Version: 1 Serial Number (hex): 00:CD:BA:7F:56:F0:DF:E4:BC:54:FE:22:AC:B3:72:AA:55 Subject: C=US,O=VeriSign\, Inc.,OU=Class 1 Public Primary Certification Authority Issuer: C=US,O=VeriSign\, Inc.,OU=Class 1 Public Primary Certification Authority Signature Algorithm: RSA-MD2 Warning: certificate uses a broken signature algorithm that can be forged. Validity:
Not Before: Mon Jan 29 00:00:00 1996
Not After: Wed Aug 2 00:59:59 2028 Subject Public Key Info:
Public Key Algorithm: RSA (1024 bits) modulus:
e5:19:bf:6d:a3:56:61:2d:99:48:71:f6:67:de:b9:
8d:eb:b7:9e:86:80:0a:91:0e:fa:38:25:af:46:88:
82:e5:73:a8:a0:9b:24:5d:0d:1f:cc:65:6e:0c:b0:
d0:56:84:18:87:9a:06:9b:10:a1:73:df:b4:58:39:
6b:6e:c1:f6:15:d5:a8:a8:3f:aa:12:06:8d:31:ac:
7f:b0:34:d7:8f:34:67:88:09:cd:14:11:e2:4e:45:
56:69:1f:78:02:80:da:dc:47:91:29:bb:36:c9:63:
5c:c5:e0:d7:2d:87:7b:a1:b7:32:b0:7b:30:ba:2a:
2f:31:aa:ee:a3:67:da:db: public exponent:
01:00:01:
Other information:
MD5 Fingerprint: 97:60:E8:57:5F:D3:50:47:E5:43:0C:94:36:8A:B0:62
SHA1 Fingerprint: 90:AE:A2:69:85:FF:14:80:4C:43:49:52:EC:E9:60:84:77:AF:55:6F
Public Key ID: 79:6F:71:F0:F5:FD:FF:F7:50:86:F5:B6:5F:5B:D7:CD:7F:C0:A0:CD
1. It's only a 1024 bit RSA key. That is weak by today's standards.
2. The signature algorithm is 'RSA-MD2'.
3. Attacks against this certificate may only be theoretical today, but Verisign foresaw this, and saw fit to mark the certificate as valid until 2028!
If you really care that much, mart the accounts.xml file as encrypted (assuming you use NTFS). Better, get someone to contribute a patch to make Gaim use the Windows Protected Storage Service for passwords.
If someone sends a patch to the maintainer of the dependeny library, the maintainer will ask them to license it under the project's licensing terms (GPL v2 or later) or he will reject the patch. I don't think any important libraries will suddenly switch to GPLv3 overnight.
The behaviour of the backspace key can be changed in about:config.
FYI, I think this was done to make Firefox behave more like pagers on the UNIX platform, where Space moves you down a page and Backspace moves you up a page.
Despite all the bitching about ICANN, generally speaking, they do a decent job. Certainly far better than the UN/ITU proposals to bring it under the control of the dictator's debating club on the east river.
This is so true, and it is refreshing to be reminded that I'm not the only one who thinks that turning control of the DNS over to the UN would be a disaster.
> So make it mpeg2 or mpeg4. Duh. By the way: Flash also looks like crap, but it also performs like crap, and makes things difficult (and crappy-looking and performing) to try to view the video fullscreen.
Flash movies don't look great, but they look at lot better than MPEG1. MPEG2 and MPEG4 are not usable for the reasons I mentioned before: users can't/won't download the software to play them; and software patents prevent free software implementation of players from being usable.
>> If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.
> I can view any WMV format on my Linux, it's just a question of whether or not I need the DLL. I only need the DLL for WMV9. OS X users have a nifty program called Flip4Mac, but ffmpeg has had support for older WMV formats for a long time.
So can I, but only because I use i386. This solution is useless for everyone else. If you are going to restrict your viewers to i386 users, then you may as well make it easy for them to view the video and use Flash.
ffmpeg is nice in theory but it is not glitch-free. The version I have can't play VC-1 at all (last time I tried). But the big problem is that these formats are all patent-encumbered. No one can distribute the software in a usable form without opening themselves up to huge liability.
>> Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.
> This is just annoying as hell, because the same thing would be true for Flash if Microsoft hadn't included it recently.
So in summary, it is not annoying at all for Windows users; I can't speak for Mac users, but anyone who uses Firefox(tm) will get the plugin downloaded for them automatically.
> But seriously, if YouTube was all simple AVIs or MOVs encoded in h.264? Everyone would be rushing to download VLC, QuickTime, and the like.
No. If YouTube was all simple AVIs and MOVs then no one would use it. It is only because Flash makes it so easy to view content that such sites became popular in the first place.
> In any case, you could always do what people have always done: Host two versions of the file, one Windows Media, one QuickTime. That way, everyone on a "user friendly" OS has a player installed by default that can handle it. And you can always use mpeg anyway.
If only! Now you have the correct solution. Unfortunately, extra efford = extra expense, and no PHB will see the additional expense as justified given the incredibly small fraction of the market that we represent.
>> Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.
> I believe you can find free software to create files readable as most, if not all, of the above formats.
It is impossible for such free software to exist in countries with software patent laws.
>> In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers.
> And what, pray tell, is the point of that? Anyone can save the SWF and upload it to another site, even if it still says "YouTube" on it. As for restricting piracy to experts only, we know how well that's worked in the past -- that's why only experts pirate movies -- oh wait.
You are missing my point. The fact is that content producers see this as a feature of Flash, not a defect!
Real Player is indeed available for Linux. I have it installed. Unfortunately, Real did not bother adding the ability to actually play Real video formats. When I try I am told that I do not have the right plugin installed, and that I should go to Real's web site to install Real player.
While it requires finding and installing the appropriate player software, so does Flash, so I'm not sure Flash has a benefit there.
Flash is far easier to find and install. Also, the major browsers will download and install it automatically.
Real didn't upgrade their player for Windows and Mac leaving Linux in the dust for over a year, and with their open-source Helix project, they likely care enough about Linux to not.
Helix is a pile of crap. 2006 and still it doesn't use ALSA. Until last week I actually thought it was abandonware due to long-standing security and licensing issues, but it seems that there was a new release this month that solved those issues at east.
Also, there are unnoffical, open source Windows Media and Quicktime players for Linux.
None that can be distributed legally in a usable form--that is what I meant when I said they were patent-encumbered.
I don't enjoy admitting it, but Flash *is* the only way to put movies on your web site so that the vast majority of the computing population is able to see them.
Then use/usr/lib/firefox/plugins. I believe Firefox(tm) searches both./usr/lib/mozilla/plugins is useful as a standard location in which all Mozilla plugins can be installed. There are other Mozilla-based browsers than Firefox(tm).
Please report the incorrect use of dlopen to Adobe. I already filled in a bug report, hopefully if enough knowledgable people do it then it will get past their QA people to someone who will understand the problem.
Unfortunately a plain element pointing at a movie does not work.
If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap. If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it. If it is in a Real Player or Quicktime format, people who aren't on Windows or the Mac OS can't view it. Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered. Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered. If you choose a free format such as Ogg Vorbis+Theora, then again you force the user to waste their time hunting for the plugin software, but in addition there are about five hundred sites that all distribute slightly different versions; the correct (blessed?) site is impossible to find unless the user is a computer expert.
Flash looks attractive because of these problems. In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers. In their eyes, the fact that those who don't use 32 bit Windows, the 32 bit Mac OS, or i386 GNU/Linux, can't view the content is but a small price to pay.
On another note: anyone read the EULA for this Flash player? It's pretty scary! Adobe could arbitrarily send you a huge bill for auditing your compliance at any time. In addition you are 'not allowed' to run the player on an embedded/set-top-box device. Does my desktop PC become embedded when I hook, it up to my TV?
Slashdot Mirror
5 years in prison.
They don't seem to disagree with it enough to not buy it.
It would be nice if bash rejected the use of (or at least spewed warnings about) bash-extensions when it is invoked as sh.
It comes with all these. :)
I think that the share comes back after you reboot...
Have you audited any of the dozens of CA certificated that ship with your OS?
Do you fetch a new CRL for each of them whenever you access a site using SSL?
On a related note, I was doing some poking around the other day and noticed this:Three things to be concerned about:
1. It's only a 1024 bit RSA key. That is weak by today's standards.
2. The signature algorithm is 'RSA-MD2'.
3. Attacks against this certificate may only be theoretical today, but Verisign foresaw this, and saw fit to mark the certificate as valid until 2028!
Thank you, Verisign!
If you really care that much, mart the accounts.xml file as encrypted (assuming you use NTFS). Better, get someone to contribute a patch to make Gaim use the Windows Protected Storage Service for passwords.
It might be possible to do this by putting the relevant CSS rules in your userChrome.css file.
Such a license would restrict against fields of endevour and therefore no longer be a 'free software' license.
What is a "GPLv3 source"?
If someone sends a patch to the maintainer of the dependeny library, the maintainer will ask them to license it under the project's licensing terms (GPL v2 or later) or he will reject the patch. I don't think any important libraries will suddenly switch to GPLv3 overnight.
It is ironic that you are forcing your personal definition of "free" upon me.
The behaviour of the backspace key can be changed in about:config.
FYI, I think this was done to make Firefox behave more like pagers on the UNIX platform, where Space moves you down a page and Backspace moves you up a page.
The reason to use Konqeror is because it integrated with the rest of the KDE desktop. That is why I use Epiphany on my GNOME system.
Your prices seem to be a little off. Last Christmas I saw DSes with 1 game for £89, at Choices I think.
I'm not sure, but I have the feeling that there may just be a clue to the answer to your question buried in the question itself.
Did you even read the explanation on Mike's blog?
Oh, wait... Slashdot.
s/Thy/Thou/
Post-literate Eloys. :(
>> If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap.
> So make it mpeg2 or mpeg4. Duh. By the way: Flash also looks like crap, but it also performs like crap, and makes things difficult (and crappy-looking and performing) to try to view the video fullscreen.
Flash movies don't look great, but they look at lot better than MPEG1. MPEG2 and MPEG4 are not usable for the reasons I mentioned before: users can't/won't download the software to play them; and software patents prevent free software implementation of players from being usable.
>> If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.
> I can view any WMV format on my Linux, it's just a question of whether or not I need the DLL. I only need the DLL for WMV9. OS X users have a nifty program called Flip4Mac, but ffmpeg has had support for older WMV formats for a long time.
So can I, but only because I use i386. This solution is useless for everyone else. If you are going to restrict your viewers to i386 users, then you may as well make it easy for them to view the video and use Flash.
ffmpeg is nice in theory but it is not glitch-free. The version I have can't play VC-1 at all (last time I tried). But the big problem is that these formats are all patent-encumbered. No one can distribute the software in a usable form without opening themselves up to huge liability.
>> Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.
> This is just annoying as hell, because the same thing would be true for Flash if Microsoft hadn't included it recently.
So in summary, it is not annoying at all for Windows users; I can't speak for Mac users, but anyone who uses Firefox(tm) will get the plugin downloaded for them automatically.
> But seriously, if YouTube was all simple AVIs or MOVs encoded in h.264? Everyone would be rushing to download VLC, QuickTime, and the like.
No. If YouTube was all simple AVIs and MOVs then no one would use it. It is only because Flash makes it so easy to view content that such sites became popular in the first place.
> In any case, you could always do what people have always done: Host two versions of the file, one Windows Media, one QuickTime. That way, everyone on a "user friendly" OS has a player installed by default that can handle it. And you can always use mpeg anyway.
If only! Now you have the correct solution. Unfortunately, extra efford = extra expense, and no PHB will see the additional expense as justified given the incredibly small fraction of the market that we represent.
>> Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.
> I believe you can find free software to create files readable as most, if not all, of the above formats.
It is impossible for such free software to exist in countries with software patent laws.
>> In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers.
> And what, pray tell, is the point of that? Anyone can save the SWF and upload it to another site, even if it still says "YouTube" on it. As for restricting piracy to experts only, we know how well that's worked in the past -- that's why only experts pirate movies -- oh wait.
You are missing my point. The fact is that content producers see this as a feature of Flash, not a defect!
I don't enjoy admitting it, but Flash *is* the only way to put movies on your web site so that the vast majority of the computing population is able to see them.
Then use /usr/lib/firefox/plugins. I believe Firefox(tm) searches both. /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins is useful as a standard location in which all Mozilla plugins can be installed. There are other Mozilla-based browsers than Firefox(tm).
Please report the incorrect use of dlopen to Adobe. I already filled in a bug report, hopefully if enough knowledgable people do it then it will get past their QA people to someone who will understand the problem.
1 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87383
The most annoying bugs you mention are actually bugs in Mozilla(tm): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9554
Unfortunately a plain element pointing at a movie does not work.
If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap.
If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.
If it is in a Real Player or Quicktime format, people who aren't on Windows or the Mac OS can't view it.
Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.
Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.
If you choose a free format such as Ogg Vorbis+Theora, then again you force the user to waste their time hunting for the plugin software, but in addition there are about five hundred sites that all distribute slightly different versions; the correct (blessed?) site is impossible to find unless the user is a computer expert.
Flash looks attractive because of these problems. In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers. In their eyes, the fact that those who don't use 32 bit Windows, the 32 bit Mac OS, or i386 GNU/Linux, can't view the content is but a small price to pay.
On another note: anyone read the EULA for this Flash player? It's pretty scary! Adobe could arbitrarily send you a huge bill for auditing your compliance at any time. In addition you are 'not allowed' to run the player on an embedded/set-top-box device. Does my desktop PC become embedded when I hook, it up to my TV?