And the original UNIX "design specifications" didn't become UNIX. Just like the original HTML "design specifications" didn't become HTML. They are both great examples of REALLY BAD specifications.
UNIX's engineers had a plan- not a complete one, and some might say not even a good one, but it was flexible enough to encourage it's use. Through using it, problems were found, and features added (e.g. the sticky bit) but the "original UNIX" is absolutely nothing like the unix we use today, just as the original UNIX "design specifications" didn't match the first most useful UNIXes, it doesn't match them today either.
What people fail to understand is that we call things like POSIX a spec, so of course we're talking about the same thing. POSIX is not the kind of "bad specification" because what it does is specify how things are presently being done, and not how they ought to be done in the future.
In the few cases where POSIX _did_ try and get their grubby little hands into something not yet formalized (socklen_t anyone?), it was met with brutal resistance and real world problems (which is why socklen_t == int _everywhere_).
HTML is another fantastic example. Amya was the HTML _specification_, and nobody liked it or used it. It was and still is the most glaring example of how not to write a web browser. It was, of course, written entirely to specification, but could never view even a reasonably common web page. Modern HTML "specifications" are an examination on what worked, and in the few cases they've attempted to codify things that nobody's using yet and have been met with real-world problems and complete lack of implementation.
SOAP is of course, everyone's favorite example because the idea is so simple. It's not like POSIX (an operating system) or HTML (a mobile application transport), but it's doing one very simple thing: value marshalling.
They even did a wise thing by letting XML specify how things get transformed into containers- and of course, by using XML many people saw a few SOAP exchances and said "well this looks easy" so partial implementations for SOAP are everywhere.
But SOAP isn't easy. It does a lot of things that most SOAP implementations simply don't do (exception handling? session routing?) - SOAP is a big complicated specification, and there are an extremely few number of real world complete implementations. The end result is that most people use the lowest common denominator, or MS-SOAP (or someone else's targetted implementation).
The end result is that specifications have never improved interoperability by themselves, the best specifications are the ones that describe something already done, and the worst specifications are the ones that describe something that hasn't been done yet.
The reality is incredible: Specifications suck. I make roadmaps and keep notes, and do a large amount of unit testing, but NEVER do I write a specification for anything that I didn't already finish.
The license is an agreement. If you don't like the terms, don't accept the license.
Use the software if you like because you already purchased it.
If you don't accept the license, you simply cannot gain new rights from it- such as the rights to redistribute the software. Your rights to use it, or even modify it (or even redistribute the modifications themselves!) cannot be taken away by such a license.
Furthermore, indemnification cannot be waived as easy as many of these software publishers would have liked.
No-cost software is probably safe- even in the wake of so-called lemon laws because any percentage or multiple of zero will still be zero.
But if you spend money on something, whether it be a computer or software for the computer, and the people who sold it to you misrepresented it (Our solution is secure, this is a power supply, etc) no amount of "agreeing to" these "licenses" will help them.
I got data recovery out of [popular hardware integrator] because of a failed hard drive. I also got a refund and then some out of [popular software developer] because of frequent crashes.
It seems like some big dirty trick has been played- convincing people they don't "buy software"- like its some kind of service that can only be leased-by-definition (even if it's something that can be stolen). It's horrible because people actually believe it. People honestly believe that there's some "license they agreed to" that makes them give up their rights.
They know. Their lawyers know. The only people who don't know are the users. That's why crackpots write about the evils of licenses when they SHOULD be writing about the stupidity of them.
Know your rights, and if you want to do something that you don't otherwise have the rights to do (redistribute, for example) then read any licenses that are included. They might tell you what you need to do to get that right.
It's clear from the phrasing that you have no idea what system security actually is, so instead of asking how do you market it, and how do you talk to people about it, it'd probably be a good idea to understand it yourself.
Here are some hints:
* Real security professionals don't "test anyone's firewall." * Real security professionals don't "discover" holes. They prove them.
It sounds like what you really want to know is "how do I go about charging people for my script collection?" which is a shameful thing indeed.
You are the reason business is booming for me, so while I despise everything you are, I will also offer you advise:
Learn how to build a secure system. Sell that. Sell the solution for customers that is a secure system. Don't offer to tell them what's wrong, but tell them what's right.
The IT dept should know not to trust "Snake Oil Corp.", however anything from "Citrix Corp" should be fairly safe.
No shit. The problem never was that, but wheter "1024D/40558AC9" should be trusted, or perhaps if "1024D/8E297990" is more trustworthy.
I can label my key with "Citrix Corp" if I like, and I might even be able to convince Verisign to sign it as these guys did.
Code Signing was never intended for [guaranteeing code is safe].
But users don't know that. They're being duped into thinking that if only the path between the software developer and the user weren't so muddy, there wouldn't be any viruses or spyware or adware or whatnot.
Nevertheless, that path is the one attacked less frequently, but it is instead the software that Microsoft got to you completely intact that is the software you cannot trust.
'It is like saying host based IDs or anti-virus are useless, because if you can compromise the system you can turn them off.'
That's exactly why they are useless. You don't do scanning on a machine that you fear might be compromised. You do it from a machine that you know isn't, but that still has access to the other machine's frozen state.
RMS never suggests that you refer to the kernel of many Red Hat, SuSE, Digital, HP or IBM systems as GNU/anything.
RMS also doesn't say GNU the organization or brand "/Linux" but GNU the _operating system_ "/Linux"
Consider that GNU the _operating system_ makes up 90% of the things users interact with on every core Linux server, desktop, and workstation.
Therefore, GNU is the critical component. Why do people say "I use Linux" then when people really mean "I use GNU?" - after all, it's the critical component- the largest batch of code, the most used, the most interacted with, the oldest, and the most needed, and by any other definition, still, the most "critical component".
i successfully logged in using my gmail.com account and sent an IM to another gmail.com user- i had to type their "gmail" email address in the send IM function of gaim, but it otherwise appears to work just fine.
... a license agreement is essentially a contract, right?
Wrong. In the US, you can only rescind rights through signed contract. A "license agreement" doesn't have the power to take away rights for you see, books, movies, and software are all sold, no matter what Cisco or Microsoft or the MPAA would like to have you believe- their "license agreements" simply cannot revoke rights.
What a license agreement can do is provide you special rights that you may invoke. Nobody has to sign anything because if you "violate the license" you're simply held by-alternative in the superior laws- generally those of copyright violation and whatnot.
You still have the right to decompile software and even make copies for various fair-use purposes. You can even make changes and distribute those changes.
They cannot take this away unless you sign something. You buy it, you get all the rights associated with that sale.
They say they only "licensed it to you" but that's another big lie. You didn't sign a contract: no contract means they have none of your rights in which to withold.
Right now: if the tracker _or_ the seeds go down then torrent doesn't work. The changes remove a redundant step and do NOT add any additional privacy.
The new.torrent files contain simply discovery about the seeds instead of about a tracker. The new clients share tracking information.
This means the MPAA actually has it easier: they don't have to "take" the tracker, they connect to a torrent like any other downloader and collect all of the addresses of all of the downloaders (as they would be operating as a tracker as well).
And for the record, I would never be caught dead downloading Slackware ISOs as I don't have time to waste. Ubuntu's tracker (on the other hand) went down two days ago.
If you'll understand why Free Software advocates don't consider it a gift, you'll understand why there's so much hesitation and mistrust.
I believe SUN _truly_ believes as you do: That they're doing the world a favor. That SUN is doing the virtuous thing with SUN JAVA.
However, I would hope that someone at SUN- and others like yourself- would notice that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's a motivation behind all this mistrust, and a reason why Free Software advocates feel threatened by SUN JAVA.
And while we're making wishes here, maybe they could find out what that reason is, and do something to address it besides cramming their heads through their sphincters and calling people who reason ASSHOLES.
Here's a fantastic reason to avoid SUN's Java: 10 years from now, your program might be worthless. It won't run on modern systems, and you will have the choice of rewriting it from scratch, or performing the effort SUN went through to MAKE Java, just to get your software to work.
Because SUN JAVA isn't Free Software, people who write code for the SUN JAVA PLATFORM are giving an enormous amount of trust to SUN that they will make Java 1.5 (or whatever version they target) run until the end of time. Or at least, until the user of the applications' choosing.
SUN will make a decision (as they always have) that some point exists where SUN JAVA 1.5 will no longer be supported. At that point, if you use an application that runs on SUN JAVA 1.5, you either have to ask your vendor to update it for you, or you're SOL. That vendor might've gone bankrupt, and have no other say in the matter.
Yes, this is indeed an awful lot of trust to be vesting in SUN, so it's no surprise there are a number of people who have worries as to whether or not SUN can be trusted with their OpenOffice documents: I personally enjoy looking at documents I wrote 10 years ago, and I suspect I'll enjoy doing it 10 years from now.
I think at the point SUN is at right now, it might be easier for them to change their behavior so that I can use their software. Surely they want me to use their software, and so I lobby them.
If they don't want me to use their software, then they should say it- like Microsoft has time and again. But if they really want to make Free Software, than we'll keep telling them what they're doing wrong...... until they do it right.
hackiis6 is a bunch of cheats!
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Firstly, even if they weren't, is WindowsITPro/Microsoft actually saying that the entire security of IIS is equal to the cost [to them] of an Xbox?
Seriously, that machine ain't running no IIS6. That's a proxy server that's poorly configured (no HTTP/1.0 support).
The machine behind it claims to be running IIS6, but it's header output format is all wrong.
It's possible that the output file (claiming to be default.htm) was really ASP/custom ISAPI filter/or CGI, and emitted those headers manually, but then, it'd still be suspicious that that p0f thinks it's running an IP stack very similar to Linux 2.4, but it gets the Win2003 Server I'm aware of just fine...
It's trivial to make a hackfree static website. Anyone who says I'm a liar doesn't know what they're talking about.
Let's try a real game. How about they put a _stock_ IIS6 machine up, actually running Windows, and see how long it lasts.
Mature UI's that have had to muster the "real world" of being tested against users take this into account.
I don't think you understand that THE/Archy has been tested with real people. It's the result of quantitative decisions about real work, not about baseless arguments.
some users want to do things differently than other users.
This is ridiculous. Users do things "differently" (in this sense) because current interfaces aren't universally good. If they were, then they wouldn't. Arguing this is futile.
What is helful to argue is whether or not THE/Archy is a universally good interface. I'd say, "not yet", but then even the authors of Archy believe that.
A UI must take into account these different preferences.
Let me guess, you also think productivity went up when Microsoft started offering a candy coated shell for their users...
So let me get this straight: it requires special hardware to navigate properly and fails to follow conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, and you're telling me that I am the one that doesn't get it?
Close! It encourages special hardware (the way Windows encourages a keyboard with a Windows key, or Emacs encourages a keyboard with separate Super, Meta, and Hyper keys), and reexamines the foolishness of various conventions.
I'm certain many of the people working on the STAR project heard this before- about not following conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, but right now, you're glad they examined, experimented, and improved upon the working environment DESPITE the fact that it is remarkably different than the "accepted" interfaces of the day because your modern WIMP interfaces are the direct result of that research.
Which pretty much leaves the "you don't get it" part, and I'd say that's still right-on.
Sweet, I'm going to have to boot into windows when I get windows when I get home to try this out again. I have been following this project from the sidelines for a while now ever since I read his book, and have to admit to being a little giddy about seeing it actually getting somewhere.
You don't have to! It runs fine on Linux right now. Go download the source and run it. Just have pygame and a couple other python extensions installed and it works fine.
Imagine a text console running a program that is a cross between EMACS and VI (at the same time). It's wide, flat, hard to use, cryptic, etc...
I find VI very easy to use, and I know folks who say EMACS is very easy to use. I think you mean it's not approachable, instead of "not easy to use."
Notepad is very approachable, but it's certainly not easy to use. A better way for you to look at this is think: how productive can people be?
Archy promises to combine the things that I think make me most productive in VI, and some of the things from EMACS that I think could make me more productive (some of which are showing up in VIM all the time), and at the same time, help me be more productive still, by blurring the concept of data and documents.
Ugh, it feels like something that came out of 1970's mainframe computer science.
I think you're painfully confused. What you're using now on your computer is something that came out of 1970's mainframe computer science.
Archy is what comes out of 30 years of reflecting on how bad of an idea that was.
The whole reason you have separate applications is because different kinds of data work in different ways. There's no way that you would want the same interface to an MP3 player as you would to a photo editor or tax preparation software.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The reason you have separate applications is because different people work on them. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with presentation.
The reason tax preparation software and photo editors have different interfaces is because they represent different concepts. Archy is an interface for text processing, and there's nothing about it that says that the Photoshop-killer for Archy will be written in LOGO.
Also, the demo screenshots are all of small documents. There's nothing that shows how you manipulate huge documents. How do you get to page 500 if there are no scroll bars or even page up/down keys? Do I zoom out until the document is just a vertical line and zoom back in on where I think page 500 is?
How do you presently do it? Are you telling me you know you need to get to page 500 without knowing anything that's on page 500, what it might be about, and without any reference near what you're looking at to indicate it?
The LEAP-system means if you know what's there, you can get to it. There's no reason THE/Archy has to preclude hyperlink-style references, and even without them, a table of contents or even a reasonable citation can be enough to use LEAP.
What's with all these commands I have to know? The typing is cumbersome and there's no way to figure out what commands are available. The great thing about a good GUI is that all options are discoverable. Right now it reminds me of DOS versions of AutoCAD, only with Python as its programming langauge instead of LISP.
This isn't true at all. Even presently, in Archy, all the commands are in the commands document. They're all discoverable.
Now don't get me wrong here -- combining document types has been a sort of holy grail for ages -- but if it was that easy, somebody would have done it before. How do you handle expanding a spreadsheet in the middle of your text document?
By not aggregating data-types into documents. Yes, it really is that easy. If you need a table-layout for statistical information, go ahead and insert one. There's no reason at all you have to think in terms of "document embedding".
And as for this LEAP thing, it definitely looks like a viable idea -- and there are similar implementations like in Plan 9 -- but I think that eye-tracking interfaces will become common-place before LEAP does.
I don't think you have any idea how LEAP works. Plan9 most certainly does NOT have anything like it. With Plan9 everything is an interactive hyperlink, so you press the right-mouse button to bounce between documents frequently.
LEAP is much more like the new Mozilla type-ahead-find in that, you hold a key, and start typing and the cursor jumps to the next position having your text. VIM can do this right now if you press the forward-slash in command mode.
I can't get Windows to do these things without writing programs to a poorly-published API.
1. Alt-drag for moving windows (middle or right-drag from border) 2. Double-click opens new copy instead of existing window- this is just wrong. God why would I want two copies of Visual Studio open? 3. No button to reach window-list (os/2 ctrl-esc) - that Task Manager bastard doesn't count. 4. Stop programs from stealing focus (put a delay between popup and autofocus- say, 250msec) 5. Nobody selects "blocks" in the command prompt. Give us xterm-style line selects 6. If Win,R brings up the run-prompt, and I run Remote desktop Administrator, then Win,R should still bring up the run-prompt. Number "recent applications" instead. 7. Put site-icons on toolbars and in the window list. Scarring them is okay, but everyone uses them now, so let's tell our little blue-e's apart. 8. Let me drag with the right-mouse button without pretending I'm a lefty. 9. Those damned bubbles popping off the notification area should go away if I ignore them long enough. If I click the "X" on them, and they're informational, they should never come back. 10. Let me unplug things like pcmcia cards and usb dongles without getting yelled at _OR_ make the "unplug/eject" button bigger. Much bigger. 64x64 minimum, my hands shake and my eyes are bad.
I dare someone to tell me all of these things are possible if I download some untrustworthy software- if I had a Windows machine, I would never put anything on it except officially sanctioned software- just as on my FC3 machine, I don't install anything except from the Fedora software catalogs.
UI Research is a pain in the ass in Java or C#. It's a pain in the ass in any language that makes you work to reinvent.
I perform UI experiments largely with pygame, or perl-SDL. It gives me a chance to rapidly try out USER interface changes as I don't have to worry about whether or not delegation is "easy enough" to facilitate the change.
With Java and C# (or C++ for that matter) you've got an awful lot of work building classes and inheritance and if experimentation demonstrates a particular (unexpected!) trend, you've got an awful lot of work ahead of you to refactor and rework existing paths to make the new paths possible.
We use NTBACKUP and mtftar with great success. With a SYSPREPP'd install disk, restoring a kaput Windows machine takes about 20-30 minutes. With mtftar, we can cherry-pick files without booting a windows machine.
NTBACKUP can create ".bkf" files that surely, aren't as fast to create as shadow-volumes, and incrementals aren't useful for large files (like rsync), but they have advantage is that they can be stored on a remote machine on the cheap!
It's a great deal of fun, and believe it or not, it won't bore them. Adults fear engineers (especially software engineers) because they think what they're doing is something that they cannot do.
As a result, they actively ignore your attempts to educate them. They think it's just out of reach and would rather appear rude and bored than stupid.
Of course, kids don't know this yet. They're fully willing. They most certainly will understand graphs, functions, tries, and so on. They'll understand it because [as we know] it's not hard, and they're not yet programmed to avoid it.
Show them LOGO; Show them C; Show them the inside of what they think a computer is, then smash open the hard drive and toss the platters around.
They'll love it.
Show them what it means to hack, and how much enjoyment it can bring. Show them your adhoc EIDE hotplug system (so they can try it at home) - show them anything you can. They most certainly will follow.
I must say, there's nothing quite like a third-grader asking why we "don't just all use assymetric cryptography all the time", or how the world let Ben Franklen get away with messing up the plus-minus on battery schematics.
The teachers monitoring you will roll their eyes, but the kids _will_ get it.
Slashdot Mirror
And the original UNIX "design specifications" didn't become UNIX. Just like the original HTML "design specifications" didn't become HTML. They are both great examples of REALLY BAD specifications.
UNIX's engineers had a plan- not a complete one, and some might say not even a good one, but it was flexible enough to encourage it's use. Through using it, problems were found, and features added (e.g. the sticky bit) but the "original UNIX" is absolutely nothing like the unix we use today, just as the original UNIX "design specifications" didn't match the first most useful UNIXes, it doesn't match them today either.
What people fail to understand is that we call things like POSIX a spec, so of course we're talking about the same thing. POSIX is not the kind of "bad specification" because what it does is specify how things are presently being done, and not how they ought to be done in the future.
In the few cases where POSIX _did_ try and get their grubby little hands into something not yet formalized (socklen_t anyone?), it was met with brutal resistance and real world problems (which is why socklen_t == int _everywhere_).
HTML is another fantastic example. Amya was the HTML _specification_, and nobody liked it or used it. It was and still is the most glaring example of how not to write a web browser. It was, of course, written entirely to specification, but could never view even a reasonably common web page. Modern HTML "specifications" are an examination on what worked, and in the few cases they've attempted to codify things that nobody's using yet and have been met with real-world problems and complete lack of implementation.
SOAP is of course, everyone's favorite example because the idea is so simple. It's not like POSIX (an operating system) or HTML (a mobile application transport), but it's doing one very simple thing: value marshalling.
They even did a wise thing by letting XML specify how things get transformed into containers- and of course, by using XML many people saw a few SOAP exchances and said "well this looks easy" so partial implementations for SOAP are everywhere.
But SOAP isn't easy. It does a lot of things that most SOAP implementations simply don't do (exception handling? session routing?) - SOAP is a big complicated specification, and there are an extremely few number of real world complete implementations. The end result is that most people use the lowest common denominator, or MS-SOAP (or someone else's targetted implementation).
The end result is that specifications have never improved interoperability by themselves, the best specifications are the ones that describe something already done, and the worst specifications are the ones that describe something that hasn't been done yet.
The reality is incredible: Specifications suck. I make roadmaps and keep notes, and do a large amount of unit testing, but NEVER do I write a specification for anything that I didn't already finish.
The license is an agreement. If you don't like the terms, don't accept the license.
Use the software if you like because you already purchased it.
If you don't accept the license, you simply cannot gain new rights from it- such as the rights to redistribute the software. Your rights to use it, or even modify it (or even redistribute the modifications themselves!) cannot be taken away by such a license.
Furthermore, indemnification cannot be waived as easy as many of these software publishers would have liked.
No-cost software is probably safe- even in the wake of so-called lemon laws because any percentage or multiple of zero will still be zero.
But if you spend money on something, whether it be a computer or software for the computer, and the people who sold it to you misrepresented it (Our solution is secure, this is a power supply, etc) no amount of "agreeing to" these "licenses" will help them.
I got data recovery out of [popular hardware integrator] because of a failed hard drive. I also got a refund and then some out of [popular software developer] because of frequent crashes.
It seems like some big dirty trick has been played- convincing people they don't "buy software"- like its some kind of service that can only be leased-by-definition (even if it's something that can be stolen). It's horrible because people actually believe it. People honestly believe that there's some "license they agreed to" that makes them give up their rights.
They know. Their lawyers know. The only people who don't know are the users. That's why crackpots write about the evils of licenses when they SHOULD be writing about the stupidity of them.
Know your rights, and if you want to do something that you don't otherwise have the rights to do (redistribute, for example) then read any licenses that are included. They might tell you what you need to do to get that right.
This is a welcome change: being given a description of what I might find at the target site so I don't actually have to look at it myself.
Of course users have choice: They could use Yahoo! mail. They could also use Google mail.
I like google mail.
I don't like Yahoo! mail.
That's _my_ choice.
If google mail were Yahoo! mail, I wouldn't like it.
If Yahoo! mail where google mail, I probably would like it.
That's _my_ choice.
This question should've been titled:
"How do I perform a security audit?"
It's clear from the phrasing that you have no idea what system security actually is, so instead of asking how do you market it, and how do you talk to people about it, it'd probably be a good idea to understand it yourself.
Here are some hints:
* Real security professionals don't "test anyone's firewall."
* Real security professionals don't "discover" holes. They prove them.
It sounds like what you really want to know is "how do I go about charging people for my script collection?" which is a shameful thing indeed.
You are the reason business is booming for me, so while I despise everything you are, I will also offer you advise:
Learn how to build a secure system. Sell that. Sell the solution for customers that is a secure system. Don't offer to tell them what's wrong, but tell them what's right.
The IT dept should know not to trust "Snake Oil Corp.", however anything from "Citrix Corp" should be fairly safe.
No shit. The problem never was that, but wheter "1024D/40558AC9" should be trusted, or perhaps if "1024D/8E297990" is more trustworthy.
I can label my key with "Citrix Corp" if I like, and I might even be able to convince Verisign to sign it as these guys did.
Code Signing was never intended for [guaranteeing code is safe].
But users don't know that. They're being duped into thinking that if only the path between the software developer and the user weren't so muddy, there wouldn't be any viruses or spyware or adware or whatnot.
Nevertheless, that path is the one attacked less frequently, but it is instead the software that Microsoft got to you completely intact that is the software you cannot trust.
'It is like saying host based IDs or anti-virus are useless, because if you can compromise the system you can turn them off.'
That's exactly why they are useless. You don't do scanning on a machine that you fear might be compromised. You do it from a machine that you know isn't, but that still has access to the other machine's frozen state.
You're confused.
RMS never suggests that you refer to the kernel of many Red Hat, SuSE, Digital, HP or IBM systems as GNU/anything.
RMS also doesn't say GNU the organization or brand "/Linux" but GNU the _operating system_ "/Linux"
Consider that GNU the _operating system_ makes up 90% of the things users interact with on every core Linux server, desktop, and workstation.
Therefore, GNU is the critical component. Why do people say "I use Linux" then when people really mean "I use GNU?" - after all, it's the critical component- the largest batch of code, the most used, the most interacted with, the oldest, and the most needed, and by any other definition, still, the most "critical component".
i successfully logged in using my gmail.com account and sent an IM to another gmail.com user- i had to type their "gmail" email address in the send IM function of gaim, but it otherwise appears to work just fine.
it was negative information so I forgot how to get my socks in the dirty clothes.
... a license agreement is essentially a contract, right?
Wrong. In the US, you can only rescind rights through signed contract. A "license agreement" doesn't have the power to take away rights for you see, books, movies, and software are all sold, no matter what Cisco or Microsoft or the MPAA would like to have you believe- their "license agreements" simply cannot revoke rights.
What a license agreement can do is provide you special rights that you may invoke. Nobody has to sign anything because if you "violate the license" you're simply held by-alternative in the superior laws- generally those of copyright violation and whatnot.
You still have the right to decompile software and even make copies for various fair-use purposes. You can even make changes and distribute those changes.
They cannot take this away unless you sign something. You buy it, you get all the rights associated with that sale.
They say they only "licensed it to you" but that's another big lie. You didn't sign a contract: no contract means they have none of your rights in which to withold.
it's been trivial to install, it's not eaten any of my data, and I must say I'm very happy with multimaster replication as provided.
it also seems much faster than openldap.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
.torrent files contain simply discovery about the seeds instead of about a tracker. The new clients share tracking information.
Right now: if the tracker _or_ the seeds go down then torrent doesn't work. The changes remove a redundant step and do NOT add any additional privacy.
The new
This means the MPAA actually has it easier: they don't have to "take" the tracker, they connect to a torrent like any other downloader and collect all of the addresses of all of the downloaders (as they would be operating as a tracker as well).
And for the record, I would never be caught dead downloading Slackware ISOs as I don't have time to waste. Ubuntu's tracker (on the other hand) went down two days ago.
If you'll understand why Free Software advocates don't consider it a gift, you'll understand why there's so much hesitation and mistrust.
... until they do it right.
I believe SUN _truly_ believes as you do: That they're doing the world a favor. That SUN is doing the virtuous thing with SUN JAVA.
However, I would hope that someone at SUN- and others like yourself- would notice that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there's a motivation behind all this mistrust, and a reason why Free Software advocates feel threatened by SUN JAVA.
And while we're making wishes here, maybe they could find out what that reason is, and do something to address it besides cramming their heads through their sphincters and calling people who reason ASSHOLES.
Here's a fantastic reason to avoid SUN's Java: 10 years from now, your program might be worthless. It won't run on modern systems, and you will have the choice of rewriting it from scratch, or performing the effort SUN went through to MAKE Java, just to get your software to work.
Because SUN JAVA isn't Free Software, people who write code for the SUN JAVA PLATFORM are giving an enormous amount of trust to SUN that they will make Java 1.5 (or whatever version they target) run until the end of time. Or at least, until the user of the applications' choosing.
SUN will make a decision (as they always have) that some point exists where SUN JAVA 1.5 will no longer be supported. At that point, if you use an application that runs on SUN JAVA 1.5, you either have to ask your vendor to update it for you, or you're SOL. That vendor might've gone bankrupt, and have no other say in the matter.
Yes, this is indeed an awful lot of trust to be vesting in SUN, so it's no surprise there are a number of people who have worries as to whether or not SUN can be trusted with their OpenOffice documents: I personally enjoy looking at documents I wrote 10 years ago, and I suspect I'll enjoy doing it 10 years from now.
I think at the point SUN is at right now, it might be easier for them to change their behavior so that I can use their software. Surely they want me to use their software, and so I lobby them.
If they don't want me to use their software, then they should say it- like Microsoft has time and again. But if they really want to make Free Software, than we'll keep telling them what they're doing wrong...
Firstly, even if they weren't, is WindowsITPro/Microsoft actually saying that the entire security of IIS is equal to the cost [to them] of an Xbox?
Seriously, that machine ain't running no IIS6. That's a proxy server that's poorly configured (no HTTP/1.0 support).
The machine behind it claims to be running IIS6, but it's header output format is all wrong.
It's possible that the output file (claiming to be default.htm) was really ASP/custom ISAPI filter/or CGI, and emitted those headers manually, but then, it'd still be suspicious that that p0f thinks it's running an IP stack very similar to Linux 2.4, but it gets the Win2003 Server I'm aware of just fine...
It's trivial to make a hackfree static website. Anyone who says I'm a liar doesn't know what they're talking about.
Let's try a real game. How about they put a _stock_ IIS6 machine up, actually running Windows, and see how long it lasts.
Mature UI's that have had to muster the "real world" of being tested against users take this into account.
I don't think you understand that THE/Archy has been tested with real people. It's the result of quantitative decisions about real work, not about baseless arguments.
some users want to do things differently than other users.
This is ridiculous. Users do things "differently" (in this sense) because current interfaces aren't universally good. If they were, then they wouldn't. Arguing this is futile.
What is helful to argue is whether or not THE/Archy is a universally good interface. I'd say, "not yet", but then even the authors of Archy believe that.
A UI must take into account these different preferences.
Let me guess, you also think productivity went up when Microsoft started offering a candy coated shell for their users...
So let me get this straight: it requires special hardware to navigate properly and fails to follow conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, and you're telling me that I am the one that doesn't get it?
Close! It encourages special hardware (the way Windows encourages a keyboard with a Windows key, or Emacs encourages a keyboard with separate Super, Meta, and Hyper keys), and reexamines the foolishness of various conventions.
I'm certain many of the people working on the STAR project heard this before- about not following conventions that have been around since electric typewriters themselves, but right now, you're glad they examined, experimented, and improved upon the working environment DESPITE the fact that it is remarkably different than the "accepted" interfaces of the day because your modern WIMP interfaces are the direct result of that research.
Which pretty much leaves the "you don't get it" part, and I'd say that's still right-on.
Sweet, I'm going to have to boot into windows when I get windows when I get home to try this out again. I have been following this project from the sidelines for a while now ever since I read his book, and have to admit to being a little giddy about seeing it actually getting somewhere.
You don't have to! It runs fine on Linux right now. Go download the source and run it. Just have pygame and a couple other python extensions installed and it works fine.
This interface is awful.
Subjective. I happen find it quite comforting.
Imagine a text console running a program that is a cross between EMACS and VI (at the same time). It's wide, flat, hard to use, cryptic, etc...
I find VI very easy to use, and I know folks who say EMACS is very easy to use. I think you mean it's not approachable, instead of "not easy to use."
Notepad is very approachable, but it's certainly not easy to use. A better way for you to look at this is think: how productive can people be?
Archy promises to combine the things that I think make me most productive in VI, and some of the things from EMACS that I think could make me more productive (some of which are showing up in VIM all the time), and at the same time, help me be more productive still, by blurring the concept of data and documents.
Ugh, it feels like something that came out of 1970's mainframe computer science.
I think you're painfully confused. What you're using now on your computer is something that came out of 1970's mainframe computer science.
Archy is what comes out of 30 years of reflecting on how bad of an idea that was.
The whole reason you have separate applications is because different kinds of data work in different ways. There's no way that you would want the same interface to an MP3 player as you would to a photo editor or tax preparation software.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The reason you have separate applications is because different people work on them. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with presentation.
The reason tax preparation software and photo editors have different interfaces is because they represent different concepts. Archy is an interface for text processing, and there's nothing about it that says that the Photoshop-killer for Archy will be written in LOGO.
Also, the demo screenshots are all of small documents. There's nothing that shows how you manipulate huge documents. How do you get to page 500 if there are no scroll bars or even page up/down keys? Do I zoom out until the document is just a vertical line and zoom back in on where I think page 500 is?
How do you presently do it? Are you telling me you know you need to get to page 500 without knowing anything that's on page 500, what it might be about, and without any reference near what you're looking at to indicate it?
The LEAP-system means if you know what's there, you can get to it. There's no reason THE/Archy has to preclude hyperlink-style references, and even without them, a table of contents or even a reasonable citation can be enough to use LEAP.
What's with all these commands I have to know? The typing is cumbersome and there's no way to figure out what commands are available. The great thing about a good GUI is that all options are discoverable. Right now it reminds me of DOS versions of AutoCAD, only with Python as its programming langauge instead of LISP.
This isn't true at all. Even presently, in Archy, all the commands are in the commands document. They're all discoverable.
Now don't get me wrong here -- combining document types has been a sort of holy grail for ages -- but if it was that easy, somebody would have done it before. How do you handle expanding a spreadsheet in the middle of your text document?
By not aggregating data-types into documents. Yes, it really is that easy. If you need a table-layout for statistical information, go ahead and insert one. There's no reason at all you have to think in terms of "document embedding".
And as for this LEAP thing, it definitely looks like a viable idea -- and there are similar implementations like in Plan 9 -- but I think that eye-tracking interfaces will become common-place before LEAP does.
I don't think you have any idea how LEAP works. Plan9 most certainly does NOT have anything like it. With Plan9 everything is an interactive hyperlink, so you press the right-mouse button to bounce between documents frequently.
LEAP is much more like the new Mozilla type-ahead-find in that, you hold a key, and start typing and the cursor jumps to the next position having your text. VIM can do this right now if you press the forward-slash in command mode.
I can't get Windows to do these things without writing programs to a poorly-published API.
1. Alt-drag for moving windows (middle or right-drag from border)
2. Double-click opens new copy instead of existing window- this is just wrong. God why would I want two copies of Visual Studio open?
3. No button to reach window-list (os/2 ctrl-esc) - that Task Manager bastard doesn't count.
4. Stop programs from stealing focus (put a delay between popup and autofocus- say, 250msec)
5. Nobody selects "blocks" in the command prompt. Give us xterm-style line selects
6. If Win,R brings up the run-prompt, and I run Remote desktop Administrator, then Win,R should still bring up the run-prompt. Number "recent applications" instead.
7. Put site-icons on toolbars and in the window list. Scarring them is okay, but everyone uses them now, so let's tell our little blue-e's apart.
8. Let me drag with the right-mouse button without pretending I'm a lefty.
9. Those damned bubbles popping off the notification area should go away if I ignore them long enough. If I click the "X" on them, and they're informational, they should never come back.
10. Let me unplug things like pcmcia cards and usb dongles without getting yelled at _OR_ make the "unplug/eject" button bigger. Much bigger. 64x64 minimum, my hands shake and my eyes are bad.
I dare someone to tell me all of these things are possible if I download some untrustworthy software- if I had a Windows machine, I would never put anything on it except officially sanctioned software- just as on my FC3 machine, I don't install anything except from the Fedora software catalogs.
UI Research is a pain in the ass in Java or C#. It's a pain in the ass in any language that makes you work to reinvent.
I perform UI experiments largely with pygame, or perl-SDL. It gives me a chance to rapidly try out USER interface changes as I don't have to worry about whether or not delegation is "easy enough" to facilitate the change.
With Java and C# (or C++ for that matter) you've got an awful lot of work building classes and inheritance and if experimentation demonstrates a particular (unexpected!) trend, you've got an awful lot of work ahead of you to refactor and rework existing paths to make the new paths possible.
We use NTBACKUP and mtftar with great success. With a SYSPREPP'd install disk, restoring a kaput Windows machine takes about 20-30 minutes. With mtftar, we can cherry-pick files without booting a windows machine.
NTBACKUP can create ".bkf" files that surely, aren't as fast to create as shadow-volumes, and incrementals aren't useful for large files (like rsync), but they have advantage is that they can be stored on a remote machine on the cheap!
who would've thought...
I've actually done this at the local schools.
It's a great deal of fun, and believe it or not, it won't bore them. Adults fear engineers (especially software engineers) because they think what they're doing is something that they cannot do.
As a result, they actively ignore your attempts to educate them. They think it's just out of reach and would rather appear rude and bored than stupid.
Of course, kids don't know this yet. They're fully willing. They most certainly will understand graphs, functions, tries, and so on. They'll understand it because [as we know] it's not hard, and they're not yet programmed to avoid it.
Show them LOGO; Show them C; Show them the inside of what they think a computer is, then smash open the hard drive and toss the platters around.
They'll love it.
Show them what it means to hack, and how much enjoyment it can bring. Show them your adhoc EIDE hotplug system (so they can try it at home) - show them anything you can. They most certainly will follow.
I must say, there's nothing quite like a third-grader asking why we "don't just all use assymetric cryptography all the time", or how the world let Ben Franklen get away with messing up the plus-minus on battery schematics.
The teachers monitoring you will roll their eyes, but the kids _will_ get it.
Here are two fuckholes saying "Work for free, or don't make useful programs!"
Free software is not about getting software without paying for it, it's about making sure that when you DO pay for it, you will always have it!
I don't understand why that's so hard for people who are just being introduced to the Fedoras and the FreeBSDs of the world.
If you don't know how to write software, you can always learn! If you don't want to learn, consider making a bounty for the things you want.
They don't seem to understand the very basic concept that if they want a better Free desktop, then someone has to pay for it.
They also don't seem to understand that those wants are subjective.... Some users feel like they already have all the free desktop that they need
You're the same fuckheads that sue PBS for misappropriating public interests but never made a donation.
You make me sick.