i read his 'the cathedral and the bazaar' essay, as well as his self-promoting followup, which chronicled his meteoric rise to oss rockstardom. this is email to ms sounds very much like something he'd write.
yes, put me down as likewise apathetic abt it. however, if i'm on someone else's comp, i do clear everything out, because i'd really rather not let them go into my webmail/amazon/ebay accts. but on my own linux box at home, i leave it all on. i even use the 'remember form info/pw' stuff. it's lazy, but heck it's convenient.
you didn't waste your money--the source code is to be gpl'd, but not the maps/models/textures/sounds/etc.. you'll need that disc to be able to play whatever source ports come out. it will be the same as it was w/ the doom and quake/quake2 source releases.
well, then good for them. suits need this kind of support, and if roundtwo can help firefox make inroads into corporations, it can only be a good thing.
I'm with you on that. If anything, I think they're hoping to get his input on how to hook the desktop search et. al. into Windows more efficiently.
But who knows? I'm all for an os-agnostic suite of web apps, even a browser-based desktop. That holy grail's been chased for years now. Google's in a better position to do it right, moreso than all previous attempts by others.
Rar uses a proprietary compression algorithm. It's free to decompress RAR's (as has been pointed out already) but to make RAR's you need to buy a RAR license. This can be a deterrent to OSS proponents like myself. Sure, one can do as the kids do and use a demo of winrar indefinitely, or use a warez winrar, but the right thing would be to register it or seek a free alternative.
RAR is wonderful, there's no doubt, but I use the GPL'd 7z (7-Zip) format for my own personal archiving. It's open, compresses at least as well as (better in many situations) RAR, but can be quite a bit slower.
If I used RAR for work-related archiving as you do, I would definitely register it, because the speed and compression offered by RAR is well worth it in that situation.
I've been toying with this very idea myself, more of curiosity than necessity. I've been doing php/mysql custom apps for the past 4 years, and I can do them very quickly and intuitively now--so it's gotten kind of boring/not-so-challenging. Learning to use XSLT/XML sounds like a lot of fun to try. I'd love to hear how you set things up (BTW your site looks nice).
hmmmmm . . . AFAIK XUL+javascript allows you to make all the extensions, one of the more elaborate being chatzilla. XUL is worthwhile. K-Meleon is good for slow win 95/98 comps, of which there are still many out there.
Well, from looking at one http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDSmain 2004-12-03.jpg, I wonder how agile this thing could be. It looks like it would be easy to run circles around, or to sneak up on and disable the camera. How quickly could that camera pan around to find targets? The control panel http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS3200 4-12-03.jpg seems to be viewing 4 cameras, don't know if that's 4 comareas on the same bot, or he's watching 4 different bots. The former would be better IMO, a bot that can simultaneously see forward, backward, left, and right would be much better than one with a single camera swiveling around. One thing for sure, these things are packing some serious heat: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS2200 4-12-03.jpg
. . . it flagged winpcap (from my cain & abel), tightvnc (from my vncpush dir), my installed realvnc, and a true spyware. The default action for the first 3 items was 'ignore', and the spyware default action was 'remove'. Not bad. And I forgot about tightvnc, so that made me paranoid for a moment. And it gives a good explanation of each item it finds, ala Spybot.
When it removed the spyware, it then reported _all_ the items (ignored or removed) to the 'spynet community' (I had opted in for that).
Then it offers to restore some default IE values in case of 'hijacking'. Not surprisingly, it doesn't mention anything about disabling activex in its activity (but it was already deactivated).
I understand the many objections to Steam, but my own experience with it has been positive. I installed it, keyed in my old Blue Shift cd code, and watched as the original HL, all the add-ons (CS, DoD, DMC, TFC, etc.), and even Opposing Forces became available. And the cd can go back into the rack to collect dust, as I no longer need it.
From what I understand, I can log into my steam account from any other computer and play any of these games--the content will be downloaded to whatever comp I am on atm. Now, that is pretty darned neat.
I even got to try out the HL2 demo through Steam. I didn't know if it would run on my pitiful xp box (athlon 1.2, pci gforce4, 512 ram), and I was pleasantly surprised at how playable it was.
It's funny, because we have all recently seen the true actualization of the software business model, and it's pissing people off. It was really easy to ignore the business model back when software companies had no control over things. Now, we see XP's activation and Valve's Steam, and we are up in arms. Yet, this is nothing new--I remember reading EULA's from the 90's saying that I merely had the license to use my copy of the software, and that it could be revoked. I remember how the licensed software was described like a book--you were to use one copy only. You could loan it to a friend--but you couldn't keep using it while your friend had it. Now, we see companies finally have a means of making those license agreements a reality, not some feeble fine print which is scoffed at with total impunity. We've all known the rules for years. Now we are being forced to play by them.
I've honestly tried to follow the rules, so this is no big deal to me. But I do get ticked when I replace a motherboard in my XP box and have to reactivate over the phone by keying in a _colossal_ activation code, then get transferred to a live person who starts asking me for the activation code again--I was ready to scream, but thankfully he stopped after the first group of characters. When he asked me if I had XP installed on any other computers, I said 'no', and was tempted to add, 'my other 2 computers run linux, and I'm sure glad I don't have to jump through all these hoops to set them up!'
. . . and after reading up on things, I determined that:
1) for my win2k server, apache 2 is a necessary upgrade 2) for apache 2, php 4 is a safer choice 3) if I ran a *nix box, I would be using Apache 1.3 & php 5
thanks . . . now please turn your head the other way and cough again.:)
And yes, I agree with you, but I do have strong feelings about the widely-studied source code of php-nuke (my favorite straw man) being FAR less secure than some hand-coded solution. Of course, if one's hand-coded site took off, it would appear in ppl's 'radar', and they could begin probing it, and they would no doubt find weaknesses.
But do I think my little hand-coded site will 'take off'? No way, it's a little local organization who nobody else cares about. Yet it got defaced several times by the Brazilian hordes, for the simple reason that it was running their favorite target, nuke. Had I not been running nuke to begin with, there is no doubt this wouldn't have happened.
There are many ppl in my situation who have sought refuge in the more secure cpg-nuke, but I opted to drop completely out of their sights by not running any flavor of nuke. I think cpg-nuke will make for a tempting challenge for those kiddies, and I don't want to be in the crossfire.
Well, that's certainly academically correct, but he isn't releasing his code, which precludes its becoming popular. Sure, it's 'security through obscurity', but it's certainly more secure than using a packaged solution which may have a bright red bullseye painted on it (like php-nuke), inviting script kiddies to enter your site's url into their cookie-cutter exploit hacking form.
. . . I agree. As a former phpnuke user, I can attest to this. After repeated defacements of my php-nuke site by script kiddies from Brazil, I removed Nuke and wrote my own solution. Not one problem since, and the custom solution was more flexible.
hmmmm well that's interesting, but at first it seems odd to complain about an anonymous post being unfavorably modded--there's nobody's karma being unfairly maligned here. Of course, OTOH is the point that if an interesting post gets modded below most people's thresholds, then the day's omelette suffers for the lack of that tasty morsel.
Slashdot Mirror
yep, from the 'no shit, sherlock' department. but it makes a provocative headline eh?
i read his 'the cathedral and the bazaar' essay, as well as his self-promoting followup, which chronicled his meteoric rise to oss rockstardom. this is email to ms sounds very much like something he'd write.
moz uses mork for its history, which is a baroque nightmare to parse. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24143 8
omg now pandora's box is opened.
yes, put me down as likewise apathetic abt it. however, if i'm on someone else's comp, i do clear everything out, because i'd really rather not let them go into my webmail/amazon/ebay accts. but on my own linux box at home, i leave it all on. i even use the 'remember form info/pw' stuff. it's lazy, but heck it's convenient.
you didn't waste your money--the source code is to be gpl'd, but not the maps/models/textures/sounds/etc.. you'll need that disc to be able to play whatever source ports come out. it will be the same as it was w/ the doom and quake/quake2 source releases.
well, then good for them. suits need this kind of support, and if roundtwo can help firefox make inroads into corporations, it can only be a good thing.
I'm with you on that. If anything, I think they're hoping to get his input on how to hook the desktop search et. al. into Windows more efficiently.
But who knows? I'm all for an os-agnostic suite of web apps, even a browser-based desktop. That holy grail's been chased for years now. Google's in a better position to do it right, moreso than all previous attempts by others.
Rar uses a proprietary compression algorithm. It's free to decompress RAR's (as has been pointed out already) but to make RAR's you need to buy a RAR license. This can be a deterrent to OSS proponents like myself. Sure, one can do as the kids do and use a demo of winrar indefinitely, or use a warez winrar, but the right thing would be to register it or seek a free alternative.
RAR is wonderful, there's no doubt, but I use the GPL'd 7z (7-Zip) format for my own personal archiving. It's open, compresses at least as well as (better in many situations) RAR, but can be quite a bit slower.
If I used RAR for work-related archiving as you do, I would definitely register it, because the speed and compression offered by RAR is well worth it in that situation.
~512kps on that .ppt file, in the midst of a /.'ing, not bad at all!
Thanks for bringing up that point. I found this: http://us2.php.net/manual/en/ref.memcache.php
I've been toying with this very idea myself, more of curiosity than necessity. I've been doing php/mysql custom apps for the past 4 years, and I can do them very quickly and intuitively now--so it's gotten kind of boring/not-so-challenging. Learning to use XSLT/XML sounds like a lot of fun to try. I'd love to hear how you set things up (BTW your site looks nice).
hmmmmm . . . AFAIK XUL+javascript allows you to make all the extensions, one of the more elaborate being chatzilla. XUL is worthwhile. K-Meleon is good for slow win 95/98 comps, of which there are still many out there.
Well, from looking at one http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDSmain 2004-12-03.jpg, I wonder how agile this thing could be. It looks like it would be easy to run circles around, or to sneak up on and disable the camera. How quickly could that camera pan around to find targets? The control panel http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS3200 4-12-03.jpg seems to be viewing 4 cameras, don't know if that's 4 comareas on the same bot, or he's watching 4 different bots. The former would be better IMO, a bot that can simultaneously see forward, backward, left, and right would be much better than one with a single camera swiveling around. One thing for sure, these things are packing some serious heat: http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/SWORDS2200 4-12-03.jpg
Also, it's scheduled to scan at 2am daily by default.
. . . it flagged winpcap (from my cain & abel), tightvnc (from my vncpush dir), my installed realvnc, and a true spyware. The default action for the first 3 items was 'ignore', and the spyware default action was 'remove'. Not bad. And I forgot about tightvnc, so that made me paranoid for a moment. And it gives a good explanation of each item it finds, ala Spybot.
When it removed the spyware, it then reported _all_ the items (ignored or removed) to the 'spynet community' (I had opted in for that).
Then it offers to restore some default IE values in case of 'hijacking'. Not surprisingly, it doesn't mention anything about disabling activex in its activity (but it was already deactivated).
I understand the many objections to Steam, but my own experience with it has been positive. I installed it, keyed in my old Blue Shift cd code, and watched as the original HL, all the add-ons (CS, DoD, DMC, TFC, etc.), and even Opposing Forces became available. And the cd can go back into the rack to collect dust, as I no longer need it. From what I understand, I can log into my steam account from any other computer and play any of these games--the content will be downloaded to whatever comp I am on atm. Now, that is pretty darned neat. I even got to try out the HL2 demo through Steam. I didn't know if it would run on my pitiful xp box (athlon 1.2, pci gforce4, 512 ram), and I was pleasantly surprised at how playable it was. It's funny, because we have all recently seen the true actualization of the software business model, and it's pissing people off. It was really easy to ignore the business model back when software companies had no control over things. Now, we see XP's activation and Valve's Steam, and we are up in arms. Yet, this is nothing new--I remember reading EULA's from the 90's saying that I merely had the license to use my copy of the software, and that it could be revoked. I remember how the licensed software was described like a book--you were to use one copy only. You could loan it to a friend--but you couldn't keep using it while your friend had it. Now, we see companies finally have a means of making those license agreements a reality, not some feeble fine print which is scoffed at with total impunity. We've all known the rules for years. Now we are being forced to play by them. I've honestly tried to follow the rules, so this is no big deal to me. But I do get ticked when I replace a motherboard in my XP box and have to reactivate over the phone by keying in a _colossal_ activation code, then get transferred to a live person who starts asking me for the activation code again--I was ready to scream, but thankfully he stopped after the first group of characters. When he asked me if I had XP installed on any other computers, I said 'no', and was tempted to add, 'my other 2 computers run linux, and I'm sure glad I don't have to jump through all these hoops to set them up!'
. . . and after reading up on things, I determined that:
1) for my win2k server, apache 2 is a necessary upgrade
2) for apache 2, php 4 is a safer choice
3) if I ran a *nix box, I would be using Apache 1.3 & php 5
the 'less than' sign got filtered out. It was supposed to read 4.3.10 < 4.3.9
. . . shouldn't they have numbered it 4.4 instead?
thanks . . . now please turn your head the other way and cough again. :)
And yes, I agree with you, but I do have strong feelings about the widely-studied source code of php-nuke (my favorite straw man) being FAR less secure than some hand-coded solution. Of course, if one's hand-coded site took off, it would appear in ppl's 'radar', and they could begin probing it, and they would no doubt find weaknesses.
But do I think my little hand-coded site will 'take off'? No way, it's a little local organization who nobody else cares about. Yet it got defaced several times by the Brazilian hordes, for the simple reason that it was running their favorite target, nuke. Had I not been running nuke to begin with, there is no doubt this wouldn't have happened.
There are many ppl in my situation who have sought refuge in the more secure cpg-nuke, but I opted to drop completely out of their sights by not running any flavor of nuke. I think cpg-nuke will make for a tempting challenge for those kiddies, and I don't want to be in the crossfire.
Well, that's certainly academically correct, but he isn't releasing his code, which precludes its becoming popular. Sure, it's 'security through obscurity', but it's certainly more secure than using a packaged solution which may have a bright red bullseye painted on it (like php-nuke), inviting script kiddies to enter your site's url into their cookie-cutter exploit hacking form.
. . . I agree. As a former phpnuke user, I can attest to this. After repeated defacements of my php-nuke site by script kiddies from Brazil, I removed Nuke and wrote my own solution. Not one problem since, and the custom solution was more flexible.
hmmmm well that's interesting, but at first it seems odd to complain about an anonymous post being unfavorably modded--there's nobody's karma being unfairly maligned here. Of course, OTOH is the point that if an interesting post gets modded below most people's thresholds, then the day's omelette suffers for the lack of that tasty morsel.