Since most of everything you will need has been already said I will atempt to talk about what has been overlooked. It's the little things that make life great. Consentrate on that. Rather the focusing on a feature rich distro, try one which has it's features worked out. I recomend customized to your environment Mandrake, your users will thank ReiserFS when they accidentaly turn their computer off. Although I believe the latest Manrake uses XFree 4.0 so, you might want to install the latest X 4.1 I think...? If you going to install Netscape use libc5 version it's not just more stable it's probably what netscape is supposed to run like. Ofcoarse if you are going to install after mozilla is reliased you can consider that also, remember netscape plugins are not compatible with mozilla so it will be a while before you can install them, so choose carefully, because you will have to install them later. Which brings us to another point make sure you can upgrade these workstations with ease. Here is a idea just out of the top of my head.
When workstation boots up (or cron monthly, weekly, your choise) it checks a ftp site X, it downloads the rpms made by you, checks them agains another server, Y (your favorite method here: XOR files from X against Y to get the real rpms, or use md5 to check their checksums, or something else in this direction) then installs the upgrade files.
Don't forget to change the dpi settings in X, much overlooked problem. If your going to used xdm, kdm or something like it, change the following, in the file/etc/X11/xdm/Xservers add a dpi argument ":0 local/usr/X11R6/bin/X -dpi 100". I believe the standard for Windows is 96 dpi for X11 is 75 so if you don't change your users will complain about new glasses. If X11 will be started using `startx` the do this; edit startx file find line that says `serverargs="" ` put `-dpi your dpi value here` between quotes.
Remember Windows and Linux are to different types of beats. Each has it's pluses and it's minuses. Don't setup Linux as you would Windows. Here is a feature idea just out of the top of my head. If your workstations have ssh servers installed on them, if a program freezes and user doesn't know what do to, he calls tech-support, they login to his machine as that user (no root!) and kill the offending process. Thus you will help tech-support people save on their psychatrist bills.
As for Office application I would have to go with StarOffice, installed on a server(s) much more efficient, espesialy for 32-64Mb range. StarOffice has good.doc filters, just about every feature your users will ever need. Plus since Sun uses it on their network, they would also have expirience to do tech-support, incase you want buy tech-support from them.
Through extensive research with many NT CDs I have discovered that the best machine for burning cds is... a microwave. It can burn a single cd every 60 second or so Although after a few dozen runs it has to be replaced, the smell becomes intorable.
This is an obvious attempt to make us view the ads on the site. Don't just point out the inacuracies, block zdnet ads, and tell them untill they stop trolling, they will remain as 127.0.0.1 addserver.of.zdnet in the/etc/hosts or c:\windows\hosts that's what i did, anyway.
Wrinkle in Mitnick Case Hints at Encryption Battles to Come
little-known legal skirmish in the case of the computer hacker Kevin Mitnick was a preview of similar fights to come as more people use encryption software to protect their files, lawyers who were involved in the case say. Mitnick left federal prison last week after serving nearly five years for a series of crimes involving computer fraud and wire fraud. But his lawyers say they are still troubled by the judge's answer to a legal question raised early in the case: When federal agents seize encrypted files from a defendant, can they refuse to return them unless the defendant turns over the secret "key" to decode the files? That digital-age puzzle, which the judge regarded as a novel legal question, arose in Mitnick's case in a circuitous manner, as sometimes happens in criminal trials. In the course of the government's investigation, federal agents in 1994 and 1995 seized two laptop computers owned by Mitnick, according to Gregory L. Vinson, a lawyer who worked on the Mitnick defense team that was headed by Donald C. Randolph, a veteran criminal defense specialist in Los Angeles. On the computers' hard drives were approximately nine gigabytes of electronic evidence, Vinson said in an interview. He estimated that of that total, perhaps one gigabyte consisted of encrypted files -- documents that were unintelligible to anyone who did not have a key to decrypt them. Mitnick, of course, had the key. During the pre-trial discovery phase of the case, the government lawyer, Christopher Painter, an assistant United States attorney in Los Angeles, indicated that as required by the rules governing evidence, he would hand all of the seized files over to the defense -- except the encrypted ones. That set the stage for a hearing on May 20, 1998, before federal judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles. Speaking for the defense, Randolph argued that Mitnick was entitled to copies of the seized encrypted files under two legal theories, according to a transcript of the hearing. First, he contended, under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which establish the ground rules for the government's disclosure of evidence to the defendant, the government must allow a defendant to inspect or copy documents that "were obtained from or belong to the defendant." Since the encrypted files belonged to Mitnick, he deserved to get a copy of them, Randolph said. The defense also argued that the encrypted files might include information that could help Mitnick defend himself. Under the Constitution, the prosecution is obligated to hand over such material to the defense. Painter replied that because the government could not understand what was in the files, it could not use the files as evidence at trial. He also said that Rule 16 did not apply because the encrypted files in a sense were not "really in our possession," because "we don't know what's there." But the heart of the government lawyer's argument was that it would be wrong to hand over the files because they could contain the spoils of Mitnick's crimes -- secret information that he illegally acquired from the companies whose computers he hacked into -- or something even more dangerous. "For all we know, it could be plans to take down a computer system," Painter said at the hearing. "We don't know. And we think it's dangerous to release that, and that's why we don't want to release it. We're not going to use it, certainly, but we think that there's reasons not to release that information." In considering the matter, Judge Pfaelzer said that it was "clever" of Mitnick to have encrypted the files in such a way that the government could not use them in its own case but Mitnick could access them if given a copy. She asked: "Now, you know, what's the court supposed to do with that position?" Painter said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. Judge Pfaelzer agreed, ruling that "this court is not going to order the encryptive material to be given" to Mitnick. The judge added that if Mitnick would "tell the government how to read" the files, then the government would turn over the files in decrypted form. Mitnick's lawyers immediately objected to this condition on the grounds that it would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain evidence he needed and that he had a legal right to see. The judge rejected this point and repeated her ruling. Vinson, the defense lawyer, said in an interview this week that he still thought Judge Pfaelzer's ruling from the bench did not give enough weight to the defense's arguments. He said he was worried that the case might create the impression that the government has no obligation to give back encrypted files that it has been unable to decrypt. "In ten years, when encryption becomes commonplace for people to use in order to protect their files, whether their files contain financial records, conversations with their spouse or a local drug dealer, the government is going to seize the files in a criminal case, and [government lawyers] will be faced with the same situation as they were in the Mitnick case," Vinson said. Painter, reached by telephone earlier this week, said both sides in the pre-trial legal battle over Mitnick's encrypted files had strong arguments. He said he agreed with Vinson that similar disputes may arise in the future as more people encrypt files. But he maintained that no precedent had been set, and that the government's responses would be on a case-by-case basis. "It could be that in future cases, depending on the circumstances, it would be more appropriate to return [encrypted files] under special procedures," Painter said. Gerald Lynch, a law professor at Columbia University who is an expert in criminal law and a former federal prosecutor, said in an interview that it was a "panic response" on the part of the court and the government to deny Mitnick access to his files. "If you think about this reasonably, the answer is that if the government does not have a reasonable basis to contend that something really dangerous [is in the encrypted files], and merely does not know what is in the files and can't decode them, then they should hand them over," he said. Alan B. Davidson, a staff lawyer who follows encryption developments for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group, said he believed the Mitnick encryption dispute is a precursor to a coming battle in Congress. As part of a compromise announced this fall by the Clinton administration that loosened export restrictions on strong encryption software, the administration has committed to sending a bill to Congress laying out rules for when the government can get access to encryption keys, Davidson said. "We are anxiously awaiting the administration's new bill, which will open up a huge debate," he said.
I wonder how did MSNBC figure out that the threat was against bill gates. According to the defaced page (see somebody elses post above) It said "...Kill Bill" nothing about Bill not being some other Bill not nesessary Gates.
They make pretty good points. Netscape wants you to use my.netscape.com, their webmail, even the search botton, and the new shop@netscape points to their netcenter. IE is the same thing I am pretty sure search engines pay to be featured when the user clicks on search in IE. Ofcoarse you still can change all these settings, but most computer users don't know how. The only true way to get free lunch for most people is if the lunch is *PL.
Just put this into your ~/preferences.js file and say good bye to netcenter. config("toolbar.places.default_url","http://www. someurl.org/"); Although on Linux you have to echo that line into pereferences.js everytime you start netscape. The line will be removed when netscape exits.
It's the other way around, people who spent less then 4 - 5 hours a day on the internet, should be considered mentaly handicapped. Besides, what if you have a perminant connection? Damn, doctors scared of technology.
Controlerless modems for linux?
on
LinModems?
·
· Score: 2
Well there goes my dream of bying a computer with a good modem
Slashdot Mirror
Since most of everything you will need has been already said I will atempt to talk about what has been overlooked. It's the little things that make life great. Consentrate on that. Rather the focusing on a feature rich distro, try one which has it's features worked out. I recomend customized to your environment Mandrake, your users will thank ReiserFS when they accidentaly turn their computer off. Although I believe the latest Manrake uses XFree 4.0 so, you might want to install the latest X 4.1 I think...? If you going to install Netscape use libc5 version it's not just more stable it's probably what netscape is supposed to run like. Ofcoarse if you are going to install after mozilla is reliased you can consider that also, remember netscape plugins are not compatible with mozilla so it will be a while before you can install them, so choose carefully, because you will have to install them later.
/etc/X11/xdm/Xservers add a dpi argument ":0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X -dpi 100". I believe the standard for Windows is 96 dpi for X11 is 75 so if you don't change your users will complain about new glasses. If X11 will be started using `startx` the do this; edit startx file find line that says `serverargs="" ` put `-dpi your dpi value here` between quotes.
.doc filters, just about every feature your users will ever need. Plus since Sun uses it on their network, they would also have expirience to do tech-support, incase you want buy tech-support from them.
Which brings us to another point make sure you can upgrade these workstations with ease. Here is a idea just out of the top of my head.
When workstation boots up (or cron monthly, weekly, your choise) it checks a ftp site X, it downloads the rpms made by you, checks them agains another server, Y (your favorite method here: XOR files from X against Y to get the real rpms, or use md5 to check their checksums, or something else in this direction) then installs the upgrade files.
Don't forget to change the dpi settings in X, much overlooked problem. If your going to used xdm, kdm or something like it, change the following, in the file
Remember Windows and Linux are to different types of beats. Each has it's pluses and it's minuses. Don't setup Linux as you would Windows. Here is a feature idea just out of the top of my head. If your workstations have ssh servers installed on them, if a program freezes and user doesn't know what do to, he calls tech-support, they login to his machine as that user (no root!) and kill the offending process. Thus you will help tech-support people save on their psychatrist bills.
As for Office application I would have to go with StarOffice, installed on a server(s) much more efficient, espesialy for 32-64Mb range. StarOffice has good
Yahoo - Document Not Found
The document you requested is not found.
here is the correct one
Get it here
Through extensive research with many NT CDs I have discovered that the best machine for burning cds is... a microwave. It can burn a single cd every 60 second or so Although after a few dozen runs it has to be replaced, the smell becomes intorable.
This is an obvious attempt to make us view the ads on the site. Don't just point out the inacuracies, block zdnet ads, and tell them untill they stop trolling, they will remain as /etc/hosts or c:\windows\hosts that's what i did, anyway.
127.0.0.1 addserver.of.zdnet
in the
ads3.zdnet.com /etc/hosts
since there is a number in the ads i sugest enter it * for junkbuster or more numbers for
Go to your neares LUG and ask them. Do your own research.
---The NY times article---
Wrinkle in Mitnick Case Hints at Encryption Battles to Come
little-known legal skirmish in the case of the computer hacker Kevin Mitnick was a preview of similar fights to come as more people use encryption software to protect their files, lawyers who were involved in the case say. Mitnick left federal prison last week after serving nearly five years for a series of crimes involving computer fraud and wire fraud. But his lawyers say they are still troubled by the judge's answer to a legal question raised early in the case: When federal agents seize encrypted files from a defendant, can they refuse to return them unless the defendant turns over the secret "key" to decode the files? That digital-age puzzle, which the judge regarded as a novel legal question, arose in Mitnick's case in a circuitous manner, as sometimes happens in criminal trials. In the course of the government's investigation, federal agents in 1994 and 1995 seized two laptop computers owned by Mitnick, according to Gregory L. Vinson, a lawyer who worked on the Mitnick defense team that was headed by Donald C. Randolph, a veteran criminal defense specialist in Los Angeles. On the computers' hard drives were approximately nine gigabytes of electronic evidence, Vinson said in an interview. He estimated that of that total, perhaps one gigabyte consisted of encrypted files -- documents that were unintelligible to anyone who did not have a key to decrypt them. Mitnick, of course, had the key. During the pre-trial discovery phase of the case, the government lawyer, Christopher Painter, an assistant United States attorney in Los Angeles, indicated that as required by the rules governing evidence, he would hand all of the seized files over to the defense -- except the encrypted ones. That set the stage for a hearing on May 20, 1998, before federal judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles. Speaking for the defense, Randolph argued that Mitnick was entitled to copies of the seized encrypted files under two legal theories, according to a transcript of the hearing. First, he contended, under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which establish the ground rules for the government's disclosure of evidence to the defendant, the government must allow a defendant to inspect or copy documents that "were obtained from or belong to the defendant." Since the encrypted files belonged to Mitnick, he deserved to get a copy of them, Randolph said. The defense also argued that the encrypted files might include information that could help Mitnick defend himself. Under the Constitution, the prosecution is obligated to hand over such material to the defense. Painter replied that because the government could not understand what was in the files, it could not use the files as evidence at trial. He also said that Rule 16 did not apply because the encrypted files in a sense were not "really in our possession," because "we don't know what's there." But the heart of the government lawyer's argument was that it would be wrong to hand over the files because they could contain the spoils of Mitnick's crimes -- secret information that he illegally acquired from the companies whose computers he hacked into -- or something even more dangerous. "For all we know, it could be plans to take down a computer system," Painter said at the hearing. "We don't know. And we think it's dangerous to release that, and that's why we don't want to release it. We're not going to use it, certainly, but we think that there's reasons not to release that information." In considering the matter, Judge Pfaelzer said that it was "clever" of Mitnick to have encrypted the files in such a way that the government could not use them in its own case but Mitnick could access them if given a copy. She asked: "Now, you know, what's the court supposed to do with that position?" Painter said the situation was akin to Mitnick asking for his coat back and the government not knowing if there was a pistol in the pocket. Judge Pfaelzer agreed, ruling that "this court is not going to order the encryptive material to be given" to Mitnick. The judge added that if Mitnick would "tell the government how to read" the files, then the government would turn over the files in decrypted form. Mitnick's lawyers immediately objected to this condition on the grounds that it would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain evidence he needed and that he had a legal right to see. The judge rejected this point and repeated her ruling. Vinson, the defense lawyer, said in an interview this week that he still thought Judge Pfaelzer's ruling from the bench did not give enough weight to the defense's arguments. He said he was worried that the case might create the impression that the government has no obligation to give back encrypted files that it has been unable to decrypt. "In ten years, when encryption becomes commonplace for people to use in order to protect their files, whether their files contain financial records, conversations with their spouse or a local drug dealer, the government is going to seize the files in a criminal case, and [government lawyers] will be faced with the same situation as they were in the Mitnick case," Vinson said. Painter, reached by telephone earlier this week, said both sides in the pre-trial legal battle over Mitnick's encrypted files had strong arguments. He said he agreed with Vinson that similar disputes may arise in the future as more people encrypt files. But he maintained that no precedent had been set, and that the government's responses would be on a case-by-case basis. "It could be that in future cases, depending on the circumstances, it would be more appropriate to return [encrypted files] under special procedures," Painter said. Gerald Lynch, a law professor at Columbia University who is an expert in criminal law and a former federal prosecutor, said in an interview that it was a "panic response" on the part of the court and the government to deny Mitnick access to his files. "If you think about this reasonably, the answer is that if the government does not have a reasonable basis to contend that something really dangerous [is in the encrypted files], and merely does not know what is in the files and can't decode them, then they should hand them over," he said. Alan B. Davidson, a staff lawyer who follows encryption developments for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group, said he believed the Mitnick encryption dispute is a precursor to a coming battle in Congress. As part of a compromise announced this fall by the Clinton administration that loosened export restrictions on strong encryption software, the administration has committed to sending a bill to Congress laying out rules for when the government can get access to encryption keys, Davidson said. "We are anxiously awaiting the administration's new bill, which will open up a huge debate," he said.
I wonder how did MSNBC figure out that the threat was against bill gates. According to the defaced page (see somebody elses post above) It said "...Kill Bill" nothing about Bill not being some other Bill not nesessary Gates.
I think we need a poll about this. How about: When I code I am wearing, underwear suit jeens, shirt suit of Adam
They make pretty good points. Netscape wants you to use my.netscape.com, their webmail, even the search botton, and the new shop@netscape points to their netcenter. IE is the same thing I am pretty sure search engines pay to be featured when the user clicks on search in IE. Ofcoarse you still can change all these settings, but most computer users don't know how. The only true way to get free lunch for most people is if the lunch is *PL.
I think this is the real news. Availible beta for BeOs.
yeah,o ymt/jsprefs.htm#toolbar_places_default_url
http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/depl
Just put this into your ~/preferences.js file and say good bye to netcenter.. someurl.org/");
config("toolbar.places.default_url","http://www
Although on Linux you have to echo that line into pereferences.js everytime you start netscape. The line will be removed when netscape exits.
It's the other way around, people who spent less then 4 - 5 hours a day on the internet, should be considered mentaly handicapped. Besides, what if you have a perminant connection? Damn, doctors scared of technology.
Well there goes my dream of bying a computer with a good modem
Did any one actualy get the computer interface work on a *nix platform? Using it in between computer and another device...mouse? How?