The nvidia-settings app (which should be available from the systems menu) is the easiest way I've found to do this on nvidia systems. On intel chips I've had trouble too. If you want different resolutions on each you can be in for even more pain.
Changing res without needing to restart X has definitely got better, but I'm not sure how you'd go about autodetecting and switching screen orientation on a screen like that.
Umm, what are you having trouble with? Which bit is missing for you? (genuine question)
Gnome on Ubuntu has a whole load of stuff accessible from the System menu. The only time I touch the text files at the back is when I'm experimenting with them. For ordinary users there already are a set of admin guis that are pretty consistent and powerful.
"How is UAC different from sudo? Why do I never hear the need to enter a password for the graphical sudo box that pops up just as often as Vista's UAC box?"
Do you want to re-read my comment or am I going to have to repeat myself?
I didn't mention the box. I don't really care about the box. Some people hate the box, not me. There's more to UAC than the permission box, it's the other aspects that annoy me.
Won't boot from a partition that's not aligned exactly to some arbitrary point it decides on. Just great.
I'm used to having OSs (XP, linux) that I can shuffle around my hard disk using gparted as and when I feel like I want to change things. Vista wouldn't boot after I moved its partition. WTF?
Yes, I use Vista. It came pre-installed on my laptop.
I don't like it. The interface has changed in annoying ways, like that program browser thing built into the start menu popup? Horrible! What the HELL were they thinking?
UAC is a TOTAL pain in the arse. Apparently some imaginary sysadmin is denying me the rights to do anything useful or have things I want run at startup. It helpfully (possibly even proudly) announces that it's stopped my ext2 driver from running due to a system policy. If anyone can find where the HELL you edit said policy...
And that's not to mention the pain of the user-specific virtual "program files" store. Intense, intense suckage.
With UAC turned off, it behaves ok, but, what exactly is the benefit of moving to Vista from XP? DX10? Bloat? Teh Shiny?
I use debian as my primary OS, don't talk me about your stability....:)
"That's precisely my point, self-signed certs are far more secure in theory, but there is no mechanism to use them securely."
This is a confusing use of terminology.
Strictly speaking, a self-signed certificate is one that has been used to sign itself. Using one of these for a server is not supported by all SSL implementations and is, IMHO, "a bad thing"(TM) to do simply from the angle of conventions.
However, if you mean that creating your own private CA certificate and using it to sign a server cert, then getting the user to import the CA cert public key rather than the self-signed cert itself, that's fine, and just as secure.
The problem (IMHO) is that the implementation is sucky and too many roots are put into browsers by default.
The actual mechanism works really really well, but you have to make sure you restrict your circle of trusted roots to orgs you *really* trust, for anything that's at all important.
"Perhaps when you get a form letter in return that shows they didn't read your letter in depth, that suggests that they didn't get enough anti-ID letters to put forth a thought-out response."
Entirely possible, however, IIRC, it was a reasonably long letter detailing the ID scheme (3 sheets or so I think), so someone had spent some time on it. I'm also fairly sure that the massive DB at the back is what most anti-ID folk are seriously concerned about. The "papieren bitte" aspect is scary but less easy to argue against.
"In other words, the electorate spoke, and it disagrees with your opinion. Thus, the MP went with what the electorate, not one person (or a minority), wanted."
Perfectly possible. They had a "public consultation" on this issue and decided that people were in favour of the scheme. After they'd thrown out all the internet feedback as unreliable of course. The feedback given electronically was about three times the volume of all other methods and overwhelmingly opposed.
"I'm not saying that's what happened, but every time I write to my senator about how I think on an issue, I always get form letters back assuring me I'm wrong."
I've only written on a few issues. I don't mind the responses when they just tell me I'm flat out wrong (anti London Olympics in 2012), it's when they argue against points I didn't make and then use the very things I'm concerned about to try and reassure me that I get annoyed!
It's funny, even though I've only actually contacted my MP four or five times, that's way more than anyone else I know. It's just sort of not done over here. last time I got a response on official headed paper my housemates asked me what I'd done this time, expecting that I was in some sort of trouble. I'm regarded as a bit eccentric because people feel it's pointless and also just "not the done thing" for some reason.
I'm no audiophile, in fact I pretty much hate audiophiles and their irrational love of expensive cables, and I'm pretty sure my ears are shot from years of gigs and nightclubs, but I notice that stuff.
I'm no martyr. It's just that the crushing realisation has happened- most people are too stupid or complacent to care.
I've written to my representatives and they made it clear they weren't listening. Now I'm making it clear that as I have no voice I don't see myself as bound by their rules.
I didn't, to my shame, if everyone who thoroughly agreed with you, like me, had got off there arses and marched, then just maybe we would have had a number that the government had to respect.
But the realist in me says they still would have found an excuse.
You're one of the reasons I give up on changing stuff.
Don't take that as an "I hate you!", by the way, it's not meant in an unfriendly way, but so many folks don't see this stuff getting in the way of their daily lives that getting them interested in pretty much anything is difficult.
Couple that with politicians not listening to anything much and you have a situation where, if you want to smoke weed, you may as well just go for it because you're probably not going to get caught, not many folks will actually have a problem with you, should they find out, and... well, it's just easier to have a happy life by ignoring the system where you can.
I'm in the UK so we have no senators, but your point stands.
And I have written to my MP about this. Stating clearly my concerns about the massive back end database that will contain masses of information about individuals, be a security nightmare, be abused etc etc. I also mentioned that I had no faith it would be delivered to time or budget, would not solve any of the problems it's supposed to etc etc.
Three months later I got a form reply starting -
"We've listened to your concerns but would like to reassure you that the ID card scheme isn't just about ID cards, it'll be backed by a national database..."
i.e. Making it unequivocally clear that they had not read a damn word I said and didn't care at all about my opinion. This has happened with other issues too.
Look at the Iraq war - Between 1 and 2 million people took to the streets of London, which is a lot in a country with a population of 60M, and to get that many protesting takes some serious feeling amongst the population as a whole. What happened? We went to war.
The politicians in this country are in the business of overriding and ignoring public opinion at every turn. the public are in the business of voting for the best looking, most eloquent, best funded or smartest dressed guy, so long as he's in the same party their family always vote for.
It's useless to try and get anything done this way.
How do I make it hard for other people to change laws?
I'll support them, I'll vote for them, but life's too short (for me) to spend it campaigning against a swell of ignorant inertia and tribal-identification driven voting patterns in the general population.
Others have spent decades pursuing these things only to find themselves sidelined again and again despite support, funding, determination and eloquence.
"Uh, but if you tried and succeeded would it still be a waste of time?"
That's the thing, I don't believe in the possibility of success, not until society changes itself for wider reasons.
It's not a lack of belief in myself, it's a lack of belief in everyone else. I frequently accomplish things I set out to do, but I don't set out to change the UK political process or laws because *most* people don't give a flying fsck and will happily put up with whatever they're told to by the government whilst voting along party lines because that's what they've always done.
"I see change implemented ALL THE TIME by politicians."
Yeah, me too, tends to be authoritarian and anti-scientific though, IMHO.
I don't completely sit on the sidelines - I certainly vote for those that espouse civil liberties, personal freedom and financial responsibility in government. I just don't see that making much of a difference in our current society (I'm in the UK) and I'm not going to spend my life campaigning.
"Actually it's quite possible to build a small island in international water. I'm not really interested in revolting so I don't have any plans, but your lack of ability to plan doesn't make my point any less valid."
Yeah it does, it is WAY outside the means of most folk to build an island, and there is nowhere left to go to found a new country.
"Wow, I mean, just wow. You think things are terribly wrong and awful but you can't be bothered to fix them, but you obviously want them to be fixed because otherwise you wouldn't be complaining."
It's not that I can't be bothered to fix them, it's that it's a total waste of time.
For the record though, I'd like to point out that I don't smoke the stuff, or do any other drugs. I do strongly disagree with laws and a lot of what's happening in our society and don't see any way of changing it, hence using weed as a jumping off point for the discussion./I may have been a toker in my student days//who wasn't?
Slashdot Mirror
Dual monitor config can be a pain, it's true.
The nvidia-settings app (which should be available from the systems menu) is the easiest way I've found to do this on nvidia systems. On intel chips I've had trouble too. If you want different resolutions on each you can be in for even more pain.
Changing res without needing to restart X has definitely got better, but I'm not sure how you'd go about autodetecting and switching screen orientation on a screen like that.
Agreed, this area needs work.
Umm, what are you having trouble with? Which bit is missing for you? (genuine question)
Gnome on Ubuntu has a whole load of stuff accessible from the System menu. The only time I touch the text files at the back is when I'm experimenting with them. For ordinary users there already are a set of admin guis that are pretty consistent and powerful.
Why?
They consume debian, not fedora.
It might be good for cross-distro relations but it seems a bit much to force them onto another, fairly well separated distro just for that.
"How is UAC different from sudo? Why do I never hear the need to enter a password for the graphical sudo box that pops up just as often as Vista's UAC box?"
Do you want to re-read my comment or am I going to have to repeat myself?
I didn't mention the box. I don't really care about the box. Some people hate the box, not me. There's more to UAC than the permission box, it's the other aspects that annoy me.
Oh the booting thing pissed me off too.
Won't boot from a partition that's not aligned exactly to some arbitrary point it decides on. Just great.
I'm used to having OSs (XP, linux) that I can shuffle around my hard disk using gparted as and when I feel like I want to change things. Vista wouldn't boot after I moved its partition. WTF?
Yes, I use Vista. It came pre-installed on my laptop.
I don't like it. The interface has changed in annoying ways, like that program browser thing built into the start menu popup? Horrible! What the HELL were they thinking?
UAC is a TOTAL pain in the arse. Apparently some imaginary sysadmin is denying me the rights to do anything useful or have things I want run at startup. It helpfully (possibly even proudly) announces that it's stopped my ext2 driver from running due to a system policy. If anyone can find where the HELL you edit said policy...
And that's not to mention the pain of the user-specific virtual "program files" store. Intense, intense suckage.
With UAC turned off, it behaves ok, but, what exactly is the benefit of moving to Vista from XP? DX10? Bloat? Teh Shiny?
I use debian as my primary OS, don't talk me about your stability.... :)
True. I guess at that point it's just bad luck for the genuine certificate holders that (probably) make up the majority of their customer base.
But yeah, they picked an untrustworthy provider.
"That's precisely my point, self-signed certs are far more secure in theory, but there is no mechanism to use them securely."
This is a confusing use of terminology.
Strictly speaking, a self-signed certificate is one that has been used to sign itself. Using one of these for a server is not supported by all SSL implementations and is, IMHO, "a bad thing"(TM) to do simply from the angle of conventions.
However, if you mean that creating your own private CA certificate and using it to sign a server cert, then getting the user to import the CA cert public key rather than the self-signed cert itself, that's fine, and just as secure.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps they need to get their CRL in order, which is the mechanism for dealing with certificates that have been revoked or compromised.
What's wrong with the mechanism?
The problem (IMHO) is that the implementation is sucky and too many roots are put into browsers by default.
The actual mechanism works really really well, but you have to make sure you restrict your circle of trusted roots to orgs you *really* trust, for anything that's at all important.
Unless you've already decided that you don't trust Comodo, for this reason, and have struck them from your list of trusted authorities.
Exactly.
You can already get VNC clients, and there's bound to be a build of rdesktop. Of course these may only be available on jailbroken phones...
"Perhaps when you get a form letter in return that shows they didn't read your letter in depth, that suggests that they didn't get enough anti-ID letters to put forth a thought-out response."
Entirely possible, however, IIRC, it was a reasonably long letter detailing the ID scheme (3 sheets or so I think), so someone had spent some time on it. I'm also fairly sure that the massive DB at the back is what most anti-ID folk are seriously concerned about. The "papieren bitte" aspect is scary but less easy to argue against.
"In other words, the electorate spoke, and it disagrees with your opinion. Thus, the MP went with what the electorate, not one person (or a minority), wanted."
Perfectly possible. They had a "public consultation" on this issue and decided that people were in favour of the scheme. After they'd thrown out all the internet feedback as unreliable of course. The feedback given electronically was about three times the volume of all other methods and overwhelmingly opposed.
"I'm not saying that's what happened, but every time I write to my senator about how I think on an issue, I always get form letters back assuring me I'm wrong."
I've only written on a few issues. I don't mind the responses when they just tell me I'm flat out wrong (anti London Olympics in 2012), it's when they argue against points I didn't make and then use the very things I'm concerned about to try and reassure me that I get annoyed!
It's funny, even though I've only actually contacted my MP four or five times, that's way more than anyone else I know. It's just sort of not done over here. last time I got a response on official headed paper my housemates asked me what I'd done this time, expecting that I was in some sort of trouble. I'm regarded as a bit eccentric because people feel it's pointless and also just "not the done thing" for some reason.
Democracy is b0rked over here.
I'm no audiophile, in fact I pretty much hate audiophiles and their irrational love of expensive cables, and I'm pretty sure my ears are shot from years of gigs and nightclubs, but I notice that stuff.
Sorry, but the lock analogy doesn't work.
People aren't wiggling locks any more, they're knocking the front off the house. At that point anyone can wander in and take what they want.
DRM *is* a response to piracy, but it's one that punishes the honest consumer and does nothing to stop the dishonest.
I'm no martyr. It's just that the crushing realisation has happened- most people are too stupid or complacent to care.
I've written to my representatives and they made it clear they weren't listening. Now I'm making it clear that as I have no voice I don't see myself as bound by their rules.
It's that simple.
I'm glad you did.
I didn't, to my shame, if everyone who thoroughly agreed with you, like me, had got off there arses and marched, then just maybe we would have had a number that the government had to respect.
But the realist in me says they still would have found an excuse.
As thee guy who originated this little sub-discussion on lack of faith in the population and lack of faith in politics I would like to say thankyou.
THIS.
You're one of the reasons I give up on changing stuff.
Don't take that as an "I hate you!", by the way, it's not meant in an unfriendly way, but so many folks don't see this stuff getting in the way of their daily lives that getting them interested in pretty much anything is difficult.
Couple that with politicians not listening to anything much and you have a situation where, if you want to smoke weed, you may as well just go for it because you're probably not going to get caught, not many folks will actually have a problem with you, should they find out, and... well, it's just easier to have a happy life by ignoring the system where you can.
I'm in the UK so we have no senators, but your point stands.
And I have written to my MP about this. Stating clearly my concerns about the massive back end database that will contain masses of information about individuals, be a security nightmare, be abused etc etc. I also mentioned that I had no faith it would be delivered to time or budget, would not solve any of the problems it's supposed to etc etc.
Three months later I got a form reply starting -
"We've listened to your concerns but would like to reassure you that the ID card scheme isn't just about ID cards, it'll be backed by a national database..."
i.e. Making it unequivocally clear that they had not read a damn word I said and didn't care at all about my opinion. This has happened with other issues too.
Look at the Iraq war - Between 1 and 2 million people took to the streets of London, which is a lot in a country with a population of 60M, and to get that many protesting takes some serious feeling amongst the population as a whole. What happened? We went to war.
The politicians in this country are in the business of overriding and ignoring public opinion at every turn. the public are in the business of voting for the best looking, most eloquent, best funded or smartest dressed guy, so long as he's in the same party their family always vote for.
It's useless to try and get anything done this way.
How do I make it hard for other people to change laws?
I'll support them, I'll vote for them, but life's too short (for me) to spend it campaigning against a swell of ignorant inertia and tribal-identification driven voting patterns in the general population.
Others have spent decades pursuing these things only to find themselves sidelined again and again despite support, funding, determination and eloquence.
It's become obvious that it's useless.
"Uh, but if you tried and succeeded would it still be a waste of time?"
That's the thing, I don't believe in the possibility of success, not until society changes itself for wider reasons.
It's not a lack of belief in myself, it's a lack of belief in everyone else. I frequently accomplish things I set out to do, but I don't set out to change the UK political process or laws because *most* people don't give a flying fsck and will happily put up with whatever they're told to by the government whilst voting along party lines because that's what they've always done.
"I see change implemented ALL THE TIME by politicians."
Yeah, me too, tends to be authoritarian and anti-scientific though, IMHO.
I don't completely sit on the sidelines - I certainly vote for those that espouse civil liberties, personal freedom and financial responsibility in government. I just don't see that making much of a difference in our current society (I'm in the UK) and I'm not going to spend my life campaigning.
"Actually it's quite possible to build a small island in international water. I'm not really interested in revolting so I don't have any plans, but your lack of ability to plan doesn't make my point any less valid."
Yeah it does, it is WAY outside the means of most folk to build an island, and there is nowhere left to go to found a new country.
"Wow, I mean, just wow. You think things are terribly wrong and awful but you can't be bothered to fix them, but you obviously want them to be fixed because otherwise you wouldn't be complaining."
It's not that I can't be bothered to fix them, it's that it's a total waste of time.
This is very true.
For the record though, I'd like to point out that I don't smoke the stuff, or do any other drugs. I do strongly disagree with laws and a lot of what's happening in our society and don't see any way of changing it, hence using weed as a jumping off point for the discussion. /I may have been a toker in my student days //who wasn't?