When I first started playing SWG about 1 month into the game, it was my first real attempt at a MMORPG. Yes, I was warned that they are time sinks and life stealers. But I had the time during that period and decided to give it a try. Maybe, with a Star Wars environment, it could be pretty fun.
I do not want to suggest that my experience is the same as others. Many people love SWG and MMORPGs in general. They like the time commitment, the "grinding", the combat systems, crafting, etc. In the end, I had to face the same question that I read in a review. Is it fun?
I realized that I was not actually having fun. Instead, I was trying to achieve something in an artificial world that gave me no satisfaction back. In single player games, I compare it to a fiction book. I follow the story, actively participate to a large extent, but I know there is an end to the whole experience. With a MMORPG, there is no end, there is rarely any aspect of a story, and my active participation is almost entirely meaningless.
God knows I spend a lot of time playing computer games. I am not suggesting I consider them all wastes of time. However, when I finished Splinter Cell or Operation Flashpoint, I felt like I had been part of something more real. In a MMORPG, most of the environment depends entirely on others.
Yes, I had a lot of fun the first time I was in a group and we killed a Rancor. Yes, I had a lot of fun the first time I killed a Rancor myself. But when I could walk around killing any group of Rancors I found, the fun just ended. And it was at that very moment that I realized I could have more fun doing something else.
Does everyone have to feel the same way? Absolutely not. If that is your thing, enjoy it. For me, the answer to the question was finally clear. No, it was not fun.
I think you are absolutely right. It will take a few of these to set precedence in courts. What people do not realize is that the DMCA has not really been tested much yet. Sure, slashdotters rail against it but where has the "sky is falling" practical impact been?
Now that we are seeing it (as in the Lexmark toner cartridge case), you will see more backlash.
The way Microsoft managed to dominate the browser client was that they did not try to rip and replace the server-side content. Yes, they extended it and tried to make things that broke standards compliant browsers, but they have not yet made a wholesale attempt to take over the "standards" behind the content itself.
I think you are right that they would like to decide the future structure of how content is delivered. However, I think they just cannot come up with a compelling reason for the user base to follow them. The content providers would have to endorse a wholesale migration from HTML and Javascript for them to succeed, something that is heard to see happening.
I guess Microsoft will try, but they really have a harder time today than they did 8 years ago when they started the process on the client side. Back then, they used exclusivity contracts and the "free" pricing mechanism to leverage their OS monopoly so that they could control the browser client. They destroyed that method themselves, because now the browser is commoditized. There is no revenue stream to attack. I just wonder what creative method Microsoft could use to convince even the largest sites to migrate towards some other content platform.
A violation of the EULA only gives them one recourse: cancel the license and ban the accounts.
And EULAs may or may not contain enforceable clauses, but they are not inherently enforceable across the board.
Copyright is enforceable because it is a law passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. EULAs are private license agreements between two private parties. If you don't understand the distinction, it might be just one reason why you shouldn't talk about legal principles. I can only guess there are many other reasons that could go on that list.
You will pardon the rest of us for accepting the US Supreme Court's definitions about which rights are found in the US Constitution and not your definitions.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that there IS a right of privacy to be found within the US Constitution and that this right covers a variety of areas. See Roe v. Wade and Griswald v. Connecticut for reference. You may not like the Court for reading this non-explicit right from some of the explicit rights, but they did it and that makes it the law of the land.
Your statement, however, carries absolutely no weight on the subject. When you bother to take a basic class on Constituional Law, or better still go to law school and get a degree in the subject, your blatantly incorrect statements will still carry no relevance.
Is it just me, or do a lot of slashdotters stay at Holiday Inns and therefore believe they have professional skills and knowledge that they actually do not have?
I have a lot of respect for Thomas Jefferson's beliefs. I tend to share similar sentiments that he did during his lifetime about personal liberties and the general role of government.
But there is a little problem with your quotes from Thomas Jefferson as an argument about the meaning of the 10th Amendment (or any other part of the US Constitution). He did not participate in the Constitutional Convention. He didn't write any of the US Constitution. Virginia was represented by James Madison, some who had significantly different views than Jefferson did about so-called states rights.
My point was not that states do not have powers. They clearly do. They have most of the powers. My point is that those powers do not come from the 10th Amendment. The US federal and state governments are governments of GRANTED rights. That's the only thing the 10th Amendment was intended to reinforce. It's not some wholesale protection of state governments to do whatever they want.
What a fucking ridiculous attempt by Valve. Their sole recourse is something they already do: ban accounts.
Here are the possible "legal actions" Valve could take.
1) EULA violation - This is only available to Valve against an end user. The total recourse that Valve has against the end user is to terminate the license to use the software. Can Valve seek monetary damages? I doubt it because the EULA probably says that YOUR sole recourse against Valve is a refund of the purchase price or some similar limitation. If they aren't liable to you for any damages, then you probably aren't liable to them for any damages. There needs to be reciprocity.
Besides all that, the enforceability of a EULA is definitely not clearly established. Courts have often accepted some terms but not accepted other terms. A EULA is [B]not[/B] a contract because a contract requires a) an exchange (which you have here - give us money and we will let you use our software) and b) mutual agreement to the terms. Part B is where EULAs are at risk. Software licenses tend not to give any ability to negotiate them, making them actually less enforceable. I am not saying they are not enforceable, I am just saying that you should not assume that just because a company writes something in a EULA that it is always enforceable.
Regardless, a EULA does not apply to an independent person or company who writes a program because they never enter into the EULA. So you cannot use the EULA violation argument when going after a cheat program maker.
2) Copyright violation - Valve could only use this against the cheat program maker, as they could not sue an end user under this violation. I will give an example. If you buy a music CD and the artist is sued for stealing one of the songs, you cannot be sued for the copyright violation because you didn't actually violate the copyright - the artist did.
The problem for Valve is that, unless the cheat program actually uses software code from Valve, there is no violation. A person is free to reverse engineer the protocol Valve uses and make a compatible program. While there may be a different type of violation for using that program on Valve's network (see the EULA violation above) the software author is not liable for anything.
3) Interference with business - By using the cheat program, an end user could also be considered to interfere with Valve's business because maybe people will not use the service in the future. Highly speculative damages and usually not accepted by the court. Again, Valve's recourse is under the EULA to terminate the service. No additional damages are likely.
Valve could also go after the cheat program makers under this theory, only to also likely lose. Why? Because if someone makes a cheat for Half-Life, the cheat can also be used on networks that Valve does not own or control. Therefore, the cheat program has a usage that does not infringe upon Valve's interests.
My point is that Valve's attempt to use the legal system to stop cheating is pretty much useless. While many of you may think cheating is bad and annoying and whatever else, it is not illegal and Valve needs a legal basis to go after software creators or end-users. I don't see any legal basis for them to do it. Their recourse is to terminate accounts. That's pretty much it.
Napster was shut down because any legitimate function it may have had was vastly overshadowed by the illegal activity that took place on its network. I'd say a similar argument holds for cheating in online games.
What world do you live in? Cheating may be antisocial, annoying, bad, immoral or whatever but it's not illegal. The argument about Napster is that people were violating US Copyright Code (Title 18) by distributing copyrighted works without authorization. That is illegal.
Valve is blowing smoke and doing what annoys many people on slashdot, which is to try to use the legal system to stop behavior you don't like. Well guess what? If I want to write a program to cheat by manipulating codes sent from my computer, then your recourse is to ban me from using the server. That's it. Any suggestion that there is some legal right to do more is plain silly.
Technically, cheat software like OGL can be considered derivative work. Under US copyright law, derivative works require permission, otherwise its a form of copyright infringement. Of course, the same can be said of all those console cheating devices like .
Boy, you really pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? The term "derivative works" has nothing to do with making a program that is compatible with another program. Are you telling me that if I independtly write a program to view Word or Acrobat documents that I have created a derivative work under the US Copyright Code? You obviously aren't a lawyer but would like to play one on tv.
I really get annoyed when people stay at a Holiday Inn because they think it makes them experts on anything.
emulating/overriding the nVidia graphics subsystem may not be possible
There is no "nVidia graphics subsystem". There is an nVidia graphics processing unit (GPU). But any game for the Xbox surely using the DirectX API for any graphic work and is not hardcoded to any single GPU. So long as the new ATI GPU supports all the DirectX API functionality currently found in the nVidea GPU, there would be no compatibility problem.
The bigger problem, as already mentioned, is that the CPU itself will be PPC-based and no longer x86, therefore MS would have to emulate the x86 CPU. They could do it, but I think they figured why bother.
Besides, I bet you will be able to buy an Xbox 1 backwards compatibility kit that includes a software upgrade for x86 emulation.
I only played Halo on the Xbox but I completely agree that it is highly overrated, if only because a goddamn gamepad controller is pure shit for an FPS.
Give me any of the Rainbow Six titles any day of the week, but if you want an arcade FPS then any of the Quakes or Unreal Tournament still waste Halo in playability.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Why do people always bring up the 10th Amendment to support their states rights theories? They read the language and think they found some smoking gun.
Anyone who takes a basic class on US Constitutional law (not even one in law school, just college). Knows that the 10th Amendment was never meant to give some special supremacy to the states. It was simply added to reinforce that the US governments are based on the principle of granted powers. That means if the power is not expressly granted (to any part of the government, federal, state, local) then the power doesn't exist.
If you lean towards the belief in original intent, just read what the drafters said about the damn thing.
And by the way, those are two different things you were talking about. You are combining the concept of "supremacy" versus "granted powers". The 10th Amendment refers to "granted powers". It does not address the "supremacy" part, nor does it need to. The US Supreme Court clearly established about 200 years ago that federal laws have supremacy over state laws. And international treaties ratified by the Senate have supremacy over federal laws.
I know people that refuse to work because the gov will take tax money from asses like you and give it to people like them.
You know some seriously stupid people. Honestly, I have no heard the argument "There are people who go on welfare to get rich." in quite a long time. I had thought such stupidity was dead. Apparently it is alive and well in your world.
You think so? Then you never had to deal with News Corp. They are a bunch of blood sucking assholes that would rather drag you through hell than admit wrongdoing.
There is a reason they are despised in every industry they are in. Rupert Murdoch is a major asshole and everyone knows it. I am pretty sure he prides himself on it.#
I think DirecTV knew from the beginning that there was about a 1-2 year life span on their approach of threatening lawsuits. Once they started filing them, people were going to fight those lawsuits. Judges across the company have started throwing many of the claims out from the very start. And once cases got to discovery like depositions or even trial, DirecTV had absolutely no case because they never once could provide any evidence that a person was pirating their signal.
Case law was pretty clear. Even possession of devices which allowed an individual to pirate signals is not sufficient. They have to prove actual usage (and therefore theft). Besides the fact that a smartcard programmer doesn't do anything by itself. You still needed a computer, advanced software to program DirecTV's cards along with the personal knowledge how to do it all.
Currently, no one can pirate their signal so I am sure that factored into their change of approach too.
But it definitely was not the love of good old News Corp that brought this shit to an end.
It's only legal to enforce that kind of clause because the United States Copyright Code specifically lists videogames and movies as being restricted.
You cannot rent movies and videogames without specific permission of the copyright holder.
It's all there in Title 17 of the US Code. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
Personally, I do not see the language of Title 17 as particularly clear in this matter. I see an argument that a cybercafe is renting time on a computer to access the software, not renting the software itself. Therefore, no special license is necessary for the software being used. You could bolster that argument if you charged the same fee regardless of the software being used.
I do not think it is so clear cut and depends entirely on how the situation is framed. Would you need a special Microsoft Windows license because it is a publically accessible computer? How about MS Office if the person is using Word or Excel?
To me, if TiVo's the best, and still cheaper (at least for the first couple of years of use), why use homebrew except for bragging rights?
Here's one reason: I live in Europe but have a remote MythTV box setup in the USA. I remotely control it and download whatever I record. I cannot do that with a TiVo.
A second reason is that some PVRs have additional functions built in. MythTV has add-ons for DVDs, music, weather, web browsing, videogame emulation, photos, etc.
TiVo is great. I love it. But for some, it may not do everything they want. For that, there is MythTV! Of course, it's not for the technically phobic people...
It occurs to me that trying to use one of these alternatives will work great until the automated TV listing parser stops working due to a moved web page or some other problem.
I can only speak to this point for MythTV, which I use. Starting in the 0.14 development tree and now integrated in the current 0.15 release, MythTV now supports the DataDirect capability where you can register with Zap2It and get an official download of the tv lists.
So MythTV no longer relies on the screen-scraper method of reformatting the tv listings from Zap2It into XMLTV format. Even in the past, I always kept the tv listing grabber updated. It was maintained pretty well and fixed quickly after being broken.
Zap2It only requires you to periodically fill out questionnaires to keep your account active. Of course, they could always change this but I consider this a minor risk.
As to your point about your mother, I never heard anyone recommend certain PVR solutions to common end users. But a couple of entries in the crontab would allow me to put such a box at my mother's fingertips and she would do just fine with it.
I have a nice utility from Logitech called iTouch. What does it do? It handles key mappings for their keyboard that has some custom key.
Application memory space during runtime? 15MB.
I remember when Borland spend a lot of effort to optimize their Quattro Pro spreadsheet so that it was monitoring it's own memory usage down to 512 byte increments. It would start discarding portions of itself that it no longer needed.
I think he clarified his experience. Try turning off the Firewall function and then test again. According to Rateliff, with the Firewall option turned off and the Remote Admin turned off, he still could get to the admin tool through 80 and 443. With the firewall turned on, he no longer saw the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not want to suggest that my experience is the same as others. Many people love SWG and MMORPGs in general. They like the time commitment, the "grinding", the combat systems, crafting, etc. In the end, I had to face the same question that I read in a review. Is it fun?
I realized that I was not actually having fun. Instead, I was trying to achieve something in an artificial world that gave me no satisfaction back. In single player games, I compare it to a fiction book. I follow the story, actively participate to a large extent, but I know there is an end to the whole experience. With a MMORPG, there is no end, there is rarely any aspect of a story, and my active participation is almost entirely meaningless.
God knows I spend a lot of time playing computer games. I am not suggesting I consider them all wastes of time. However, when I finished Splinter Cell or Operation Flashpoint, I felt like I had been part of something more real. In a MMORPG, most of the environment depends entirely on others.
Yes, I had a lot of fun the first time I was in a group and we killed a Rancor. Yes, I had a lot of fun the first time I killed a Rancor myself. But when I could walk around killing any group of Rancors I found, the fun just ended. And it was at that very moment that I realized I could have more fun doing something else.
Does everyone have to feel the same way? Absolutely not. If that is your thing, enjoy it. For me, the answer to the question was finally clear. No, it was not fun.
Now that we are seeing it (as in the Lexmark toner cartridge case), you will see more backlash.
You really expect us to believe you have a girlfriend?
I think you are right that they would like to decide the future structure of how content is delivered. However, I think they just cannot come up with a compelling reason for the user base to follow them. The content providers would have to endorse a wholesale migration from HTML and Javascript for them to succeed, something that is heard to see happening.
I guess Microsoft will try, but they really have a harder time today than they did 8 years ago when they started the process on the client side. Back then, they used exclusivity contracts and the "free" pricing mechanism to leverage their OS monopoly so that they could control the browser client. They destroyed that method themselves, because now the browser is commoditized. There is no revenue stream to attack. I just wonder what creative method Microsoft could use to convince even the largest sites to migrate towards some other content platform.
IIS is the most vulnerable and susceptible web server to attacks and problems of this sort. It's by far not the most popular.
Ever heard of Apache?
Washington Mutual and Capital One work just fine on Firefox for me.
That mod should be Informative, not Funny.
And EULAs may or may not contain enforceable clauses, but they are not inherently enforceable across the board.
Copyright is enforceable because it is a law passed by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch. EULAs are private license agreements between two private parties. If you don't understand the distinction, it might be just one reason why you shouldn't talk about legal principles. I can only guess there are many other reasons that could go on that list.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that there IS a right of privacy to be found within the US Constitution and that this right covers a variety of areas. See Roe v. Wade and Griswald v. Connecticut for reference. You may not like the Court for reading this non-explicit right from some of the explicit rights, but they did it and that makes it the law of the land.
Your statement, however, carries absolutely no weight on the subject. When you bother to take a basic class on Constituional Law, or better still go to law school and get a degree in the subject, your blatantly incorrect statements will still carry no relevance.
Is it just me, or do a lot of slashdotters stay at Holiday Inns and therefore believe they have professional skills and knowledge that they actually do not have?
But there is a little problem with your quotes from Thomas Jefferson as an argument about the meaning of the 10th Amendment (or any other part of the US Constitution). He did not participate in the Constitutional Convention. He didn't write any of the US Constitution. Virginia was represented by James Madison, some who had significantly different views than Jefferson did about so-called states rights.
My point was not that states do not have powers. They clearly do. They have most of the powers. My point is that those powers do not come from the 10th Amendment. The US federal and state governments are governments of GRANTED rights. That's the only thing the 10th Amendment was intended to reinforce. It's not some wholesale protection of state governments to do whatever they want.
What a fucking ridiculous attempt by Valve. Their sole recourse is something they already do: ban accounts. Here are the possible "legal actions" Valve could take. 1) EULA violation - This is only available to Valve against an end user. The total recourse that Valve has against the end user is to terminate the license to use the software. Can Valve seek monetary damages? I doubt it because the EULA probably says that YOUR sole recourse against Valve is a refund of the purchase price or some similar limitation. If they aren't liable to you for any damages, then you probably aren't liable to them for any damages. There needs to be reciprocity. Besides all that, the enforceability of a EULA is definitely not clearly established. Courts have often accepted some terms but not accepted other terms. A EULA is [B]not[/B] a contract because a contract requires a) an exchange (which you have here - give us money and we will let you use our software) and b) mutual agreement to the terms. Part B is where EULAs are at risk. Software licenses tend not to give any ability to negotiate them, making them actually less enforceable. I am not saying they are not enforceable, I am just saying that you should not assume that just because a company writes something in a EULA that it is always enforceable. Regardless, a EULA does not apply to an independent person or company who writes a program because they never enter into the EULA. So you cannot use the EULA violation argument when going after a cheat program maker. 2) Copyright violation - Valve could only use this against the cheat program maker, as they could not sue an end user under this violation. I will give an example. If you buy a music CD and the artist is sued for stealing one of the songs, you cannot be sued for the copyright violation because you didn't actually violate the copyright - the artist did. The problem for Valve is that, unless the cheat program actually uses software code from Valve, there is no violation. A person is free to reverse engineer the protocol Valve uses and make a compatible program. While there may be a different type of violation for using that program on Valve's network (see the EULA violation above) the software author is not liable for anything. 3) Interference with business - By using the cheat program, an end user could also be considered to interfere with Valve's business because maybe people will not use the service in the future. Highly speculative damages and usually not accepted by the court. Again, Valve's recourse is under the EULA to terminate the service. No additional damages are likely. Valve could also go after the cheat program makers under this theory, only to also likely lose. Why? Because if someone makes a cheat for Half-Life, the cheat can also be used on networks that Valve does not own or control. Therefore, the cheat program has a usage that does not infringe upon Valve's interests. My point is that Valve's attempt to use the legal system to stop cheating is pretty much useless. While many of you may think cheating is bad and annoying and whatever else, it is not illegal and Valve needs a legal basis to go after software creators or end-users. I don't see any legal basis for them to do it. Their recourse is to terminate accounts. That's pretty much it.
What world do you live in? Cheating may be antisocial, annoying, bad, immoral or whatever but it's not illegal. The argument about Napster is that people were violating US Copyright Code (Title 18) by distributing copyrighted works without authorization. That is illegal.
Valve is blowing smoke and doing what annoys many people on slashdot, which is to try to use the legal system to stop behavior you don't like. Well guess what? If I want to write a program to cheat by manipulating codes sent from my computer, then your recourse is to ban me from using the server. That's it. Any suggestion that there is some legal right to do more is plain silly.
Boy, you really pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? The term "derivative works" has nothing to do with making a program that is compatible with another program. Are you telling me that if I independtly write a program to view Word or Acrobat documents that I have created a derivative work under the US Copyright Code? You obviously aren't a lawyer but would like to play one on tv.
I really get annoyed when people stay at a Holiday Inn because they think it makes them experts on anything.
There is no "nVidia graphics subsystem". There is an nVidia graphics processing unit (GPU). But any game for the Xbox surely using the DirectX API for any graphic work and is not hardcoded to any single GPU. So long as the new ATI GPU supports all the DirectX API functionality currently found in the nVidea GPU, there would be no compatibility problem.
The bigger problem, as already mentioned, is that the CPU itself will be PPC-based and no longer x86, therefore MS would have to emulate the x86 CPU. They could do it, but I think they figured why bother.
Besides, I bet you will be able to buy an Xbox 1 backwards compatibility kit that includes a software upgrade for x86 emulation.
Give me any of the Rainbow Six titles any day of the week, but if you want an arcade FPS then any of the Quakes or Unreal Tournament still waste Halo in playability.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Why do people always bring up the 10th Amendment to support their states rights theories? They read the language and think they found some smoking gun.
Anyone who takes a basic class on US Constitutional law (not even one in law school, just college). Knows that the 10th Amendment was never meant to give some special supremacy to the states. It was simply added to reinforce that the US governments are based on the principle of granted powers. That means if the power is not expressly granted (to any part of the government, federal, state, local) then the power doesn't exist.
If you lean towards the belief in original intent, just read what the drafters said about the damn thing.
And by the way, those are two different things you were talking about. You are combining the concept of "supremacy" versus "granted powers". The 10th Amendment refers to "granted powers". It does not address the "supremacy" part, nor does it need to. The US Supreme Court clearly established about 200 years ago that federal laws have supremacy over state laws. And international treaties ratified by the Senate have supremacy over federal laws.
You know some seriously stupid people. Honestly, I have no heard the argument "There are people who go on welfare to get rich." in quite a long time. I had thought such stupidity was dead. Apparently it is alive and well in your world.
Why do I respond to crap like this?
There is a reason they are despised in every industry they are in. Rupert Murdoch is a major asshole and everyone knows it. I am pretty sure he prides himself on it.#
I think DirecTV knew from the beginning that there was about a 1-2 year life span on their approach of threatening lawsuits. Once they started filing them, people were going to fight those lawsuits. Judges across the company have started throwing many of the claims out from the very start. And once cases got to discovery like depositions or even trial, DirecTV had absolutely no case because they never once could provide any evidence that a person was pirating their signal.
Case law was pretty clear. Even possession of devices which allowed an individual to pirate signals is not sufficient. They have to prove actual usage (and therefore theft). Besides the fact that a smartcard programmer doesn't do anything by itself. You still needed a computer, advanced software to program DirecTV's cards along with the personal knowledge how to do it all.
Currently, no one can pirate their signal so I am sure that factored into their change of approach too.
But it definitely was not the love of good old News Corp that brought this shit to an end.
You cannot rent movies and videogames without specific permission of the copyright holder.
It's all there in Title 17 of the US Code. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/
Personally, I do not see the language of Title 17 as particularly clear in this matter. I see an argument that a cybercafe is renting time on a computer to access the software, not renting the software itself. Therefore, no special license is necessary for the software being used. You could bolster that argument if you charged the same fee regardless of the software being used.
I do not think it is so clear cut and depends entirely on how the situation is framed. Would you need a special Microsoft Windows license because it is a publically accessible computer? How about MS Office if the person is using Word or Excel?
Here's one reason: I live in Europe but have a remote MythTV box setup in the USA. I remotely control it and download whatever I record. I cannot do that with a TiVo.
A second reason is that some PVRs have additional functions built in. MythTV has add-ons for DVDs, music, weather, web browsing, videogame emulation, photos, etc.
TiVo is great. I love it. But for some, it may not do everything they want. For that, there is MythTV! Of course, it's not for the technically phobic people...
I can only speak to this point for MythTV, which I use. Starting in the 0.14 development tree and now integrated in the current 0.15 release, MythTV now supports the DataDirect capability where you can register with Zap2It and get an official download of the tv lists.
So MythTV no longer relies on the screen-scraper method of reformatting the tv listings from Zap2It into XMLTV format. Even in the past, I always kept the tv listing grabber updated. It was maintained pretty well and fixed quickly after being broken.
Zap2It only requires you to periodically fill out questionnaires to keep your account active. Of course, they could always change this but I consider this a minor risk.
As to your point about your mother, I never heard anyone recommend certain PVR solutions to common end users. But a couple of entries in the crontab would allow me to put such a box at my mother's fingertips and she would do just fine with it.
Now I need to wipe the smile off my face.
Application memory space during runtime? 15MB.
I remember when Borland spend a lot of effort to optimize their Quattro Pro spreadsheet so that it was monitoring it's own memory usage down to 512 byte increments. It would start discarding portions of itself that it no longer needed.
Those days are over, for sure.
I think he clarified his experience. Try turning off the Firewall function and then test again. According to Rateliff, with the Firewall option turned off and the Remote Admin turned off, he still could get to the admin tool through 80 and 443. With the firewall turned on, he no longer saw the problem.
And I definitely do not have the problem with the Wifibox firmware that I have been using for almost 9 months.