OK, this whole discussion is _very_ offtopic, but here's the line you need (in bash):
( while [ true ]; do snarf http://some.site.com/ && exit ; sleep 1h; done )
Note: The () is required, or it will log you out after getting the page! (snarf is of course required -- guess you could use wget or anything else instead.)
Another side of it all is the ethics of it, of course (I think it's a big egoistic -- by doing automated, periodic checks, you're actually _contributing_ to the Slashdot effect, thereby locking everybody out...).
And if you're actually using it, KEEP IT at 1 hour. At least nothing less. Thank you, you just made the Internet a slightly better place:-)
For now, it looks like my current setup (2 screencards, 2 17-inch monitors) will give me _much_ more space for the money... (OK, OK, you don't get the full use of it, but at that price difference, I still think it's better for the `average' user...)
Does anybody have an idea of when 2.3 will re-merge FAT? The FS stuff was changed back in 2.3.6, but 2.3.12 still doesn't want to compile in FAT, which is pretty much required for me, as my/usr/src/linux resides in a big loopback file on a DOS partition;-)
...yet I managed to get the Q3A test running in a glorious 80x60,.5 fps. Doh.
On the other hand, it looks like Rob swapped the rpm and tarball links. And I would really love some info on _what_ this is (sorry, I've never heard of this game... Sorry to be a loser blah blah blah), especially if I need to buy something first, before downloading 1.5 MB:-)
The way I read the article, he accepts the cracking of some sites (Burma's military junta), but not others (NY Times). Again, my question is: How can he do that, while refusing to draw the same type of line later on in the article?
...since everybody else seems to be talking only about `hacker' and `cracker':-)
There ought to be a word for that kind of political protest, and the media quickly jinned one up: Hacktivist. Such black-hat hackers -- some call them crackers -- have taken on not just government agencies but entire countries, and sometimes even partially succeeded.
Well, although I've never heard the word `hacktivist' before, I think he's using the wrong word (`black-hat hackers') here. Sure, those hackers _are_ black-hat, but using such an `inside' term while so many `outside' terms in the same article becomes a little weird...
Unauthorized access attempts represent the most pressing concern of the 745 security professionals surveyed, who estimated their financial losses due to hacking at more than $23 million in 1998. An FBI survey came up with a $120 million figure.
Well, if they weren't trying to stop unauthorized access attempts, what were they trying to stop? The whole point of security is stopping unauthorized access, isn't it?
It is one thing to deface the propaganda machine of a government involved in naked brutality towards its citizens. Few would shed a tear if Burma's dictatorial military junta, the subject of international obloquy, got a virtual pie thrown in its face.
So it's accepted for some sites, but not others? Oh, how nice. Where would he draw that line? Who determines if Burma's military junta is a more legal target than NY times?
Not quite. Neither the law nor common sense permit such creative excuses for common trespass and vandalism.
Oh, here he refuses to differentiate. Really consistent policy, don't you think?
Veteran hackers -- ones who write programs like Back Orifice
If you classify cDc as veteran hackers, and BO as a good program (as this seems to imply), you're really far out. BO just set the focus on trojans, it's really a BAD program. BO2K is no better, at least it crashed on the Win95 machine I tried it on. I wonder if he has even tried it.
IMHO, this article contains too many half-errors and self-contradictions to be taken seriously. (Well, probably this comment does, too:-) )
I've been using about the same versions as you, and I've found problems both with 2.1 and 2.2. In fact, 2.2 is worse for me than 2.1. (Well, I bootstrap with -O6 -- I guess some pgcc bugs went back into the compiler...)
"Here" is Norway. "Here" is the place where I think people are joking when they say that they can get dual PIIs for $400. "Here" is where such a machine would cost about five times that much. At least. *sigh*
I'm not sure which gcc version you are using, but using egcs or pgcc on 2.x kernels gives me big trouble with networking code (like only replying to the first ping it gets from any machine...).
gcc 2.7.2.3 usually works much better. Try adding -V2.7.2.3 to CFLAGS, and probably a -b flag to (on my Slack 3.4 box it's -bi486-unknown-linux-gnulibc1, check your/usr/lib and find it there)
Now, if DVD drives would not be so expensive, we would all be happy (at least they're not cheap here). BTW, why would the decoder have to be non-free? Some patented algorithms? Again? (Will standard-makers never learn... Oh well, perhaps it was intentional...)
Agreed. It looks like what he's trying to remove, is the actual Open Source way of thinking, which involves having a choice:
Another problem Linux currently has is the number of choices available. This includes the number of distributions, window managers and shells users can choose from. Choice works well for developers but is bad for users.
To me, choice is good. I can choose to use Netscape instead of MSIE. I can choose to use Linux instead of Windows. Perhaps what we need, is a method to make that choice easy for the end user.
Antitrust law is retroactive, which means that even if something was perfectly legal when you actually did it, if it is subsequently declared illegal you are still liable.
I thought no law was allowed to be retroactive (the Constitution says that here in Norway, at least), but with the American legal system, you never know:-)
On this basis though, somebody could write low-quality messages frequently, and then get a higher score automatically.
The 1 point you get for being a registered user doesn't count, I guess. Only if some moderator(s) gives you 2 (or 3, or 4, or 5) points, they begin to accumulate.
Note that this also goes the opposite way -- write too many 0 or -1 messages, and you'll start at 0 instead of 1. (Idea: Get a new account:-) )
When you get a cumulative score >n (what number? does anybody know), all your comments start at 2 points. Check his userinfo -- he's posted 55 comments, and all of them are at 2 points. In addition, there is no moderator comment, so it has to be an automatic thing.
Well, half of the point of IPv6 (and it's expanded address range) is to SIMPLIFY routing. If you would need a routing table carrying all IPv6 addresses in the world, you'd have big trouble. (The other half of the advantages is autosetup, of course... The last 64 bits are usually identical to your Ethernet MAC address.)
Choosing your own random IPv4 address today won't work. Think routing...
Too often, linux advocates just say "Micro$oft fscking sucks!"
I would not call such people real Linux advocates. This article, and the Linux/NT (by c'n', or something, wasn't it?) are both examples of fair, well-written articles, and also counts as Linux advocacy, evne though perhaps it wasn't originally meant as such.
Every OS has pros and cons, and if you neglect that, you won't make a very good impression.
I think more people should read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, and stick to it.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this whole discussion is _very_ offtopic, but here's the line you need (in bash):
:-)
( while [ true ]; do snarf http://some.site.com/ && exit ; sleep 1h; done )
Note: The () is required, or it will log you out after getting the page! (snarf is of course required -- guess you could use wget or anything else instead.)
Another side of it all is the ethics of it, of course (I think it's a big egoistic -- by doing automated, periodic checks, you're actually _contributing_ to the Slashdot effect, thereby locking everybody out...).
And if you're actually using it, KEEP IT at 1 hour. At least nothing less. Thank you, you just made the Internet a slightly better place
/* Steinar */
For now, it looks like my current setup (2 screencards, 2 17-inch monitors) will give me _much_ more space for the money... (OK, OK, you don't get the full use of it, but at that price difference, I still think it's better for the `average' user...)
/* Steinar */
Does anybody have an idea of when 2.3 will re-merge FAT? The FS stuff was changed back in 2.3.6, but 2.3.12 still doesn't want to compile in FAT, which is pretty much required for me, as my /usr/src/linux resides in a big loopback file on a DOS partition ;-)
/* Steinar */
What's so confusing? OK, to take it again:
:-)
1. In gcc, -O3 is the highest possible optimization level. Anything above -O3 (-O4, -O5, -O6 and even -O9) gets changed to -O3.
2. If you compile your kernel with gcc 2.7.2.3, and the optimization set to -O3, it works.
And for RH: I don't know, and I don't care. I don't use Red Hat
/* Steinar */
Well, Rob's URL worked for me, but yours didn't. Just thought you would like to know :-)
/* Steinar */
...yet I managed to get the Q3A test running in a glorious 80x60, .5 fps. Doh.
:-)
On the other hand, it looks like Rob swapped the rpm and tarball links. And I would really love some info on _what_ this is (sorry, I've never heard of this game... Sorry to be a loser blah blah blah), especially if I need to buy something first, before downloading 1.5 MB
/* Steinar */
The way I read the article, he accepts the cracking of some sites (Burma's military junta), but not others (NY Times). Again, my question is: How can he do that, while refusing to draw the same type of line later on in the article?
/* Steinar */
It bombs with -O2 also.
On the other hand, -O6 (which is equivalent to -O3 in gcc 2.7.2.3), works fine with gcc 2.7.2.3.
/* Steinar */
I thought BO2K was Win95 AND NT. If not, they should have warned during the installation phase, at least.
/* Steinar */
...since everybody else seems to be talking only about `hacker' and `cracker' :-)
Well, although I've never heard the word `hacktivist' before, I think he's using the wrong word (`black-hat hackers') here. Sure, those hackers _are_ black-hat, but using such an `inside' term while so many `outside' terms in the same article becomes a little weird...
Well, if they weren't trying to stop unauthorized access attempts, what were they trying to stop? The whole point of security is stopping unauthorized access, isn't it?
So it's accepted for some sites, but not others? Oh, how nice. Where would he draw that line? Who determines if Burma's military junta is a more legal target than NY times?
Oh, here he refuses to differentiate. Really consistent policy, don't you think?
If you classify cDc as veteran hackers, and BO as a good program (as this seems to imply), you're really far out. BO just set the focus on trojans, it's really a BAD program. BO2K is no better, at least it crashed on the Win95 machine I tried it on. I wonder if he has even tried it.
IMHO, this article contains too many half-errors and self-contradictions to be taken seriously. (Well, probably this comment does, too :-) )
/* Steinar */
I've been using about the same versions as you, and I've found problems both with 2.1 and 2.2. In fact, 2.2 is worse for me than 2.1. (Well, I bootstrap with -O6 -- I guess some pgcc bugs went back into the compiler...)
/* Steinar */
"Here" is Norway. "Here" is the place where I think people are joking when they say that they can get dual PIIs for $400. "Here" is where such a machine would cost about five times that much. At least. *sigh*
/* Steinar */
I'm not sure which gcc version you are using, but using egcs or pgcc on 2.x kernels gives me big trouble with networking code (like only replying to the first ping it gets from any machine...).
/usr/lib and find it there)
gcc 2.7.2.3 usually works much better. Try adding -V2.7.2.3 to CFLAGS, and probably a -b flag to (on my Slack 3.4 box it's -bi486-unknown-linux-gnulibc1, check your
/* Steinar */
Now, if DVD drives would not be so expensive, we would all be happy (at least they're not cheap here). BTW, why would the decoder have to be non-free? Some patented algorithms? Again? (Will standard-makers never learn... Oh well, perhaps it was intentional...)
/* Steinar */
Agreed. It looks like what he's trying to remove, is the actual Open Source way of thinking, which involves having a choice:
To me, choice is good. I can choose to use Netscape instead of MSIE. I can choose to use Linux instead of Windows. Perhaps what we need, is a method to make that choice easy for the end user.
/* Steinar */
I thought no law was allowed to be retroactive (the Constitution says that here in Norway, at least), but with the American legal system, you never know :-)
/* Steinar */
On this basis though, somebody could write low-quality messages frequently, and then get a higher score automatically.
:-) )
The 1 point you get for being a registered user doesn't count, I guess. Only if some moderator(s) gives you 2 (or 3, or 4, or 5) points, they begin to accumulate.
Note that this also goes the opposite way -- write too many 0 or -1 messages, and you'll start at 0 instead of 1. (Idea: Get a new account
/* Steinar */
When you get a cumulative score >n (what number? does anybody know), all your comments start at 2 points. Check his userinfo -- he's posted 55 comments, and all of them are at 2 points. In addition, there is no moderator comment, so it has to be an automatic thing.
/* Steinar */
Perhaps we need a definition of the Slashdot effect soon :-) Does the server have to be down? What is the limit? 3 bytes per second?
(The server didn't work for me either, in case that's unclear.)
/* Steinar */
Come on, almost ANY old mailer can fake mails!
/* Steinar */
It's easier, more flexible
:-)
Definitely more flexible! Show me a thing you can't configure in mutt!
(And you can even set up macros, so it will output old-style PGP attachments for braindead `software' such as MS Outlook.)
/* Steinar */
Well, half of the point of IPv6 (and it's expanded address range) is to SIMPLIFY routing. If you would need a routing table carrying all IPv6 addresses in the world, you'd have big trouble. (The other half of the advantages is autosetup, of course... The last 64 bits are usually identical to your Ethernet MAC address.)
Choosing your own random IPv4 address today won't work. Think routing...
/* Steinar */
If it is Linux advocacy, it is at least good Linux advocacy. I can't remember the text in the HOWTO exactly, but it states something like:
Now, C'T' did point out some weaknesses in Linux, and even if it was a biased test, they recommended NT in certain situations./* Steinar */
Too often, linux advocates just say "Micro$oft fscking sucks!"
I would not call such people real Linux advocates. This article, and the Linux/NT (by c'n', or something, wasn't it?) are both examples of fair, well-written articles, and also counts as Linux advocacy, evne though perhaps it wasn't originally meant as such.
Every OS has pros and cons, and if you neglect that, you won't make a very good impression.
I think more people should read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, and stick to it.
/* Steinar */
Yes, looks like everybody is getting acquired now :-) Well, did anybody notice that Apache's site was NOT Slashdotted?
/* Steinar */