Nothing stops his ISP from sending him packets destined for his 192.168.0.0/16 network. One would expect that whatever device he uses for the NAT would also act as a firewall, discarding such packets.
The only thing that stops _me_ from sending him such packets is routing controls at his ISP (well, probably mine, and whatever routers lie between me and him).
The point is that NAT != firewall. Nothing prevents you from dropping unwanted packets with IPv6, or even IPv4 without NAT. And yet, we have lots of clueless people thinking that NAT black boxes _are_ firewalls, rather than that they can act as a firewall.
> Now, perhaps the author has inadvertantly drawn attention to the heart of > Linux's adoption woes: documentation. Why doesn't this author know about > apt-get? Why doesn't he know about urpmi? Why isn't he aware of the vast > amount of documentation normally available in/usr/share/docs/ ?
Perhaps the author did not RTFM? The following is addressed to all computer novices everywhere:
I don't expect you to magically know about the 'man' command. I don't expect you to randomly chance upon/usr/share/doc/ by spazzing out at the keyboard.
The 'M' that I expect you to be capable of reading is your DISTRIBUTION'S MANUAL.
Let's say you installed Debian. Why the hell aren't you looking at http://www.debian.org/doc/? This is the place where you _learn_ about man, info,/usr/share/doc/, etc.
And so on. You managed to find an ISO for a Linux distribution, how can it be so difficult to follow the links on the web site to the distro's documentation?
What's that you say, you bought it in a box at a shop? What's that strange thing, why yes, it looks like a... book, with the words MANUAL or DOCUMENTATION printed on it?
I wouldn't expect you to be able to configure a network on Windows or the Mac OS without consulting the documentation. Why do you expect to be able to do the same on Linux?
Can anyone explain what the shared libraries and dlls in the compiled distribution are for? Is the Quake 2 part of the code 100% java, and are the shared libs just wrappers around the OpenGL libraries, or what?
If so, why does there have to be a wrapper shared library created to interface with the opengl libraries?
Of course, you are free to unpack anything wherever you want on your own system, but the "proper way" is to have/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build be a symlink to your kernel headers.
That way, any kernel modules you compile will know exactly where to find the source for any installed kernel version, without user intervention. Unfortunately a lot of software still looks in/usr/src/linux (cough Nvidia), needlessly making it harder for Joe Bloggs to download and run the Nvidia graphics drivers installer.
If you read the release notes, you would see that the composite extension is disabled by default because it is still experimental. Once it is finished, it will be turn on by default.
Of course it doesn't. Please understand the issues with SPF and similar systems before spreading FUD. You have several options.
1. Publish a record including "+ptr". If your ISP is bigisp.com, then mail from any machine with a reverse DNS entry ending in "bigisp.com" will result in a Pass during SPF testing.
2. Publish a record stating that mail from your domain is sent via your ISP's servers, and only send mail through your ISPs servers.
3. Don't publish SPF records. No one is making you!
Why is there no publication that presents honest reviews and objective evaluation of TFT monitors (and other hardware, for that matter). I would buy it.
At the end of the TFT group review it could present the menufacturer's specifications for each model, alongside the observed behaviour. Manufacturers who lie through their teeth get a zero score!
On those systems, when you do an upgrade (apt-get update), you will get a fresh package, including not only the files that changes, but all the files for that package. And if we have a package with 1 binary and 50 images, and only the binary changed, we get to download all the images again.
Then that package should be split into two packages. The foo-bin package would contian the small, arch-dependant binary, and foo-bata would contian the arch-independant image data. I think there is a note in Policy about when to do this, though I couldn't find it just now.
Of course, this is not always done. The Mozilla package is sadly rather monolithic, and openoffice.org-bin actually does consist of 130 MB or so of code!
Firefox can encrypt your passwords with a master password; it's under Preferences, Advanced, Certificates, Manage Security Devices, Software Security Device, Change Password. Don't blame you for not finding it though, the advanced preferences UI really needs to be fixed before 1.0 is released. Although personally I'd just as soon see them (optionally!) remove it and integrate with the Gnome Keyring service instead.
I am unsure what a stock installation of Firefox can't do that IE can do though? Please, no jokes about getting one's machine cracked into quicker!
I don't use Totem because it is are free. I use it because it has no bullshit attached.
It seems like every DVD player for Windows is a complete pain in the arse to use. They all have shitty, skinnable interfaces that try to emulate 'real' DVD players, that more often than not compare unfavourably to *RealOne*, and that's saying something.
With Totem, I only have to go to Movie -> Play DVD. I can skip the crappy adverts and copyright warnings. Totem doesnt think it's special; it fits in to my desktop environment, looking like a normal movie player. It uses the same, standard gui that the rest of my desktop uses.
Not to mention the fact that, since Totem is Free software, it is available from my distribution's packaging system, a simple apt-get (or trip to the graphical package manager) away. I don't need to worry about provided packages being obsoleted by ABI changes in dependant libraries. I don't have run some dodgy (binary!) installer, or put up with it taking over all my media files and installing dozens of icons into my Applications menu, quick launch bar and desktop.
Totem is pretty much the perfect movie player. No other program provides the features I have listed above. Why should I use an inferior alternative with a crap interface and poor desktop/system integration, that will force me to sit through the useless adverts and copyright notices on DVDs that I play?
Marketing. WinFS sounds sexy. It will get the Windows geeks talking about the revolutionary never-before-seen features, and when the Windows geeks are lusting over the next version of Windows, they 'ain't convertin' to Linux.
It's the old bait and switch. Now that WinFS has served its purpose, it's being moved back to the _next_ version of Windows after Longhorn. But don't worry, Longhorn+1 will be the best version of Windows EVER! It has this revolutionary new filesystem, WinFS. It will also be faster, easier to use, more compatible and more secure! Why risk changing to another operating system when the next version of Windows will be everything you have ever wanted, AND MORE?
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, it's not quite that simple on Debian.
:) 00:16 sam@xerces ~
:) 00:16 sam@xerces ~ /var/lib/dpkg/status
/etc/apt/sources.list, run apt-get update and _then_ apt-get install mplayer-$architecture.
$ apt-cache policy mplayer
mplayer:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version Table:
For legal reasons, Debian cannot distribute mplayer.
$ apt-cache policy mplayer-k6
mplayer-k6:
Installed: 1:1.0-pre5-sarge0.3
Candidate: 1:1.0-pre5-sarge0.3
Version Table:
*** 1:1.0-pre5-sarge0.3 0
500 ftp://ftp.nerim.net testing/main Packages
100
So you have to add a line to
It's KDE! They'll just add a checkbox to the Prefs dialog.
Nothing stops his ISP from sending him packets destined for his 192.168.0.0/16 network. One would expect that whatever device he uses for the NAT would also act as a firewall, discarding such packets.
:)
The only thing that stops _me_ from sending him such packets is routing controls at his ISP (well, probably mine, and whatever routers lie between me and him).
The point is that NAT != firewall. Nothing prevents you from dropping unwanted packets with IPv6, or even IPv4 without NAT. And yet, we have lots of clueless people thinking that NAT black boxes _are_ firewalls, rather than that they can act as a firewall.
When you only have a hammer...
The real sun doesnt' move 180 degrees accrosss the sky in a few seconds.
> Now, perhaps the author has inadvertantly drawn attention to the heart of /usr/share/docs/ ?
/usr/share/doc/ by spazzing out at the keyboard.
/usr/share/doc/, etc.
> Linux's adoption woes: documentation. Why doesn't this author know about
> apt-get? Why doesn't he know about urpmi? Why isn't he aware of the vast
> amount of documentation normally available in
Perhaps the author did not RTFM? The following is addressed to all computer novices everywhere:
I don't expect you to magically know about the 'man' command. I don't expect you to randomly chance upon
The 'M' that I expect you to be capable of reading is your DISTRIBUTION'S MANUAL.
Let's say you installed Debian. Why the hell aren't you looking at http://www.debian.org/doc/? This is the place where you _learn_ about man, info,
Redhat? http://www.redhat.com/docs/.
Mandrake? http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/fdoc.php3
FreeBSD? http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html
And so on. You managed to find an ISO for a Linux distribution, how can it be so difficult to follow the links on the web site to the distro's documentation?
What's that you say, you bought it in a box at a shop? What's that strange thing, why yes, it looks like a... book, with the words MANUAL or DOCUMENTATION printed on it?
I wouldn't expect you to be able to configure a network on Windows or the Mac OS without consulting the documentation. Why do you expect to be able to do the same on Linux?
Can anyone explain what the shared libraries and dlls in the compiled distribution are for? Is the Quake 2 part of the code 100% java, and are the shared libs just wrappers around the OpenGL libraries, or what?
If so, why does there have to be a wrapper shared library created to interface with the opengl libraries?
Not since 1996 or so. :)
/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build be a symlink to your kernel headers.
/usr/src/linux (cough Nvidia), needlessly making it harder for Joe Bloggs to download and run the Nvidia graphics drivers installer.
/usr/src/linux should contain the kernel headers that your installed libc was compiled against. See http://www.linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/usr-src-linux -symlink.html for more information, straight from the horse's mouth.
Of course, you are free to unpack anything wherever you want on your own system, but the "proper way" is to have
That way, any kernel modules you compile will know exactly where to find the source for any installed kernel version, without user intervention. Unfortunately a lot of software still looks in
Strictly speaking,
target ttl IN SOA domain "responsible person" serial refresh retry expire "nxdomain cache time"
My particular brand of obsessive compulsive disorder compells me to award you with the Useless Use of Cat award. Consider the following replacements:
/usr/src/linux /usr/src/linux
/usr/src/linux/! Eww! How, 1995 :)
grep -r 'Donald Becker'
grep -ri becker
Hold on, you've unpacked your kernel source to
If you read the release notes, you would see that the composite extension is disabled by default because it is still experimental. Once it is finished, it will be turn on by default.
Of course it doesn't. Please understand the issues with SPF and similar systems before spreading FUD. You have several options.
1. Publish a record including "+ptr". If your ISP is bigisp.com, then mail from any machine with a reverse DNS entry ending in "bigisp.com" will result in a Pass during SPF testing.
2. Publish a record stating that mail from your domain is sent via your ISP's servers, and only send mail through your ISPs servers.
3. Don't publish SPF records. No one is making you!
At best, Sender-ID is no more accurate than SPF when determining if a message is a forgery. At worst, you get suid my Microsoft.
Remember that you never hear about intelligent criminals, because they are clever enough to _avoid_ getting caught.
Why is there no publication that presents honest reviews and objective evaluation of TFT monitors (and other hardware, for that matter). I would buy it.
At the end of the TFT group review it could present the menufacturer's specifications for each model, alongside the observed behaviour. Manufacturers who lie through their teeth get a zero score!
For this they went to the Patent Office? Hezeus, the US patent system gets more fucked up every day!
Is there any way one can actualy find out what Sender ID _is_, without increasing one's exposure to patent infringement lawsuits?
Then that package should be split into two packages. The foo-bin package would contian the small, arch-dependant binary, and foo-bata would contian the arch-independant image data. I think there is a note in Policy about when to do this, though I couldn't find it just now.
Of course, this is not always done. The Mozilla package is sadly rather monolithic, and openoffice.org-bin actually does consist of 130 MB or so of code!
When I try to download the packages, I am told that the certificate could not be validated with OSCP. Anyone else seeing this?
This is what the less package is for. Specifically lesspipe(1).
find -type f -exec lesspipe {} \; | grep whatever
All fair enough; two points though:
Firefox can encrypt your passwords with a master password; it's under Preferences, Advanced, Certificates, Manage Security Devices, Software Security Device, Change Password. Don't blame you for not finding it though, the advanced preferences UI really needs to be fixed before 1.0 is released. Although personally I'd just as soon see them (optionally!) remove it and integrate with the Gnome Keyring service instead.
I am unsure what a stock installation of Firefox can't do that IE can do though? Please, no jokes about getting one's machine cracked into quicker!
I don't use Totem because it is are free. I use it because it has no bullshit attached.
It seems like every DVD player for Windows is a complete pain in the arse to use. They all have shitty, skinnable interfaces that try to emulate 'real' DVD players, that more often than not compare unfavourably to *RealOne*, and that's saying something.
With Totem, I only have to go to Movie -> Play DVD. I can skip the crappy adverts and copyright warnings. Totem doesnt think it's special; it fits in to my desktop environment, looking like a normal movie player. It uses the same, standard gui that the rest of my desktop uses.
Not to mention the fact that, since Totem is Free software, it is available from my distribution's packaging system, a simple apt-get (or trip to the graphical package manager) away. I don't need to worry about provided packages being obsoleted by ABI changes in dependant libraries. I don't have run some dodgy (binary!) installer, or put up with it taking over all my media files and installing dozens of icons into my Applications menu, quick launch bar and desktop.
Totem is pretty much the perfect movie player.
No other program provides the features I have listed above. Why should I use an inferior alternative with a crap interface and poor desktop/system integration, that will force me to sit through the useless adverts and copyright notices on DVDs that I play?
> You are aware that there are DVD players for Linux
> that are all nice and legal, yet nobody buys them.
Probably beacuse they aren't as good as the competition.
You know, you *can* just click 'back', copy your email and paste it into a text file...
Marketing. WinFS sounds sexy. It will get the Windows geeks talking about the revolutionary never-before-seen features, and when the Windows geeks are lusting over the next version of Windows, they 'ain't convertin' to Linux.
It's the old bait and switch. Now that WinFS has served its purpose, it's being moved back to the _next_ version of Windows after Longhorn. But don't worry, Longhorn+1 will be the best version of Windows EVER! It has this revolutionary new filesystem, WinFS. It will also be faster, easier to use, more compatible and more secure! Why risk changing to another operating system when the next version of Windows will be everything you have ever wanted, AND MORE?
Not to mention Shen Mue and sequel! I'm sure lots of games have done this.