VINMAN to access. In Windows 2000, you set the NTFS permissions on that folder as "Read" for "VINMAN\Authorized." Now, let's say you browse to that address that's in your intranet on IIS... say http://10.1.2.3/topsecretstuff/ for the sake of argument. Well, IIS will throw an Integrated Windows authentication call out to IE, which will pull your username and password for the domain VINMAN out of your current Windows login credentials. It'll automatically send it to the server, and if you're in the "Authorized" group on NT, you're set. Except that it never really sends your username/password; instead, it uses your Kerberos ticket! The web page comes up, you never see a login box, and everything is done transparently to the user. It's like you never even needed authorization to log in to see that page. Log in as someone else w/o proper credentials and you'll get a dialog box to log in instead, which, through the magic that is NT, you can actually give users on different domains permissions to the files, i.e. you can login as ANOTHERDOMAIN\Jim.
Purty cool, huh?
This is just really a souped up "Windows NT Challenge/Response" from IIS 4.
Slashdot Mirror
My view: OS X on a 400MHz G4 is fine. Applications my have a performance constraint due to slow CPU speed, but actual navigation of the OS is not a problem
That is so retarded. That's like saying "Linux on an i386/16 with 4 MB RAM is fine. Applications may have a performance constraint due to slow CPU speed, but typing ls at a shell prompt is not a problem."
Mac OS X is what made the Mac as popular as it is
I meant MacOS Classic. And too, not to.
I run Windows XP w/ themeing disabled, and Windows GDI is amazingly fast. I also think MacOS9 is fast (until a process hangs...).
I've tried OS 9 and OS X running on the same lamp-y LCD iMacs. OSX is SLOW. Sure it may look cool, but just think of all the processing power required to render all that shiat!
I went to open a csh Terminal, and I seriously had to wait about 30 secs till I received the % prompt. Ridiculous. Plus the font smoothing is overkill. The video seems to choppy as well, probably due to all that complex rendering. Yuck. OS X, you can keep it, thank you. Mac OS X is what made the Mac as popular as it is. Unlike WinXP, however, you can't disable the new overkill GUI and revert to a "Classic" style.
What happens in the router, however, is that the routing table doesn't get flushed... and the entries don't get deleted. When the table fills up, the router freezes. It has a self-timeout that reboots it after 5 minutes or so of lockup.
Well mine worked find too until my ISP switched to a more heavily portscanned netblock. Hence the UDP port scans.
I'm talking about UDP traffic on the WAN port, NOT the LAN side. The point I was trying to make is that if you can make a 'firewall' shut down by sending packets at it, that kind of defeats the purpose of a firewall in the first place.
It is a handy, very small, little blue box, and if I really needed any more security I'd use a Cisco anyway, but if you've ever had to walk to your room with the router in it > 15 times one night to power cycle that mofo, you'd be pissed too.
1000 posts. I'll drink to that.
It's not like the script kiddiz can take out these box en masse by blasting out a load a packets.
See my other post here. All it takes is some UDP packets using nmap and the router goes belly-up. Try is sometime from an offsite unix host.
How could the "not really have much of an OS" if it runs an HTTP server?
Yes.
I hate Linksys. I have that router, and it kept crashing on me. Changed the cable, everything, etc. Nothing. Even thought it was the cable modem for a while (would lose net access, but I finally found out the router wouldn't accept internal pings either). They sent me a new one (made ME pay for shipping), and it did the same thing. Tried all firmware versions, nothing.
Well, guess what. When you fire a bunch of UDP packets at it, the NAT routing table overflows and the router crashes (it happens faster if you have your DMZ host address set to a nonexistent address on the network), only to reboot itself in a few minutes. This has been tested and proven, but Linksys' response to me is "it's your software firewall, sir, you shouldn't run both at the same time." What a bunch of ignorant assholes. I informed them of the routing table overflow bug, but they ignored me.
Now, this bug shouldn't really affect anybody cause you really shouldn't run remote admin on your router, but with their shoddy firmware, it doesn't surprise me in the bit!
Seeing as how he killed the Censorware project, I see how you can easily get the two confused.
I'm waiting for when they can do this using one of those medieval catapults.
IE 5.2 on Mac was the best browser that Microsoft ever made. It was actually so good they modified its rendering engine to create IE 5.5 for Windows.
Also, is there a correlation between your username and the fact that you're a Mac user? Sorry, I have to know. =)
Does IE let you do that? Why do you need JavaScript in Mail anyway? I won't even accept HTML email.
First of all, IE is a web browser, not an e-mail client.
Second, I get a little yellow bar that says "This HTML message contains script, which Outlook cannot display. This may affect how the message appears."
Satisfied?
But I'm really fuzzy on what actually happens when "Integrated Windows authentication" gets used.
Okay, this is where the NT + IIS + IE combination really shines (for Intranets). There is a setting in IE for authentication that is usually set by default to "Automatic logon only in Intranet Zone." Let's say that you're on a Windows 2000 machine logged into a domain called VINMAN. Let's use the example of setting permissions on just a regular directory of private files on the IIS server that you only want the group "Authorized" on VINMAN to access. In Windows 2000, you set the NTFS permissions on that folder as "Read" for "VINMAN\Authorized." Now, let's say you browse to that address that's in your intranet on IIS... say http://10.1.2.3/topsecretstuff/ for the sake of argument. Well, IIS will throw an Integrated Windows authentication call out to IE, which will pull your username and password for the domain VINMAN out of your current Windows login credentials. It'll automatically send it to the server, and if you're in the "Authorized" group on NT, you're set. Except that it never really sends your username/password; instead, it uses your Kerberos ticket! The web page comes up, you never see a login box, and everything is done transparently to the user. It's like you never even needed authorization to log in to see that page. Log in as someone else w/o proper credentials and you'll get a dialog box to log in instead, which, through the magic that is NT, you can actually give users on different domains permissions to the files, i.e. you can login as ANOTHERDOMAIN\Jim.
Purty cool, huh?
This is just really a souped up "Windows NT Challenge/Response" from IIS 4.
Jesus, it's the same old argument every time!! Have you ever dived into Mozilla's code? No? Then STFU. That is all.
Just to clarify, this happened in Arkansas today.
You seem to keep forgetting that Democrats are complete shysters.
Yeah, remember Spies Like Us with Chevy Chase and Dan Akyroyd?
Aqui, amigo ;)
I hereby claim all intellectual property to the <form></form> tags. You can find this here. I'll see your ass in court, Slashdot!
but WMP/Messenger/whatever is not
Uh, yeah, it is. I uninstalled Messenger from my machine. RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove
That's it. Gone. And I don't want any complaining from the Linux fanboys -- you should be used to the command line.
I'm supposing all the FSF will tell him is that when he's done his company's gonna have to call it GNU/EmbeddedDevice.
How right you are.
Here and here, only a few hours apart.
No, THE repost record was one day when they were one or two stories apart on the front page nonetheless.