You want to mount drives form a Mac? Share the drives and mount them.
You want to mount vpn mapped drives from a Mac? Same deal, share them and mount them. If you can't share them, them subst them and share the subst.
You want to access your network from the Mac via the laptop? Enable routing on the laptop. Better yet, why not install the VPN client on the Mac and leave the laptop out of the question?
so if you say microsoft is a standard (ok, its used by a lot of ppl, but a standard is by definition something from an upper committee like iso or rfc or din, not a single firm itself)
I've got terrible news for most Slashdotters, that isn't the definition of a standard. The fact that many Microsoft products, such as Exchange, are used by more people and organizations than any other available product makes those Microsoft products the de factostandard. This will naturally come as a shock but, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft Exchange is the de factostandard in GroupWare applications.
You can brand me a heretic and mod me down but that won't change the facts or the standard.
That's great, another standard. But, this one is different because it is supported by Citadel? OpenGroupware and Kontact. These aren't mainstrean groupware systems. In fact all of them combined don't have enough users to establish yet another "standard".
The fact is that there are already more than enough standards out there. What needs to happen is for the groupware systems to start thinning the crowd of standards and settle on a limited set. And, to those that would say that GroupDav is just that, please, Until the likes of Exchange, GroupWise, and Notes include it and Oulook Express and CW have it built in, it is just "Yet Another Standard".
Breaking down the number, + = Standard phone number convention outside the US 00 = International Dialing 1 = North America / Caribbean 819 = Quebec City, Quebec
Unless you know someone in Quebec, I'd recommend you not answer it. Even if they can't rip you off, why let them waste your time and your air time?
Finally, you do realize that even this number may be a complete fake. Thanks to VoIP you can now setup your own inexpensive PBX and manipulate the caller id numbers as you see fit. There are even companies popping up, like this one, that offer faked caller id as a service.
Can you believe it? They actually have the nerve to want to control the lines that they spent billions of dollars burying all over the country. The lines that they paid for, buried or hung where they paid for easements. Those low life bastards.
I am frankly amazed that the government was convinced to give others access to their lines. It's a huge government sanctioned land grab and it definitely wasn't fair. Imagine how you would feel.
Let's say that you built a killer game system in your home. You bought all the equipment and paid the labor to set t all up. Then the government and a bunch of whiny losers come along and force you to give every Tom, Dick and Harry access to your game system. Oh, OK. You can charge them for using it but, there's limits. You aren't the one who decides what you can charge them.
Giant monopolies or not, the telecommunications industry took a great big one in the posterior when those laws passed. Slashdot would never tolerate such laws if they weren't directed at "evil corps".
Your post is hilarious because IBM has been known to be doing this for some time now. You ahve been fortunate to only use IBM whitelisted products so far.
In fact your post reminds me of an incident I experienced a few years ago. I was approached and reprimanded by a WWII veteran for driving a "Jap car". At the time I was driving an Isuzu. After the man was finished reprimanding me, he jumped into his Chevrolet and drove away. I burst out laughing because the particular model of Chevrolet that he was driving was actually a re-branded Isuzu.
At this point it doesn't matter if it is a breach of the NDA. As soon as Google starts making money form it, Microsoft will send them a take down and sue them for "lost revenues".
In Microsoft vs. the DoJ Microsoft won (even though it doesn't say that in the court documents) In Microsoft vs. Google who will win?
Please explain what the advantage of iFolder is. Novell came out with iFolder and everyone says that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread but, I don't see much difference between it and Microsoft's Brief Case/Synchronize products.
In fact, it seems to me that iFolder isn't so wonderful for the same reason that Brief Case never caught on. No one wants the synchronization hassle and they don't want to leave their files strewn all over every PC that they touch.
It appears that Novell's NetStorage is a much better option and more closely meets the requirements of the article. Where as iFloder requires a client component be installed on any machine that will use iFolder, NetStorage works through the browser itself requiring no special client software and it doesn't require IE either. iFolder synchronizes a particular directory on the client with a particular directory on the server. NetStorage on the other hand allows access to files in multiple directories on the server, including but not limited to a user's iFolder directory.
Now someone might say that iFolder is Open Source but NetStorage isn't. But, this is only partially true. The Open Source version of iFolder is limited in its capabilities. The Enterprise or server based version of iFolder is not Open Source. In fact it presently runs only on Netware servers although, it is supposed to run on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server when Novell releases its Open Server product. But, even though this product will run on Linux it won't be Open Source.
So, what's so great about iFolder and how is it better or different than Microsoft Brief Case/Synchronize? Why use iFolder instead of NetStorage?
But, I am familiar with how to use BitTorrent and where problems can occur. I sit on a multi-megabit high-speed pipe (bidirectional). The BitTorrent client was set to limit upload speed at 110KBps, the client's default. I did try lower upload limits as well as limiting the number of connections but, it didn't change anything with the download performance. After the download completed (12 hours) I opened up the number of connections and removed the upload limit. Leachers enjoyed upload speeds of 600KBps until the up/down ratio hit 3 and I then removed the seed.
I remain unconvinced about BitTorrents abillity to meet its design goals. Whether that is due to BitTorrent itself or selfish users, I don't know, but performance isn't what it should be and it seems to be getting worse with time.
I very recently used BitTorrent to retrieve a couple of popular Linux ISOs. The performance was horrendous. Yes, my client was properly configured and the firewall was configured correctly. While over 200 peers and 60 seeds existed in the swarm, my download rate was an abysmal 20-30KBps. My upload speed, on the other hand, was a nifty 110KBps. (You're welcome.)
This may seem like an isolated situation, but, I find it to be the case more often than not. Occasionally, I will experience a fast download but, only rarely. I realize that BitTorrent may be a good/only source for illegal downloads but, it was supposedly designed to distribute load and increase performance. For me, BitTorrent rarely meets its design purpose. In most cases a reliable FTP server offers better performance.
So, I question BitTorrent's usefulness and whether it will last for its originally intended purpose.
The only reason I don't like it is there are very few server platforms (apple XServe being the exception) that boot from fibre-channel storage systems.
I have an HP MSA 1000 fibre channel SAN that runs Linux, Netware, Windows 2000 and Windows 2003. The servers connect to the SAN via a fibre channel switch and HP(Emulex) HBAs in the servers. All systems boot from the SAN! There are no disks in any of the servers. This makes replacing failed server (hardware) a 3 minute plug-and-play operation. The hardest part is lifting the server in and out of the rack.
I set it up about a year and a half ago and it wasn't easy at the time. Initially, I couldn't get it to work for anything but the first server. After a very long time fighting with it, HP came up with a firmware upgrade for the fibre channel HBA. After that it worked like a charm and was stupidly easy. Any OS should be able to do it as the "boot from SAN functionality" is actually in the HBA not the server hardware or OS. The HBA simply presents the 'physical' LUN, what ever it is, as a virtual LUN 0 to the server's BIOS. Presto, it boots!
A. Yes, to some extent. The metalic paint does effectively impede radio signals however, it is not 100% effective. Some signal may still leak through the paint also, untreated windows and doors will allow the signal to leak. None the less, signal propagation is greatly reduced by the paint, which was the primary reason for its development.
Q. What about cordless phones?
A. This paint will affect most radio signals including corless and cell phones, AM/FM radio, broadcast TV and more. The overall effect will vary depending on paint application quality, signal frequency and strength, as well as other factors.
Q. Is this paint a health risk?
A. Copper based paint, commonly used in marine applications, is a known health risk and environmental hazard. While there is little data available for aluminum based paints, there do not appear to be significant health risks at this time. This does not mean that there aren't health risks associated with aluminum based paints.
That's five conversions, at least, for a single printed page. Document printing takes a long time to start and a longer time to complete.
Using Windows on the same system to print the same page, printing starts immediately. Printing is ten or more times faster than above. Far less conversion takes place: pdf to pcl -> usb -> printerdriver -> printed page.
Add to this that PCL is supported on virtually every printer. Postscript printers are less common today.
Well, look at it from another angle. One that more closely parallels their example.
Suppose I am running Windows 2000 and it comes with IIS 5.0. I'm tired of all the security problems and it lacks a couple of new features that IIS 6.0 has and I really want. So I install IIS 6.0, from a Windows 2003 CD, onto my Windows 2000 system. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. There are all sorts of library issues and other problems.
So, I call Microsoft for support. Their support tells me that IIS 6.0 on Windows 2000 isn't supported. They say that I need to stay with IIS 5.0 or, better yet, upgrade everything to Windows 2003 which comes with IIS 6.0
How is this example any different than the one that they gave?
The link in the article seems to be a DNS nightmare. I'm not talking about the port(thanks anyway AC), I'm referring to the use of a pseudo IP address in the DNS name which then resolves to a series of equally strange aliases. Observe:
[nobody@sys1 ~]$ host 64.252.62.40.nyud.net nyud.net DNAME http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net. 64.252.62.40.nyud.net is an alias for 64.252.62.40.http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net. 64.252.62.4 0.http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net is an alias for http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net. http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.143.137.250 http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.59.67.201 http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.59.67.202
Can anyone explain to me the reason/advantage of such a complex and convoluted hostnaming scheme? What admin would willingly do this to himself?
I was wondering about this. It seems, to me, that this hack will render your modem useless on the cable network. What's the advantage of that?
Changing tha MAC address will effectively cut off service to your modem. Being able to update the firmware sounds nifty but, do you have new firmware that you need to install? Is there some service that you need so badly, on a cable modem, that you would spend your time writing new firmware for it?
I just don't see the advantage to this hack. I can see the advantage of previous hacks to uncap a modem but, even those hacks put you at risk of having your service terminated or worse, criminal charges being brought against you.
Almost all of the IM services support voice and video but, none of the open source ones seem to. I would have expected Jabber to be leading the way in this area but, Jabber's development seems to have stagnated. I'm really surprised that the open source clients haven't got the features that the closed source ones do.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the problem?
You want to mount drives form a Mac?
Share the drives and mount them.
You want to mount vpn mapped drives from a Mac?
Same deal, share them and mount them. If you can't share them, them subst them and share the subst.
You want to access your network from the Mac via the laptop?
Enable routing on the laptop.
Better yet, why not install the VPN client on the Mac and leave the laptop out of the question?
What do you want?
It would have been far better to have simply said:
Charity begins at home.
so if you say microsoft is a standard (ok, its used by a lot of ppl, but a standard is by definition something from an upper committee like iso or rfc or din, not a single firm itself)
I've got terrible news for most Slashdotters, that isn't the definition of a standard. The fact that many Microsoft products, such as Exchange, are used by more people and organizations than any other available product makes those Microsoft products the de facto standard. This will naturally come as a shock but, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft Exchange is the de facto standard in GroupWare applications.
You can brand me a heretic and mod me down but that won't change the facts or the standard.
That's great, another standard. But, this one is different because it is supported by Citadel? OpenGroupware and Kontact. These aren't mainstrean groupware systems. In fact all of them combined don't have enough users to establish yet another "standard".
The fact is that there are already more than enough standards out there. What needs to happen is for the groupware systems to start thinning the crowd of standards and settle on a limited set. And, to those that would say that GroupDav is just that, please, Until the likes of Exchange, GroupWise, and Notes include it and Oulook Express and CW have it built in, it is just "Yet Another Standard".
Did you see this one?
Breaking down the number,
+ = Standard phone number convention outside the US
00 = International Dialing
1 = North America / Caribbean
819 = Quebec City, Quebec
Unless you know someone in Quebec, I'd recommend you not answer it. Even if they can't rip you off, why let them waste your time and your air time?
Finally, you do realize that even this number may be a complete fake. Thanks to VoIP you can now setup your own inexpensive PBX and manipulate the caller id numbers as you see fit. There are even companies popping up, like this one, that offer faked caller id as a service.
Can you believe it? They actually have the nerve to want to control the lines that they spent billions of dollars burying all over the country. The lines that they paid for, buried or hung where they paid for easements. Those low life bastards.
I am frankly amazed that the government was convinced to give others access to their lines. It's a huge government sanctioned land grab and it definitely wasn't fair. Imagine how you would feel.
Let's say that you built a killer game system in your home. You bought all the equipment and paid the labor to set t all up. Then the government and a bunch of whiny losers come along and force you to give every Tom, Dick and Harry access to your game system. Oh, OK. You can charge them for using it but, there's limits. You aren't the one who decides what you can charge them.
Giant monopolies or not, the telecommunications industry took a great big one in the posterior when those laws passed. Slashdot would never tolerate such laws if they weren't directed at "evil corps".
Your post is hilarious because IBM has been known to be doing this for some time now. You ahve been fortunate to only use IBM whitelisted products so far.
In fact your post reminds me of an incident I experienced a few years ago. I was approached and reprimanded by a WWII veteran for driving a "Jap car". At the time I was driving an Isuzu. After the man was finished reprimanding me, he jumped into his Chevrolet and drove away. I burst out laughing because the particular model of Chevrolet that he was driving was actually a re-branded Isuzu.
Linux and free / Open Source software are used more heavily than commercial software for research and development projects.
Who would have thunk it?
At this point it doesn't matter if it is a breach of the NDA. As soon as Google starts making money form it, Microsoft will send them a take down and sue them for "lost revenues".
In Microsoft vs. the DoJ Microsoft won (even though it doesn't say that in the court documents)
In Microsoft vs. Google who will win?
For a company that made $2 billion off of Linux in the first year, it would seem that more spending would be appropriate.
How about $250,000,000 per year?
Please explain what the advantage of iFolder is. Novell came out with iFolder and everyone says that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread but, I don't see much difference between it and Microsoft's Brief Case/Synchronize products.
In fact, it seems to me that iFolder isn't so wonderful for the same reason that Brief Case never caught on. No one wants the synchronization hassle and they don't want to leave their files strewn all over every PC that they touch.
It appears that Novell's NetStorage is a much better option and more closely meets the requirements of the article. Where as iFloder requires a client component be installed on any machine that will use iFolder, NetStorage works through the browser itself requiring no special client software and it doesn't require IE either. iFolder synchronizes a particular directory on the client with a particular directory on the server. NetStorage on the other hand allows access to files in multiple directories on the server, including but not limited to a user's iFolder directory.
Now someone might say that iFolder is Open Source but NetStorage isn't. But, this is only partially true. The Open Source version of iFolder is limited in its capabilities. The Enterprise or server based version of iFolder is not Open Source. In fact it presently runs only on Netware servers although, it is supposed to run on SuSE Linux Enterprise Server when Novell releases its Open Server product. But, even though this product will run on Linux it won't be Open Source.
So, what's so great about iFolder and how is it better or different than Microsoft Brief Case/Synchronize? Why use iFolder instead of NetStorage?
This is so ABSOLUTELY DUMB!!
That it is absolutely certain to pass.
Step up to the pump takes on a new meaning.
But, I am familiar with how to use BitTorrent and where problems can occur. I sit on a multi-megabit high-speed pipe (bidirectional). The BitTorrent client was set to limit upload speed at 110KBps, the client's default. I did try lower upload limits as well as limiting the number of connections but, it didn't change anything with the download performance. After the download completed (12 hours) I opened up the number of connections and removed the upload limit. Leachers enjoyed upload speeds of 600KBps until the up/down ratio hit 3 and I then removed the seed.
I remain unconvinced about BitTorrents abillity to meet its design goals. Whether that is due to BitTorrent itself or selfish users, I don't know, but performance isn't what it should be and it seems to be getting worse with time.
Does it draw less power?
Does it generate less heat?
Will open source drivers be made available?
Should anyone care?
I very recently used BitTorrent to retrieve a couple of popular Linux ISOs. The performance was horrendous. Yes, my client was properly configured and the firewall was configured correctly. While over 200 peers and 60 seeds existed in the swarm, my download rate was an abysmal 20-30KBps. My upload speed, on the other hand, was a nifty 110KBps. (You're welcome.)
This may seem like an isolated situation, but, I find it to be the case more often than not. Occasionally, I will experience a fast download but, only rarely. I realize that BitTorrent may be a good/only source for illegal downloads but, it was supposedly designed to distribute load and increase performance. For me, BitTorrent rarely meets its design purpose. In most cases a reliable FTP server offers better performance.
So, I question BitTorrent's usefulness and whether it will last for its originally intended purpose.
You should follw your own rules. I think you are right. But, I don't really know what a TLA is so, I'm just guessing?
The only reason I don't like it is there are very few server platforms (apple XServe being the exception) that boot from fibre-channel storage systems.
I have an HP MSA 1000 fibre channel SAN that runs Linux, Netware, Windows 2000 and Windows 2003. The servers connect to the SAN via a fibre channel switch and HP(Emulex) HBAs in the servers. All systems boot from the SAN! There are no disks in any of the servers. This makes replacing failed server (hardware) a 3 minute plug-and-play operation. The hardest part is lifting the server in and out of the rack.
I set it up about a year and a half ago and it wasn't easy at the time. Initially, I couldn't get it to work for anything but the first server. After a very long time fighting with it, HP came up with a firmware upgrade for the fibre channel HBA. After that it worked like a charm and was stupidly easy. Any OS should be able to do it as the "boot from SAN functionality" is actually in the HBA not the server hardware or OS. The HBA simply presents the 'physical' LUN, what ever it is, as a virtual LUN 0 to the server's BIOS. Presto, it boots!
Q. Does it really work?
A. Yes, to some extent. The metalic paint does effectively impede radio signals however, it is not 100% effective. Some signal may still leak through the paint also, untreated windows and doors will allow the signal to leak. None the less, signal propagation is greatly reduced by the paint, which was the primary reason for its development.
Q. What about cordless phones?
A. This paint will affect most radio signals including corless and cell phones, AM/FM radio, broadcast TV and more. The overall effect will vary depending on paint application quality, signal frequency and strength, as well as other factors.
Q. Is this paint a health risk?
A. Copper based paint, commonly used in marine applications, is a known health risk and environmental hazard. While there is little data available for aluminum based paints, there do not appear to be significant health risks at this time. This does not mean that there aren't health risks associated with aluminum based paints.
You must be kidding, right? Observe the following chain for printing a pdf on Linux.
pdftops -> pstops -> pstoraster -> rastertoips -> usb -> printerdriver -> unknown conversions -> printed page
That's five conversions, at least, for a single printed page. Document printing takes a long time to start and a longer time to complete.
Using Windows on the same system to print the same page, printing starts immediately. Printing is ten or more times faster than above. Far less conversion takes place:
pdf to pcl -> usb -> printerdriver -> printed page.
Add to this that PCL is supported on virtually every printer. Postscript printers are less common today.
Well, look at it from another angle. One that more closely parallels their example.
Suppose I am running Windows 2000 and it comes with IIS 5.0. I'm tired of all the security problems and it lacks a couple of new features that IIS 6.0 has and I really want. So I install IIS 6.0, from a Windows 2003 CD, onto my Windows 2000 system. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. There are all sorts of library issues and other problems.
So, I call Microsoft for support. Their support tells me that IIS 6.0 on Windows 2000 isn't supported. They say that I need to stay with IIS 5.0 or, better yet, upgrade everything to Windows 2003 which comes with IIS 6.0
How is this example any different than the one that they gave?
The link in the article seems to be a DNS nightmare. I'm not talking about the port(thanks anyway AC), I'm referring to the use of a pseudo IP address in the DNS name which then resolves to a series of equally strange aliases. Observe:
4 0.http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net is an alias for http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net.
[nobody@sys1 ~]$ host 64.252.62.40.nyud.net
nyud.net DNAME http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net.
64.252.62.40.nyud.net is an alias for 64.252.62.40.http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net.
64.252.62.
http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.143.137.250
http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.59.67.201
http.l2.l1.l0.nyucd.net has address 128.59.67.202
Can anyone explain to me the reason/advantage of such a complex and convoluted hostnaming scheme? What admin would willingly do this to himself?
Imagine, the Indian people aren't interested in the patent issue. Could it have anything to do with the fact that 3000 or more people were killed by a tsunami?
If I were in India, I wouldn't be to concerned with patents right now either.
I was wondering about this. It seems, to me, that this hack will render your modem useless on the cable network. What's the advantage of that?
Changing tha MAC address will effectively cut off service to your modem. Being able to update the firmware sounds nifty but, do you have new firmware that you need to install? Is there some service that you need so badly, on a cable modem, that you would spend your time writing new firmware for it?
I just don't see the advantage to this hack. I can see the advantage of previous hacks to uncap a modem but, even those hacks put you at risk of having your service terminated or worse, criminal charges being brought against you.
Is it as bad as XMMS?
Almost all of the IM services support voice and video but, none of the open source ones seem to. I would have expected Jabber to be leading the way in this area but, Jabber's development seems to have stagnated. I'm really surprised that the open source clients haven't got the features that the closed source ones do.