No waiting, no futzing around, no bitching, no pissing, no moaning.
Just tell us about the bugs so we can either patch the software, temporarily disable it, or replace it with a secure alternative.
The security of my computer is my responsibility, and i don't blame anybody else for it.
Thats one of the reasons i run an open source OS, with open source applications.
I don't want Red Hat, Microsoft or CERT to pat me on the head and tell me it will all be better in the morning. I want to know ther is a vulnerability so that i, personally, can take action against it.
would have to be Doom for the GBA, which i almost bought today (decided against the NZ$119 pricetag though)
Doom in the palm of your hand.. only problem is playing it in a darkened room for atmosphere, since the GBAs screen is so f*ckin shocking in low-light conditions.
Perhaps you should set the machine up as a batch-renderer using PRMan/BMRT to give your students a chance to play with the kind of system they will encounter in a large studio.
The more technical among them will enjoy playing with shader code, and the less technical will appreciate the fact they can simply submit their render while they get on with interactive tasks.
Asset management is another application that is often neglected in 'school', so maybe you could look at buying or building a web-based system to handle storing and indexing tutorials, documentation, thumbnailing textures and animations (i.e. clips are subitted to the system, automatically downscaled and compressed to MPEG4/DivX etc.) so your students can easily browse a large repository and fetch the items without hunting through disks and CD's wondering where those preview renders they did 3 months ago went.
This may be a mid-to-long-term project, but will certainly make that Ultra-60 useful as a server.
And you'll see exactly why Linux is useful for the Mac.
MacOS X is more-or-less unusable on this machine.
I know RAM is cheap these days, but my Rev. A iMac uses some god-awful half-size RAM SIMMs, which are expensive and hard to find.
I run Mandrake 8.0 on the iMac, and with KDE it seems pretty sluggish (starting apps, general performance), but WindowMaker is very usable and GNOME is faster too.
the ART RenderDrive (art-render.com) is a hardware raytracer which supports 3DS Max and (i think) Maya through plugins.
Given a simple enough scene (under a few hundred thousand polys) i believe this hardware could just about do 30fps raytracing.
Their PCI card claims a peak rate of 1.1 billion ray/triangle intersections per second, which should probably correspond to (given ~5 pixel triangles), around 220 million triangles per second.
divide that by 30, and you would think that this card could render a 7.3 million polygon scene in realtime.
This is a peak rate, so halve that. It also doesn't account for texturing etc., so halve it again. Take into account reflections, refractions, transparency etc. - each ray likely intersects more than one triangle, so halve it again.
However, it would appear, based on the manufacturers specs, that ART's PURE 3D accelerator card could handle raytracing a 900 thousand polygon scene at 30fps, which is 'realtime' as far as i am concerned.
This doesn't address the PCI bus bottleneck, so the card would probably choke moving scene description data to the card and image data off the card fast enough - so while it could theoretically render this many polys, it most likely can't handle the I/O requirements of realtime rendering.
It also doesn't address the performance bottleneck of getting your CPU to transform those 900,000 polygons.
Of course, realtime interactive raytracing is not what this product is designed for, as far as i can see, but the capability is there to put a chipset like the one used in this product behind some super-fast data path on an AGP bus and do realtime raytracing.
It would be expensive, but it would probably work.
.
Re:He he ... "fabulous work" he said ..
on
HDCP Break Proven
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, but thats exactly the attitude Microsoft has, and look how secure their products are:)
Re:Does it run on windows yet?
on
KDE 3.0 Screenshots
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There are several linux distros that will happily coexist with Windows - i.e. boot off a disk image stored on a Windows partition.
ZipSlack/BigSlack are good examples of this type of thing (http://www.slackware.org)
Just install KDE on one of those and you're good to go.
You might also look at VMWare, which will also achieve the same thing, but will let you run 'KDE-in-a-Window-on-your-Windows-Desktop'.
> Address space is allocated based on how many
> addresses you need. Routability of small
> allocations isn't some grand conspiracy; it's a
> decision resting with each network based on just
> how costly it is to maintain a copy of the global
> routing table.
I realise there are extremely good reasons for the adoption of CIDR and the reluctance to hand out small packets of IP space, and to some degree the problem is fundamental - how do you maintain independent centers of global awareness without duplicating the global table?
What i would really like to know is if there is a better way of handling global routing than BGP, especially with regard to maintaining redundant paths on the edge of the network.
The real question is, will we see IPv6 deployed on Internet2, and will the 'little guy' be able to participate in the core structure of the internet2 (i.e. be assigned routable IP space)?
The internet was supposedly designed to route around points of failure, however this is now only really true of the 'core' of
the internet - As it grows, it becomes less and less robust, since routable IPs are no longer available to people who need less than (or can't afford to pay for) a/19.
Without being able to advertise routes, you are at the mercy of your (neccesarily) sole inbound provider, and this is the way that most corporate and government interests would like it to stay.
What the Internet2 needs is a new routing protocol, or at least employ equipment with a decent capacity for route tables.
What is the point of IPv6 (more address space) if you can't route what you currently have without hacks like CIDR.
There is absolutely no point in assigning every device an IP address if the majority of those devices are not accessible directly, or cannot be accessed if failures further up the heirarchy cannot be routed around,. rendering them unreachable. It's just stupid.
Only with the provision to allow new players to 'compete' on equal technological footing with 'the big boys' will we see meaningful growth in internet technologies past the next 10 years or so.
Last time i checked, i used Linux because it makes a stable and high-performance network operating system.
Whether a bunch of grey-haired IT managers for big bad corporations even know about Linux is completely irrelevant to me, and i would say most of the Linux community who are actually using the software.
I suspect half the problem with adopting Linux is that it puts a lot of pressure on the IT department to perform. i.e.
With traditional proprietary systems, a perfectly valid excuse for not doing something would be 'It's too expensive'. With Linux, the only excuse you can give is 'We're completely clueless'. I bet this, more than anything else, scares the shit out of every Fortune 1000 IT department.
Also, this article states clearly that this was a survey of *spending* priority.
For an existing Windows shop, the cost of Windows licensing outstrips the cost of a single distro of Linux by an incredible amount. If you had 100 machines, and deployed Linux on 50% of those machines, Windows on the remaining 50% of them, (lets say that Windows XP Professional costs $US200 and Red Hat Linux costs $US50 - i don't know the actual figures), then 50% of your machines are covered by $50, and the remaining 50% cost $10,000.
I think you'd have to class the Windows XP as your 'Spending Priority', since the cost of purchasing Linux for half of your machines is negligible in comparison.
All i know is that, at least on my desktops and servers, Linux is here to stay.
I needed a linux distro to go on 4 486's with no CD-ROM, 12MB of RAM each and with around 300MB of HDD each. They just needed to run Apache behind a P-75 running IPVS - this was a test rig for a clustering setup.
My main server and desktop distros, Redhat and Mandrake wouldn't even think about installing on a machine with 16MB RAM, but Slackware fitted perfectly.
I could download a basic Slackware install in 100MB, install via NFS and it only took 3 floppies and an afternoon.
Slackware is a great example of an easy to install and elegant flavour of Linux for the user who knows what they want from a simple server appliance, it's worked flawlessly and seems very consistently and logically arranged.
I don't want to see Slackware disappear, it's one of the only 'mainstream' distros left that is really focussed on providing a 'no-frills' setup, which is often exactly what is needed.
Put 4 realtime MPEG-2 encoders hooked up to cameras in a machine and call that a node.
You will need 250 of these machines to take care of your 1000 camera requirement.
Each node will require a RAID array capable of about 6MB/s sustained write.
If a typical MPEG-2 stream is about 900KB/s, then youre looking at around 3 gigabytes an hour per camera. That works out to about 2TB per week per node.
You are probably best just to archive the drives, and replace them weekly, as backing them up to tape will be too slow.
2TB per node x 250 means 500TB of disk drive to be archived and swapped into RAID enclosures per week.
My math may be off - i just threw this together, but this will be a total logistical nightmare, no matter which way you look at it.
Lets say you can use IDE disks - 100GB for US$300. Thats 20 x 250 disks per week, which is $US 1.5 million per week.
Over a year, youre looking at $US 78 million in drives alone, though thte real figure might even be sub $US50 million if you consider the rate at which drive prices plummet.
i would guess $US6000 per node including cameras, so you'd be looking at $US 1.5 million in setup hardware.
Space to archive the disks and staff to shuffle the drives is not included.
All in all, it would be expensive, but you could do this for about a century for less than the cost of a B2 bomber.
I was simply responding to the previous posters claim that he could do his trivial web-suck with 'only' 900k of executable.
Your Amiga zealotry is amusing, but the idea that REBOL will be successful because it is the creation of one of the guys responsible for Amiga's success (we've seen a lot of that lately, haven't we) is about as valid as the idea that the BeOS would become wildly successful because it was the creation of one of the guys on the Apple Macintosh team, also one of the very best computer systems in history.
well, theres at least 800k of statically linked libraries right there.
Without libraries, if you wanted to change or upgrade your HTTP component, you'd have to d/l another 900k executable, instead of using something nifty like the CPAN module.
There really is nothing stopping somebody from compiling Perl, Python, Tcl or any other language and a bunch of it's essential libraries into a single 'executable' you could use to do exactly what the REBOL environment does.
Its just not usually done, because most people using these tools recognize the benefits of being able to dynamically load libraries as needed, and add/upgrade/modify/swap them individually.
This is not to say that REBOL doesn't do the job, since it obviously does for your purposes.
However, I, like many others, would have to take issue with the idea that YAHASL (Yet Another Half Assed Scripting Language) is going to 'revolutionize the internet' in the same way that Java has completely failed to do.
Yeah, but try using X where you actually *need* remote access, like over a 56k modem link or even 128k cable.
It's a pig.
TightVNC performs better in this case than ssh-compressed X-Windows, but the really sad thing is that Windows Terminal Server blows them all away.
The fastest Remote Access technology for the GUI desktop is currently only available on and for Windows, and the OS/GUI that supposedly was 'built around network transaprency' is sadly not even close to WTS in terms of performance.
If These guys make a new GUI that works as well as the BeOS does, with a remote client application that uses local copies of the BlueOS widgets in preference to the remote ones, then they will have something that, at least for me, would easily be better than X for both local and remote display purposes
Actually, using Windows Terminal Server is a bit of an eye-opener.
X-Windows is extremely sluggish compared to Windows Terminal Server. You can't do a lot with X over a 56k dialup link, even using ssh-compression or TightVNC, though a WTS session is quite usable.
Obviously, this is because client-side native widgets are used with WTS, keeping the network traffic to a minimum, but it strikes me that it couldn't be that hard to make X-Windows use a similar scenario.
i.e. If I am on a Linux machine, talking to another Linux machine, using UI libs that exist on both machines, why not have the server invoke the client UI libraries directly using some type of RPC, instead of using the uber-verbose X protocol?
Falling back to the X protocol would be good in the case of not having compatible libraries on both ends of the connection, but as Motif/GTK/Qt become available on Sun, Apple, Linux and other UNIX-like OSes, surely this approach becomes very viable?
There may be huge problems with this approach I haven't thought of, can anyone provide any insight into why this would be unviable?
I'm not even going to try installing this thing because i know its going to require about 50 supporting libraries to be downloaded just to get it to run.
'An adminstrator doesn't need to understand the problem in order to fix it'
This is pure bullshit. It is *extremely* important to understand how these worms and viruses work in order to respond effectively to such threats.
If I, as a programmer, was writing a web application in C that could potentially be remotely exploited via buffer overflow, such information is *absolutely fucking critical* to me, so that i can write safe code.
M$ seem to suffer from the delusion that they are the only people in the world actually writing computer programs.
This unbelievable arrogance is getting pretty tired, and i imagine that we'll be seeing some pretty big anti-M$ stances being taken by previously devout believers in the near future.
If you can't put up, M$, then for christs sake shut up.
The US can say anything they like - call these guys terrorists, baby-killers, cannibalistic monkeys, whatever.
In fact, it's in their interest to whip up national fervour and spread anti-Muslim/Afghani/Arab propaganda, and these have been proven to be effective weapons of war for a very long time. The biggest enemy the US has is it's own people, and the longer everyone stays glued to CNN and forgets about anything else but what theyre told by that smily reporter, the better.
If US special forces hijacked a plane and flew it into the side of a building to prevent a rogue state's global plot to usurp the power of the legitimate governments of the world, not only woul d people love it at the cinema, but it would be hailed as an act of patriotic bravery beyond compare.
Basically, the US Government is full of corrupt, arrogant hypocrites who have no qualms about lying, stealing and killing on a massive scale if it suits their (primarily financial and economic) interests. Just like all the other governments of all the other countries around the world.
The difference here is that the US is currently the biggest, and most arrogant government on the planet, which they feel gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name on of a 'War on (Insert vague and unspecific target here)'
This is not necessarily good or bad, and really depends on where you sit, politically and geographically.
However, mistaking the 'War on Terrorism' as anything but an attempt to ensure US control of the oil pipeline that will run between the Chechen oil fields and the Persian Gulf would probably be a mistake.
You can't have inbound failover, the political structure of the those in control of the internet have deemed that you, as a small player, should not have the ability to do this.
Theoretically, you could obtain a/18 or/19 block of routable IPs from InterNIC (or whatever they are called these days, or in your part of the world), and arrange to BGP peer with several local ISPs, which would give you exactly what you want.
However, if you think you will actually be able to successfully do this, without licking ass, emptying your wallet and generally getting fucked around by all and sundry, forget it.
The 'routable' internet is pretty much closed to new players, might as well get used to being 'just another host'
They don't like what a piece of code does, so they ban it.
I can't believe people are supporting moves to dictate what you are or are not allowed to express in a piece of code.
This functionality is, i'm sure, in the W3C standard for Javascript, so criminilizing this is pretty stupid.
Now, if your browser is engineered so poorly that it allows you no control over this behaviour - i.e. a site author is free to mess up your web browsing experience, shouldn't you ask the manufacturer of that browser to do something about it?
Don't restrict this guy from publishing anything he wants to on the web. The control over whether to view that content should be in the user's hands.
I know that M$ etc. would love to turn the web into a heavily regulated, TV-like environment where most content is approved and published by a few mega-corps, with government regulations on what is or is not acceptable, but that idea makes me sick to the stomach.
i mean, how hard would it be to have a preference setting for 'ask me before allowing javascript to open a new window'? Give the user a choice, don't make it a crime to write this type of application (for which there are many perfectly legitimate uses)
Making rules for what types of applications you may or may not publish on the web is surely a free speech issue.
'Sorry, window.open() is now a federal crime.' doesn't cut it with me.
The problem is with the tools that web browsers expose to site developers. The site developers should be free to put any tags they like up on the web.
This is why web browsers are free to ignore markup they do not support.
Sweet, now they won't even have to kill anybody to stop them blabbing about the fact the entire mission has been manufactured in a film studio out in Area 51:)
Slashdot Mirror
a browser that blocks this stuff will be ruled as using an illegal circumvention method to modify copyrighted content?
No waiting, no futzing around, no bitching, no pissing, no moaning.
Just tell us about the bugs so we can either patch the software, temporarily disable it, or replace it with a secure alternative.
The security of my computer is my responsibility, and i don't blame anybody else for it.
Thats one of the reasons i run an open source OS, with open source applications.
I don't want Red Hat, Microsoft or CERT to pat me on the head and tell me it will all be better in the morning. I want to know ther is a vulnerability so that i, personally, can take action against it.
would have to be Doom for the GBA, which i almost bought today (decided against the NZ$119 pricetag though)
Doom in the palm of your hand.. only problem is playing it in a darkened room for atmosphere, since the GBAs screen is so f*ckin shocking in low-light conditions.
Perhaps you should set the machine up as a batch-renderer using PRMan/BMRT to give your students a chance to play with the kind of system they will encounter in a large studio.
The more technical among them will enjoy playing with shader code, and the less technical will appreciate the fact they can simply submit their render while they get on with interactive tasks.
Asset management is another application that is often neglected in 'school', so maybe you could look at buying or building a web-based system to handle storing and indexing tutorials, documentation, thumbnailing textures and animations (i.e. clips are subitted to the system, automatically downscaled and compressed to MPEG4/DivX etc.) so your students can easily browse a large repository and fetch the items without hunting through disks and CD's wondering where those preview renders they did 3 months ago went.
This may be a mid-to-long-term project, but will certainly make that Ultra-60 useful as a server.
And you'll see exactly why Linux is useful for the Mac.
MacOS X is more-or-less unusable on this machine.
I know RAM is cheap these days, but my Rev. A iMac uses some god-awful half-size RAM SIMMs, which are expensive and hard to find.
I run Mandrake 8.0 on the iMac, and with KDE it seems pretty sluggish (starting apps, general performance), but WindowMaker is very usable and GNOME is faster too.
the ART RenderDrive (art-render.com) is a hardware raytracer which supports 3DS Max and (i think) Maya through plugins.
Given a simple enough scene (under a few hundred thousand polys) i believe this hardware could just about do 30fps raytracing.
Their PCI card claims a peak rate of 1.1 billion ray/triangle intersections per second, which should probably correspond to (given ~5 pixel triangles), around 220 million triangles per second.
divide that by 30, and you would think that this card could render a 7.3 million polygon scene in realtime.
This is a peak rate, so halve that. It also doesn't account for texturing etc., so halve it again. Take into account reflections, refractions, transparency etc. - each ray likely intersects more than one triangle, so halve it again.
However, it would appear, based on the manufacturers specs, that ART's PURE 3D accelerator card could handle raytracing a 900 thousand polygon scene at 30fps, which is 'realtime' as far as i am concerned.
This doesn't address the PCI bus bottleneck, so the card would probably choke moving scene description data to the card and image data off the card fast enough - so while it could theoretically render this many polys, it most likely can't handle the I/O requirements of realtime rendering.
It also doesn't address the performance bottleneck of getting your CPU to transform those 900,000 polygons.
Of course, realtime interactive raytracing is not what this product is designed for, as far as i can see, but the capability is there to put a chipset like the one used in this product behind some super-fast data path on an AGP bus and do realtime raytracing.
It would be expensive, but it would probably work.
.
Yeah, but thats exactly the attitude Microsoft has, and look how secure their products are :)
There are several linux distros that will happily coexist with Windows - i.e. boot off a disk image stored on a Windows partition.
ZipSlack/BigSlack are good examples of this type of thing (http://www.slackware.org)
Just install KDE on one of those and you're good to go.
You might also look at VMWare, which will also achieve the same thing, but will let you run 'KDE-in-a-Window-on-your-Windows-Desktop'.
I think VMWare Express is about $49US.
Hope that helps
> Address space is allocated based on how many
> addresses you need. Routability of small
> allocations isn't some grand conspiracy; it's a
> decision resting with each network based on just
> how costly it is to maintain a copy of the global
> routing table.
I realise there are extremely good reasons for the adoption of CIDR and the reluctance to hand out small packets of IP space, and to some degree the problem is fundamental - how do you maintain independent centers of global awareness without duplicating the global table?
What i would really like to know is if there is a better way of handling global routing than BGP, especially with regard to maintaining redundant paths on the edge of the network.
The real question is, will we see IPv6 deployed on Internet2, and will the 'little guy' be able to participate in the core structure of the internet2 (i.e. be assigned routable IP space)?
/19.
The internet was supposedly designed to route around points of failure, however this is now only really true of the 'core' of
the internet - As it grows, it becomes less and less robust, since routable IPs are no longer available to people who need less than (or can't afford to pay for) a
Without being able to advertise routes, you are at the mercy of your (neccesarily) sole inbound provider, and this is the way that most corporate and government interests would like it to stay.
What the Internet2 needs is a new routing protocol, or at least employ equipment with a decent capacity for route tables.
What is the point of IPv6 (more address space) if you can't route what you currently have without hacks like CIDR.
There is absolutely no point in assigning every device an IP address if the majority of those devices are not accessible directly, or cannot be accessed if failures further up the heirarchy cannot be routed around,. rendering them unreachable. It's just stupid.
Only with the provision to allow new players to 'compete' on equal technological footing with 'the big boys' will we see meaningful growth in internet technologies past the next 10 years or so.
Last time i checked, i used Linux because it makes a stable and high-performance network operating system.
Whether a bunch of grey-haired IT managers for big bad corporations even know about Linux is completely irrelevant to me, and i would say most of the Linux community who are actually using the software.
I suspect half the problem with adopting Linux is that it puts a lot of pressure on the IT department to perform. i.e.
With traditional proprietary systems, a perfectly valid excuse for not doing something would be 'It's too expensive'. With Linux, the only excuse you can give is 'We're completely clueless'. I bet this, more than anything else, scares the shit out of every Fortune 1000 IT department.
Also, this article states clearly that this was a survey of *spending* priority.
For an existing Windows shop, the cost of Windows licensing outstrips the cost of a single distro of Linux by an incredible amount. If you had 100 machines, and deployed Linux on 50% of those machines, Windows on the remaining 50% of them, (lets say that Windows XP Professional costs $US200 and Red Hat Linux costs $US50 - i don't know the actual figures), then 50% of your machines are covered by $50, and the remaining 50% cost $10,000.
I think you'd have to class the Windows XP as your 'Spending Priority', since the cost of purchasing Linux for half of your machines is negligible in comparison.
All i know is that, at least on my desktops and servers, Linux is here to stay.
for older machines.
I needed a linux distro to go on 4 486's with no CD-ROM, 12MB of RAM each and with around 300MB of HDD each. They just needed to run Apache behind a P-75 running IPVS - this was a test rig for a clustering setup.
My main server and desktop distros, Redhat and Mandrake wouldn't even think about installing on a machine with 16MB RAM, but Slackware fitted perfectly.
I could download a basic Slackware install in 100MB, install via NFS and it only took 3 floppies and an afternoon.
Slackware is a great example of an easy to install and elegant flavour of Linux for the user who knows what they want from a simple server appliance, it's worked flawlessly and seems very consistently and logically arranged.
I don't want to see Slackware disappear, it's one of the only 'mainstream' distros left that is really focussed on providing a 'no-frills' setup, which is often exactly what is needed.
Put 4 realtime MPEG-2 encoders hooked up to cameras in a machine and call that a node.
You will need 250 of these machines to take care of your 1000 camera requirement.
Each node will require a RAID array capable of about 6MB/s sustained write.
If a typical MPEG-2 stream is about 900KB/s, then youre looking at around 3 gigabytes an hour per camera. That works out to about 2TB per week per node.
You are probably best just to archive the drives, and replace them weekly, as backing them up to tape will be too slow.
2TB per node x 250 means 500TB of disk drive to be archived and swapped into RAID enclosures per week.
My math may be off - i just threw this together, but this will be a total logistical nightmare, no matter which way you look at it.
Lets say you can use IDE disks - 100GB for US$300. Thats 20 x 250 disks per week, which is $US 1.5 million per week.
Over a year, youre looking at $US 78 million in drives alone, though thte real figure might even be sub $US50 million if you consider the rate at which drive prices plummet.
i would guess $US6000 per node including cameras, so you'd be looking at $US 1.5 million in setup hardware.
Space to archive the disks and staff to shuffle the drives is not included.
All in all, it would be expensive, but you could do this for about a century for less than the cost of a B2 bomber.
I was simply responding to the previous posters claim that he could do his trivial web-suck with 'only' 900k of executable.
Your Amiga zealotry is amusing, but the idea that REBOL will be successful because it is the creation of one of the guys responsible for Amiga's success (we've seen a lot of that lately, haven't we) is about as valid as the idea that the BeOS would become wildly successful because it was the creation of one of the guys on the Apple Macintosh team, also one of the very best computer systems in history.
well, theres at least 800k of statically linked libraries right there.
Without libraries, if you wanted to change or upgrade your HTTP component, you'd have to d/l another 900k executable, instead of using something nifty like the CPAN module.
There really is nothing stopping somebody from compiling Perl, Python, Tcl or any other language and a bunch of it's essential libraries into a single 'executable' you could use to do exactly what the REBOL environment does.
Its just not usually done, because most people using these tools recognize the benefits of being able to dynamically load libraries as needed, and add/upgrade/modify/swap them individually.
This is not to say that REBOL doesn't do the job, since it obviously does for your purposes.
However, I, like many others, would have to take issue with the idea that YAHASL (Yet Another Half Assed Scripting Language) is going to 'revolutionize the internet' in the same way that Java has completely failed to do.
Yeah, but try using X where you actually *need* remote access, like over a 56k modem link or even 128k cable.
It's a pig.
TightVNC performs better in this case than ssh-compressed X-Windows, but the really sad thing is that Windows Terminal Server blows them all away.
The fastest Remote Access technology for the GUI desktop is currently only available on and for Windows, and the OS/GUI that supposedly was 'built around network transaprency' is sadly not even close to WTS in terms of performance.
If These guys make a new GUI that works as well as the BeOS does, with a remote client application that uses local copies of the BlueOS widgets in preference to the remote ones, then they will have something that, at least for me, would easily be better than X for both local and remote display purposes
Then we'll see some complaining.
IE doesn't even have the ability to change it's user-agent.
Actually, using Windows Terminal Server is a bit of an eye-opener.
X-Windows is extremely sluggish compared to Windows Terminal Server. You can't do a lot with X over a 56k dialup link, even using ssh-compression or TightVNC, though a WTS session is quite usable.
Obviously, this is because client-side native widgets are used with WTS, keeping the network traffic to a minimum, but it strikes me that it couldn't be that hard to make X-Windows use a similar scenario.
i.e. If I am on a Linux machine, talking to another Linux machine, using UI libs that exist on both machines, why not have the server invoke the client UI libraries directly using some type of RPC, instead of using the uber-verbose X protocol?
Falling back to the X protocol would be good in the case of not having compatible libraries on both ends of the connection, but as Motif/GTK/Qt become available on Sun, Apple, Linux and other UNIX-like OSes, surely this approach becomes very viable?
There may be huge problems with this approach I haven't thought of, can anyone provide any insight into why this would be unviable?
I'm not even going to try installing this thing because i know its going to require about 50 supporting libraries to be downloaded just to get it to run.
'An adminstrator doesn't need to understand the problem in order to fix it'
This is pure bullshit. It is *extremely* important to understand how these worms and viruses work in order to respond effectively to such threats.
If I, as a programmer, was writing a web application in C that could potentially be remotely exploited via buffer overflow, such information is *absolutely fucking critical* to me, so that i can write safe code.
M$ seem to suffer from the delusion that they are the only people in the world actually writing computer programs.
This unbelievable arrogance is getting pretty tired, and i imagine that we'll be seeing some pretty big anti-M$ stances being taken by previously devout believers in the near future.
If you can't put up, M$, then for christs sake shut up.
It's only 'terrorism' if you lose the 'war'.
The US can say anything they like - call these guys terrorists, baby-killers, cannibalistic monkeys, whatever.
In fact, it's in their interest to whip up national fervour and spread anti-Muslim/Afghani/Arab propaganda, and these have been proven to be effective weapons of war for a very long time. The biggest enemy the US has is it's own people, and the longer everyone stays glued to CNN and forgets about anything else but what theyre told by that smily reporter, the better.
If US special forces hijacked a plane and flew it into the side of a building to prevent a rogue state's global plot to usurp the power of the legitimate governments of the world, not only woul d people love it at the cinema, but it would be hailed as an act of patriotic bravery beyond compare.
Basically, the US Government is full of corrupt, arrogant hypocrites who have no qualms about lying, stealing and killing on a massive scale if it suits their (primarily financial and economic) interests. Just like all the other governments of all the other countries around the world.
The difference here is that the US is currently the biggest, and most arrogant government on the planet, which they feel gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in the name on of a 'War on (Insert vague and unspecific target here)'
This is not necessarily good or bad, and really depends on where you sit, politically and geographically.
However, mistaking the 'War on Terrorism' as anything but an attempt to ensure US control of the oil pipeline that will run between the Chechen oil fields and the Persian Gulf would probably be a mistake.
You can't have inbound failover, the political structure of the those in control of the internet have deemed that you, as a small player, should not have the ability to do this.
/18 or /19 block of routable IPs from InterNIC (or whatever they are called these days, or in your part of the world), and arrange to BGP peer with several local ISPs, which would give you exactly what you want.
Theoretically, you could obtain a
However, if you think you will actually be able to successfully do this, without licking ass, emptying your wallet and generally getting fucked around by all and sundry, forget it.
The 'routable' internet is pretty much closed to new players, might as well get used to being 'just another host'
Which tools are these that don't either rely on pipes, sockets on daemons or aren't simply pipes, sockets or daemons called something else?
They don't like what a piece of code does, so they ban it.
I can't believe people are supporting moves to dictate what you are or are not allowed to express in a piece of code.
This functionality is, i'm sure, in the W3C standard for Javascript, so criminilizing this is pretty stupid.
Now, if your browser is engineered so poorly that it allows you no control over this behaviour - i.e. a site author is free to mess up your web browsing experience, shouldn't you ask the manufacturer of that browser to do something about it?
Don't restrict this guy from publishing anything he wants to on the web. The control over whether to view that content should be in the user's hands.
I know that M$ etc. would love to turn the web into a heavily regulated, TV-like environment where most content is approved and published by a few mega-corps, with government regulations on what is or is not acceptable, but that idea makes me sick to the stomach.
i mean, how hard would it be to have a preference setting for 'ask me before allowing javascript to open a new window'? Give the user a choice, don't make it a crime to write this type of application (for which there are many perfectly legitimate uses)
Making rules for what types of applications you may or may not publish on the web is surely a free speech issue.
'Sorry, window.open() is now a federal crime.' doesn't cut it with me.
The problem is with the tools that web browsers expose to site developers. The site developers should be free to put any tags they like up on the web.
This is why web browsers are free to ignore markup they do not support.
Sweet, now they won't even have to kill anybody to stop them blabbing about the fact the entire mission has been manufactured in a film studio out in Area 51 :)