GPL'd software is a major advancement in technological progress no doubt, but how does Mr. Ardour intend to compete with giant commercial revivals such as Bose? This facetious struggle will be egregiously facil to watch?
So, at the risk of sounding stupid, how does this work from the user's perspective? Are AAAA records used preferentially over A records? Do I have to type in obscenely long numerical addresses? What software does support it, currently?
Mozilla/Apache already supports IPv6 literals, although Slashdot doesn't. Go to http://[::1]/ to view your local website if you're hosting one. Too bad I can't link it.
See the MAC manufacturer reference. Linksys (a WAP maker) has a couple blocks, but they don't use different OUI's for WAPs only. Its easy to detect WAPs if remote administration is enabled (the domain will be descriptive), but otherwise not as far as I know.
Perhaps it is, but OS choice very subjective. I'm glad you can use OpenBSD and like it, but I just don't.
I tried installing OpenOffice via the FreeBSD port, it took hours, I left it on overnight and when I got up nothing was done. I'm glad I don't need it.:)
I agree with your first paragraph, although there is such thing as a.torrent file. You can save it, email it, and open it with your BT client. But fundamentally, I agree.
True, but you can't use BT for streaming video anyways. Streams require blocks to be contigious, BT, in interest of efficiency, does not. Other networks (Overnet, ed2k) don't either, because it creates a problem of last block rarity.
Your second, third, and fourth applications of BT are also invalid. Inline video isn't going to be large enough to effectively utilize BT, images doubly so. Flash is pretty small also. BT just doesn't work for small files - it would be cool, but it just doesn't work that way. Unless BT is left open, the file won't be shared either. This opens a new problem - if the client is integrated into the browser, when does it close? Never?
Last paragraph: Then how is the URL supposed to look? torrent://http://example.com/foo.torrent? Does the "torrent:" URL scheme just download from the path portion treated as a URL and open it in BT? How useful is this really? If torrent:// only says to open the file in BT, isn't a media type enough? BT is not useful for displaying inlined images: where does the progress bar go? Do images display partially as they download? Movies won't show in sequence, you still have to wait for the whole file to finish. So scratch that inlining idea. Images are too small, and Flash is smaller.
Feel free to refute these points -- only good can come of it. I've love to hear your ideas.
Why do you need a "client" to access Emusic? (Implied by your option 4- "have a Mac client"). And I thought Emusic let you burn unencumbered CDs of your downloaded music. 128kbps MP3s, as far as I know, have no DRM restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't see how torrent:// is the least bit of ideal. The tracker works over HTTP, not its own protocol. You access the tracker via HTTP, which runs the btdownload program and communicates using its own protocol.
BitTorrent's official plugin associates with application/x-bittorrent for good reason.
warning:
this is a hack. mozilla works well, but it's compiled statically and one of my patches (patch-xpfe-bootstrap-mozilla-in) is a cheap work around. [...]. you first need some time and substantial disk space (~500Mb) and follow these simple steps...
And of course, "No, the port simply hasn't been maintained by anyone.". Good news, FreeBSD's port is!:-)
I'm sure OpenBSD has its uses (particularly on servers where client applications are unnecessary)...but its not for me.
Did you install from the ports? I admit its been a while since I tried to do so, and that is great if the OpenBSD developers have worked out the issues, but when I typed "make install" in/usr/ports/www/galeon, I was greeted by a message saying the Mozilla port is broken. Searches on Google revealed I wasn't the only one having this problem, and some users even claimed to have been able to successfully run Mozilla - but not by simply installing from the ports. How did you do it?
# (1) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, had authorized him or her to access; or
# (2) The person reasonably believed that the owner of the computer or computer network, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have authorized the person to access without payment of any consideration; or
This doesn't protect wardriving at all: if you're knowingly going around looking for unsecured wireless access points, you've already failed 1 & 2.
How does wardriving fail 1 and 2? By using an unencrypted non-WEP signal, by allowing anyone with any MAC, by enabling DHCP the owner is authorizing access to anyone. He or she is broadcasting beacon frames advertising the AP. He or she is running a DHCP server to hand out addresses to anyone. Because the software is letting in literally anyone, the owner is authorizing everyone. No trickery is involved.
Since point #1 does not apply, neither does #2, nor #3. Of course, if one was to sniff a couple gigs of 802.11b frames in order to crack WEP, he would most certainly be in violation of the said laws. But wardriving is not.
I tried them all...and FreeBSD is my favorite by far. OpenBSD has a very limited selection of ports. OpenBSD cannot run Mozilla, or Galeon, or Phoenix - any Mozilla-derived OS. Major show-stopped, as they say in the industry. NetBSD only has about 3000 ports compared to FreeBSD's 7000, which is a big difference in my book.
FreeBSD kills on the platforms it supports, which is unfortunately limited, but fortunately expanding (check the BSD webpage). I'll try anything at least once, but atm, I won't use anything but the good ol' FreeBSD.
You're wrong:). The GNU GPL is absolute. There is no need to "bend the rules" as you put it. Red Hat has taken code licensed under the GPL and packaged it into a cohesive whole (Red Hat Linux), with possible modifications. This means the software must be covered under the same terms of the GPL, which explicitly states redistribution shall not be limited.
As a courtesy to paid subscribers, Red Hat offers the said software package on its FTP days in advance. If you read the comments to the story I linked to, you would see claims of subscribers receiving ridiculously low rates from the FTP sites. Legitimate subscribers are downloading from BitTorrent.
Of course, non-subscribers are also got Red Hat 9 for free, in advance. The GNU GPL requires unlimited distribution. Bram Cohen, the genius behind BitTorrent, (supposedly) downloaded the Red Hat Linux advance from a subscriber-only FTP and redistributed it. This is not only legal, it is ethical.
I can see your point - occasionally, morality and ethics diverge from legality. But not with the GNU GPL. The people behind Red Hat Linux knowingly took GPL-licensed pieces of software and put them together, knowing that they cannot restrict their releases to a limited set of people (of course, personal use or within the corporation is fine - but thats different) that paid extra. This is how the GPL works, and is supposed to work.
Besides, the only reason why one would want to have early access is to be able to download from the FTPs before they are swamped. There is no mythical belief that "[it] wasn't supposed to be released to the general public yet". Red Hat knows very well they cannot do this. As I said, early access is beneficial because you can download before everyone gets on the FTPs. In other words, to obtain faster transfer rates.
I don't believe this [most guns being used for legitimate purposes] requires proof as it is common knowledge that there are millions of gun owners in the US and that there are "only" so many thousands of gun related deaths in the US.
So, you have gun owners. Gun owners can be furthur divided into several categories. Two of which are hunters and murders, according to your logic. I agree there - but you are missing a sizable portion of the whole: gun owners that never use their gun for anything of substance. Gun owners that keep a Glock in the basement in case of an emergency, but never fire it. Gun owners that don't do anything. Those count, and until I can see a hard statistic I'm not qualified to take a side.
Read the above, twice if necessary: its an
example
The quotation I provided was an example. I couldn't find any relevant statistics. Perhaps I would have been better off choosing a random statistic not having to do with gun control, but I did not. I picked this quotation as a condescending example of how the quotation process works or does not. Nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
GPL'd software is a major advancement in technological progress no doubt, but how does Mr. Ardour intend to compete with giant commercial revivals such as Bose? This facetious struggle will be egregiously facil to watch?
Mozilla/Apache already supports IPv6 literals, although Slashdot doesn't. Go to http://[::1]/ to view your local website if you're hosting one. Too bad I can't link it.
See the MAC manufacturer reference. Linksys (a WAP maker) has a couple blocks, but they don't use different OUI's for WAPs only. Its easy to detect WAPs if remote administration is enabled (the domain will be descriptive), but otherwise not as far as I know.
An AC said "You're wrong. You need to look more closely at Emusic. They're shit, man. Just shit.", and after reading this, I have to agree.
I tried installing OpenOffice via the FreeBSD port, it took hours, I left it on overnight and when I got up nothing was done. I'm glad I don't need it. :)
In summary: do what you want.
- I agree with your first paragraph, although there is such thing as a
.torrent file. You can save it, email it, and open it with your BT client. But fundamentally, I agree.
- True, but you can't use BT for streaming video anyways. Streams require blocks to be contigious, BT, in interest of efficiency, does not. Other networks (Overnet, ed2k) don't either, because it creates a problem of last block rarity.
- Your second, third, and fourth applications of BT are also invalid. Inline video isn't going to be large enough to effectively utilize BT, images doubly so. Flash is pretty small also. BT just doesn't work for small files - it would be cool, but it just doesn't work that way. Unless BT is left open, the file won't be shared either. This opens a new problem - if the client is integrated into the browser, when does it close? Never?
- Last paragraph: Then how is the URL supposed to look? torrent://http://example.com/foo.torrent? Does the "torrent:" URL scheme just download from the path portion treated as a URL and open it in BT? How useful is this really? If torrent:// only says to open the file in BT, isn't a media type enough? BT is not useful for displaying inlined images: where does the progress bar go? Do images display partially as they download? Movies won't show in sequence, you still have to wait for the whole file to finish. So scratch that inlining idea. Images are too small, and Flash is smaller.
Feel free to refute these points -- only good can come of it. I've love to hear your ideas.Why do you need a "client" to access Emusic? (Implied by your option 4- "have a Mac client"). And I thought Emusic let you burn unencumbered CDs of your downloaded music. 128kbps MP3s, as far as I know, have no DRM restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am.
Emusic: Useless to me, until they provide 192kbps mp3s. And they won't.
I see you've added myself to your foes list. Can we call a truce? Please? :-)
Huh? BitTorrent has an excellent, cross-platform (Python) implementation.
There is no bandwidth crunch at this moment. There is, however, shortly after the release of a brand new distro.
BitTorrent's official plugin associates with application/x-bittorrent for good reason.
And of course, "No, the port simply hasn't been maintained by anyone.". Good news, FreeBSD's port is! :-)
I'm sure OpenBSD has its uses (particularly on servers where client applications are unnecessary)...but its not for me.
It sounds like to me that you want a better installer, not a better operating system.
Did you install from the ports? I admit its been a while since I tried to do so, and that is great if the OpenBSD developers have worked out the issues, but when I typed "make install" in /usr/ports/www/galeon, I was greeted by a message saying the Mozilla port is broken. Searches on Google revealed I wasn't the only one having this problem, and some users even claimed to have been able to successfully run Mozilla - but not by simply installing from the ports. How did you do it?
How does wardriving fail 1 and 2? By using an unencrypted non-WEP signal, by allowing anyone with any MAC, by enabling DHCP the owner is authorizing access to anyone. He or she is broadcasting beacon frames advertising the AP. He or she is running a DHCP server to hand out addresses to anyone. Because the software is letting in literally anyone, the owner is authorizing everyone. No trickery is involved.
Since point #1 does not apply, neither does #2, nor #3. Of course, if one was to sniff a couple gigs of 802.11b frames in order to crack WEP, he would most certainly be in violation of the said laws. But wardriving is not.
FreeBSD kills on the platforms it supports, which is unfortunately limited, but fortunately expanding (check the BSD webpage). I'll try anything at least once, but atm, I won't use anything but the good ol' FreeBSD.
Your experience is limited.
Thanks. This was the kind of reply I was looking for, sans ad hominem. You win.
As a courtesy to paid subscribers, Red Hat offers the said software package on its FTP days in advance. If you read the comments to the story I linked to, you would see claims of subscribers receiving ridiculously low rates from the FTP sites. Legitimate subscribers are downloading from BitTorrent.
Of course, non-subscribers are also got Red Hat 9 for free, in advance. The GNU GPL requires unlimited distribution. Bram Cohen, the genius behind BitTorrent, (supposedly) downloaded the Red Hat Linux advance from a subscriber-only FTP and redistributed it. This is not only legal, it is ethical.
I can see your point - occasionally, morality and ethics diverge from legality. But not with the GNU GPL. The people behind Red Hat Linux knowingly took GPL-licensed pieces of software and put them together, knowing that they cannot restrict their releases to a limited set of people (of course, personal use or within the corporation is fine - but thats different) that paid extra. This is how the GPL works, and is supposed to work.
Besides, the only reason why one would want to have early access is to be able to download from the FTPs before they are swamped. There is no mythical belief that "[it] wasn't supposed to be released to the general public yet". Red Hat knows very well they cannot do this. As I said, early access is beneficial because you can download before everyone gets on the FTPs. In other words, to obtain faster transfer rates.
BitTorrent fits this goal nicely.