Those people I know who have worked with Solaris 10 are very enthusiastic about it. If it becomes open-source, this will benefit everyone. Solaris, because people who care can support and improve it, and other systems, because they can copy the features. We love you, Sun!
Hang on a second. Don't get too excited. Just because something becomes open source, does not mean it will have an open license which benefits anyone other than the licensee.
They could very well open it and apply a license that prevents their code from being used with any other code which uses another license. Or even allow license compatible code (BSD? We'll have to wait and see their licence) to be included into their code, but not the other way.
I really doubt that Sun would have a really open license that allows the features that make them stand out, just get copied over to Linux, for example. Especially since AMD 64bit gear is such good value (Linux and commodity AMD64 gear could eat into their workstation and low-end server market).
[Paranoia mode: HIGH] Perhaps they are intentionally setting themselves up for future litigation. Hoping that their code will creep into some big name code bases, so that they can sue. [Paranoia mode: OFF]
You're the clueless idiot. The BSD (sans advertising clause) is GPL compatible, any changes you make, you can choose to re-release the entire program under the GPL. The old code before your changes can still be considered under BSD, but everything else can be GPL'd.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
In other words (the bold part), the BSD licence must remain with any code that has had the BSD licence applied.
The GPL idiot and thief, removed the BSD licence from the original authors BSD licenced code. You cannot change a few words and then strip out the copyright/licence, let alone replace those with your details and a licence of your choosing.
If any original code remains, then the BSD licence must also.
This 4gl business, is a copyright infringement and must be one of the most dishonorable and blatant OSS violations I have seen in a while. Unforunately, in every community, there are going to be some scumbags.
(149MB, matching MD5 which might beat some of the mirrors). Cheers;)
Thanks Daniel.
Just wondering, is it still safe to trust MD5? It is not now easier to create a bogus file with the same hash? I thought SHA1 would now be in use for this.
Thank you very much for pf and all your OpenBSD work btw! I've been using since 2.5 and pf is probably the most impressive part of OpenBSD as it currently stands (for me).
Given how little (that is, nothing) is turned on in the default install, one remote root hole is pretty damned bad. Remember that that's a remote root hole with *no* services running... Now, if they had only one remote root hole including sshd, a webserver, a mailserver and so on, that'd be something to brag about.
You speak with such authority, for someone who obviously knows nothing about the subject.
OpenSSH has been ON by default at some stage after or including OpenBSD 2.6 and only recently has the option to disable it within the install script, become an option for users. That's about 5.5 years out of that 8.
The foundation of your rant is completely non-existent.
Nowdays, even if you do enable popular daemons, your typical worst case is likely to be a DoS instead of a remote root, thanks to OpenBSD.
I take, "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!", as a fact that is representative of the mindset of the developers behind the project, not as an absolute gauge of overall project security. Anyone who does or thinks that is what it is supposed to represent, is stupid.
Take that statement for what it is. Reading more into it is your problem.
Re:And with only 1 remote hole in the default inst
on
OpenBSD Now Nine Years Old
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
soon as you add in server applications, you decrease the security.
No shit?!
The point with OpenBSD, is that it has so many active security mechanisms, that a [insert network daemon] exploit might allow a remote root on your FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux machines, but only result in a DoS of that particular service on OpenBSD.
Already we are not only seeing open source OS' take leafs out of OpenBSD's book, but also Microsoft and Sun.
The multitude of active and passive security measures in OpenBSD is very impressive.
Plus the point is, that an OS should be locked down from the initial install and then built on from there as the admin requires, not as the OS maintainers think you will require.
Presumptuous people who build operating systems, do not make secure operating systems.
All you lose is the booster (usually provided by engine intake vacuum, hence only works with engine running)
Isn't it manifold pressure?
I was of the belief that with manifold pressure high after the engine has been running, you can still get braking assistance with the engine off, but it fades as you bleed that pressure away (with brake usage). Each subsequent application of the brake becoming less effective.
See here's the thing about your bogus framing of the debate. There has never been an example of an atheist (outside of a Stalinist country) demanding a plaque declaring "There is NO god." be hung in every school. No children have been asked to declare God dead as part of a loyalty oath, in a political effort for immoral politicians to attempt to appear moral.
I guess that goes to show that atheists are basically reasonable people.
I was forced through Catholic schooling right up through high school. I stopped believing when I was about 10. I reasoned with what I knew and what I was taught and came to my current belief (now I am 32). Being surrounded by unreasonable people for the next 8 years was not fun.
I think "fundamentalist atheists" are just unreasonable zealots who just happened to come to an atheist belief.
Even though I would consider myself hardcore atheist, I have never, ever, tried to "talk sense" into anyone. I don't think anyone should.
In Sydney Australia, we have these young well dressed men, armed with (I guess it is) a bible and American accents, asking people "how are you today" as we walk past. Politely telling them "fine thank you" and then informing them that I have no time to talk, is quickly ignored by them. They still ask questions in an attempt to stop people.
They are 1. wasting their time, because I already adhere to "their brand of crazy" or 2. think that if I don't, they know better than me, what is best for me.
I can't beleive, in this technological age where we are flying people around the World and into space, curing diseases and communicating between small handset devices, that still religion is not only here, but it dominates!
I wonder if this is partially due to the fact that religious people preach and atheists think?
What the fuck are you on man? By your logic, I need a 294 MB card for each photo (336,000,000x7/8)! Umm. take a look at the numbers again and let me know when you clue in.
336,000,000 bits = 42,000,000 bytes or 41 megabytes.
RLE encoding would probably get at least another factor of 2 out of that.
RLE is great for clean computer generated or low bit depth images, but for high bit depth images snapped from the real world with a noisy CCD? Forget RLE. I would be surprised if you ever see runs of the same pixel data of longer than 1 pixel. ; )
CCD noise in the sensor, will conspire to destroy any large swatches of equal pixel values, making the benefit of RLE dubious at best.
I agree completely. Even just based on the CCD noise.
PS, anyone know if CCD noise remains constant or otherwise constant at least for a given temperature?
Reason I ask, is that in CCD usage with astronomy, it is common to capture a completely dark image (cap on, dark room, etc) and then subtract that image from future images, which goes a long way to removing the CCD noise.
I wonder if a technique like this is actually being done, in-camera for pro digitals? And I wonder if it could be good enough to at least make RLE a little bit useful.
Except a raw image is 10bpp (on Canon cameras, anyway).
Are you sure about that? I don't use Canon gear, but usually when 10 or 12 bit colour in digital photo gear is being refered to, they are refering to 10 bits per R, G and B, or 30bits per pixel.
If RGB is used, 10 bits per pixel does not divide evenly. Which can be okay since perception of gradation vary between the primary colours, meaning that you could use R3 G4 B3.
The slide scanner I will probably get, is touted as being 16bit, equating to 48bit per pixel. At first this might seem like overkill, but it can come in handy to manipulate at higher than your desired final bpp, to avoid compounded error in the least significant bits and then bring it down at the last stage.
Getting more colour info from surounding pixels, seems like it's a pretty far from optimum solution.
Here's a review of the original 1Ds from luminous-landscape. To sum it up (it's rather lengthy), the author favorably compares the 1Ds to medium format film.
I projected some 35mm Scala ISO 200 B&W slide film, measured a square portion and manually counted the grains across and down, then multiplied accordingly to get the full frame. From memory, it worked out to be about 18 "mega grains".
I have been promising myself, that I won't upgrade my pro gear to digital, until Nikon gets to 20MP. The thought of sub 20MP being comparable to medium format film, seems to approach the absurd.
When 35mm digital gets to 50MP, then I'll accept the "comparable to MF film" claims.
I could put it on my SPARC and be in the exact same environment as I have on my x86 laptop!
I have not used NetBSD much. I mostly use OpenBSD.
So keep that in mind when I say...
I hear a lot of people say that the user experience across architectures varies a lot with NetBSD. Even between popular archs like x86, macppc and sparc64.
I use OpenBSD on those and find it very familiar on each, including the use of X.
One that will playback ALL major formats, has a good interface, and super long battery life. Although my iPod is great, it fails to meet 2 of these criteria. I guess we'll have to keep waiting.
iRiver H340 plays mp3, wma, ogg and asf, has a good interface (maybe not great) and 16 hours playing time.
It seems quick to transfer the files too. I transfered my whole collection, 20GB, in about 25 minutes.
Re: the colour screen, it is very nice. Very bright (even in sunlight) and high contrast. The sound is fantastic too, even with the standard Sennheiser headphones.
"Almost hits the market" is like "almost pregnant". Doesn't count. After all, Duke Nukem Forever has been "almost released" for about six years.
I bought my (awesome) H340 on 9/9/04 in Sydney.au. I'm listening to it right now in fact.
BTW, anyone in Sydney looking for one, I got my H340 at JB Hi Fi, for $5 more than the cheapest price I could find anywhere for the H320 ($689 au inc GST, at the time)!
I've never used an iRiver, so I can't comment on the relative merits, but I'd just like to point out that the 4G iPods can charge from USB (as well as FireWire, of course).
Lots of my friends have iPods and about 2 weeks ago (in Sydney Australia) I purchased an iRiver H340.
I am very happy that I did, the sound is fantastic, the screen is GORGEOUS, very bright and high contrast. I LOVE my iRiver and am happy I didn't go for an iPod.
My 40GB iRiver also claims 16 hours on one charge.
The iRiver gets charged from the USB port too, so using it as an external hdd does not suck like it can with most iPods.
BTW, the colour screen is very legible in the bright Sydney sunlight.
Ok, I want to try one of the BSD's. Which one should I get? this FreeBSD? Or Which one would you recommend? Also, whre can I find some good documentation with the linux compatibility mode of the BSD's?
I very much like OpenBSD. After trying out *lots* of Linux distros, including Redhat, SuSE, Debian and also FreeBSD and NetBSD, I feel comfortably "at home" with OpenBSD (which I started using at 2.5).
OpenBSD is very clean. Code, system layout and documentation. They also go to great lengths to improve security with both passive and active means (code audits and extreme consistency checks respectively).
If you want to try it, I would suggest you dedicate a hard drive to it (to test) and bear with the installer. The installer is fantastic in it's simplicity, once you figure it out. This might sound silly, but it won't once you do figure it out.
Once you have installed OpenBSD, note what it asks of new users after the install and heed it. Read the man pages it asks for, then look at the FAQ and Google if you have questions. If you like what you see, Secure Architectures with OpenBSD is an excellent book, that will help you appreciate even more, how wonderful this system is.
Please Google before asking questions in the mailing lists. Almost exact same questions sometimes get asked days apart and the subscribers can get a little annoyed at that (especially when the question may have already been answered well with a Google search).
Downloading it does not take long either (comparitively speaking). Just go to an ftp site that hosts the latest version, click on your architecture (i386 for example), download all the files within that directory (typically less that 150MB), then burn to a CD using cdrom35.fs (for example) as a bootable floppy image. The structure on the CD should be ver/arch (eg. 3.5/i386) if you want to be able to simply hit enter when it asks for the files to install.
You can also just download a floppy image, boot it and install directly from-the-net. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but those already comfortable with OpenBSD, simply because if you find you have made a mistake after installing, you'll need to download the same data again. Having it on CD or a local web/ftp server allows you to tinker with installation to your hearts content, without wasting bandwidth.
I host the latest i386, macppc and sparc64 files on an internal web/ftp server so that I can do quick network installs and also keep the latest source there too.
People say OpenBSD is "not good for desktop usage". This is just not true, unless you specifically need 3D accelerated video. I have run KDE, Gnome and WindowMaker for *years* with OpenBSD. Another thing is that OpenBSD is quite consistent across architectures. Whether you run an OpenBSD desktop on x86, Apple or Sun equipment, it seems the same. I can't speak of the other architectures, because I have not tried them.
BTW, when they say OpenBSD -stable is stable, they are not kidding. The project leader is VERY strict when it comes to where and when new features come in.
I'd really appreciate it if my fellow BSD users would get a bit more of a sense of humor etc...
Me too. I am responsible for the first post. I meant it as a jab to the trolls who keep posting the BSD is dead crap. They just keep on posting, while FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Mac OSX just keep taking huge strides forward.
I posted as AC because I did not want to submit my login details from where I was at the time.
Packets-per-second doesn't really tell you the characteristics of the packets being sent.
No it doesn't, however, being capable of sustaining 1 million packets per second, even if they are the smallest packets possible, is pretty impressive.
The packets have to each be serviced, so at around the same line bandwidth, smallest packets could be coming around 30 times more frequently than the largest packets.
Lots of small packets tend to be more taxing than much fewer large packets.
The fact that there is perhaps a 10 fold difference in performance ceiling between Linux and FreeBSD, should show that this is not a simple bandwidth limit. I would go so far as to say that bits per second can be more misleading than packets per second if used alone or in an inappropriate context.
Packets per second says a lot about the stack, bits per second says more about the interface driver.
Yes. A DoS should be most effective with the smallest packets you can send.
stuff like SYN floods
SYN floods work by requestion permision to statefully connect, without then going through with replying to the handshake that is sent back. When done over and over, this eventually fills the table of half-connections, which in turn prevents the initiation of any more connections and thus a denial of service.
The fact that these packets are small, is coincidental to this discusion. In other words, SYN floods don't work because the packets are small, they work because completing the required handshake sequence is not done.
and smurf attacks.
Ahh, DDoS of lots of little packets, via simple spoofing. What fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Those people I know who have worked with Solaris 10 are very enthusiastic about it. If it becomes open-source, this will benefit everyone. Solaris, because people who care can support and improve it, and other systems, because they can copy the features. We love you, Sun!
Hang on a second. Don't get too excited. Just because something becomes open source, does not mean it will have an open license which benefits anyone other than the licensee.
They could very well open it and apply a license that prevents their code from being used with any other code which uses another license. Or even allow license compatible code (BSD? We'll have to wait and see their licence) to be included into their code, but not the other way.
I really doubt that Sun would have a really open license that allows the features that make them stand out, just get copied over to Linux, for example. Especially since AMD 64bit gear is such good value (Linux and commodity AMD64 gear could eat into their workstation and low-end server market).
[Paranoia mode: HIGH] Perhaps they are intentionally setting themselves up for future litigation. Hoping that their code will creep into some big name code bases, so that they can sue. [Paranoia mode: OFF]
You're the clueless idiot. The BSD (sans advertising clause) is GPL compatible, any changes you make, you can choose to re-release the entire program under the GPL. The old code before your changes can still be considered under BSD, but everything else can be GPL'd.
Have you read the BSD licence and this story?
Copyright (c) ,
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
In other words (the bold part), the BSD licence must remain with any code that has had the BSD licence applied.
The GPL idiot and thief, removed the BSD licence from the original authors BSD licenced code. You cannot change a few words and then strip out the copyright/licence, let alone replace those with your details and a licence of your choosing.
If any original code remains, then the BSD licence must also.
This 4gl business, is a copyright infringement and must be one of the most dishonorable and blatant OSS violations I have seen in a while. Unforunately, in every community, there are going to be some scumbags.
if it's that simple why not just write a script for it?
I think his point is that re-compiling from source, takes longer than just patching or even replacing a binary.
I'd keep this embrassing lack of functionality a secret.. Good god.
They had specifically avoided SMP for many security related reasons.
Maybe with HT and multicore CPU's on the horizon, SMP suddenly has become a lot more important?
anyway, where are you getting the md5 from? the same ftp server where you're getting the release?
Good point. Funnily enough, I've brought that up a few times myself in the past. ; )
(149MB, matching MD5 which might beat some of the mirrors). Cheers ;)
Thanks Daniel.
Just wondering, is it still safe to trust MD5? It is not now easier to create a bogus file with the same hash? I thought SHA1 would now be in use for this.
Thank you very much for pf and all your OpenBSD work btw! I've been using since 2.5 and pf is probably the most impressive part of OpenBSD as it currently stands (for me).
Given how little (that is, nothing) is turned on in the default install, one remote root hole is pretty damned bad. Remember that that's a remote root hole with *no* services running... Now, if they had only one remote root hole including sshd, a webserver, a mailserver and so on, that'd be something to brag about.
You speak with such authority, for someone who obviously knows nothing about the subject.
OpenSSH has been ON by default at some stage after or including OpenBSD 2.6 and only recently has the option to disable it within the install script, become an option for users. That's about 5.5 years out of that 8.
The foundation of your rant is completely non-existent.
Nowdays, even if you do enable popular daemons, your typical worst case is likely to be a DoS instead of a remote root, thanks to OpenBSD.
I take, "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!", as a fact that is representative of the mindset of the developers behind the project, not as an absolute gauge of overall project security. Anyone who does or thinks that is what it is supposed to represent, is stupid.
Take that statement for what it is. Reading more into it is your problem.
soon as you add in server applications, you decrease the security.
No shit?!
The point with OpenBSD, is that it has so many active security mechanisms, that a [insert network daemon] exploit might allow a remote root on your FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux machines, but only result in a DoS of that particular service on OpenBSD.
Already we are not only seeing open source OS' take leafs out of OpenBSD's book, but also Microsoft and Sun.
The multitude of active and passive security measures in OpenBSD is very impressive.
Plus the point is, that an OS should be locked down from the initial install and then built on from there as the admin requires, not as the OS maintainers think you will require.
Presumptuous people who build operating systems, do not make secure operating systems.
All you lose is the booster (usually provided by engine intake vacuum, hence only works with engine running)
Isn't it manifold pressure?
I was of the belief that with manifold pressure high after the engine has been running, you can still get braking assistance with the engine off, but it fades as you bleed that pressure away (with brake usage). Each subsequent application of the brake becoming less effective.
Atheists think that if somebody's happy believing in a god that doesn't exist, why try to stop them rather than letting them enjoy life?
Amen brother!
See here's the thing about your bogus framing of the debate. There has never been an example of an atheist (outside of a Stalinist country) demanding a plaque declaring "There is NO god." be hung in every school. No children have been asked to declare God dead as part of a loyalty oath, in a political effort for immoral politicians to attempt to appear moral.
I guess that goes to show that atheists are basically reasonable people.
I was forced through Catholic schooling right up through high school. I stopped believing when I was about 10. I reasoned with what I knew and what I was taught and came to my current belief (now I am 32). Being surrounded by unreasonable people for the next 8 years was not fun.
I think "fundamentalist atheists" are just unreasonable zealots who just happened to come to an atheist belief.
Even though I would consider myself hardcore atheist, I have never, ever, tried to "talk sense" into anyone. I don't think anyone should.
In Sydney Australia, we have these young well dressed men, armed with (I guess it is) a bible and American accents, asking people "how are you today" as we walk past. Politely telling them "fine thank you" and then informing them that I have no time to talk, is quickly ignored by them. They still ask questions in an attempt to stop people.
They are 1. wasting their time, because I already adhere to "their brand of crazy" or 2. think that if I don't, they know better than me, what is best for me.
I can't beleive, in this technological age where we are flying people around the World and into space, curing diseases and communicating between small handset devices, that still religion is not only here, but it dominates!
I wonder if this is partially due to the fact that religious people preach and atheists think?
That's peculiar, as one of NetBSD's strengths is the consistency across platforms.
Yes, that is what I thought prior to hearing the opposite. I'm too busy to back it up with any links, so I hereby retract the statement! ; )
I wouldn't want to be the cause of any unfounded rumour, especially against any BSD.
What the fuck are you on man? By your logic, I need a 294 MB card for each photo (336,000,000x7/8)! Umm. take a look at the numbers again and let me know when you clue in.
336,000,000 bits = 42,000,000 bytes or 41 megabytes.
RLE encoding would probably get at least another factor of 2 out of that.
RLE is great for clean computer generated or low bit depth images, but for high bit depth images snapped from the real world with a noisy CCD? Forget RLE. I would be surprised if you ever see runs of the same pixel data of longer than 1 pixel. ; )
CCD noise in the sensor, will conspire to destroy any large swatches of equal pixel values, making the benefit of RLE dubious at best.
I agree completely. Even just based on the CCD noise.
PS, anyone know if CCD noise remains constant or otherwise constant at least for a given temperature?
Reason I ask, is that in CCD usage with astronomy, it is common to capture a completely dark image (cap on, dark room, etc) and then subtract that image from future images, which goes a long way to removing the CCD noise.
I wonder if a technique like this is actually being done, in-camera for pro digitals? And I wonder if it could be good enough to at least make RLE a little bit useful.
Except a raw image is 10bpp (on Canon cameras, anyway).
Are you sure about that? I don't use Canon gear, but usually when 10 or 12 bit colour in digital photo gear is being refered to, they are refering to 10 bits per R, G and B, or 30bits per pixel.
If RGB is used, 10 bits per pixel does not divide evenly. Which can be okay since perception of gradation vary between the primary colours, meaning that you could use R3 G4 B3.
The slide scanner I will probably get, is touted as being 16bit, equating to 48bit per pixel. At first this might seem like overkill, but it can come in handy to manipulate at higher than your desired final bpp, to avoid compounded error in the least significant bits and then bring it down at the last stage.
Getting more colour info from surounding pixels, seems like it's a pretty far from optimum solution.
Here's a review of the original 1Ds from luminous-landscape. To sum it up (it's rather lengthy), the author favorably compares the 1Ds to medium format film.
I projected some 35mm Scala ISO 200 B&W slide film, measured a square portion and manually counted the grains across and down, then multiplied accordingly to get the full frame. From memory, it worked out to be about 18 "mega grains".
I have been promising myself, that I won't upgrade my pro gear to digital, until Nikon gets to 20MP. The thought of sub 20MP being comparable to medium format film, seems to approach the absurd.
When 35mm digital gets to 50MP, then I'll accept the "comparable to MF film" claims.
I could put it on my SPARC and be in the exact same environment as I have on my x86 laptop!
I have not used NetBSD much. I mostly use OpenBSD.
So keep that in mind when I say...
I hear a lot of people say that the user experience across architectures varies a lot with NetBSD. Even between popular archs like x86, macppc and sparc64.
I use OpenBSD on those and find it very familiar on each, including the use of X.
I can't wait for NetBSD 2.0 though.
One that will playback ALL major formats, has a good interface, and super long battery life. Although my iPod is great, it fails to meet 2 of these criteria. I guess we'll have to keep waiting.
iRiver H340 plays mp3, wma, ogg and asf, has a good interface (maybe not great) and 16 hours playing time.
It seems quick to transfer the files too. I transfered my whole collection, 20GB, in about 25 minutes.
Re: the colour screen, it is very nice. Very bright (even in sunlight) and high contrast. The sound is fantastic too, even with the standard Sennheiser headphones.
"Almost hits the market" is like "almost pregnant". Doesn't count. After all, Duke Nukem Forever has been "almost released" for about six years.
.au. I'm listening to it right now in fact.
I bought my (awesome) H340 on 9/9/04 in Sydney
BTW, anyone in Sydney looking for one, I got my H340 at JB Hi Fi, for $5 more than the cheapest price I could find anywhere for the H320 ($689 au inc GST, at the time)!
I've never used an iRiver, so I can't comment on the relative merits, but I'd just like to point out that the 4G iPods can charge from USB (as well as FireWire, of course).
Yeah, that's why I said most iPods.
Lots of my friends have iPods and about 2 weeks ago (in Sydney Australia) I purchased an iRiver H340.
I am very happy that I did, the sound is fantastic, the screen is GORGEOUS, very bright and high contrast. I LOVE my iRiver and am happy I didn't go for an iPod.
My 40GB iRiver also claims 16 hours on one charge.
The iRiver gets charged from the USB port too, so using it as an external hdd does not suck like it can with most iPods.
BTW, the colour screen is very legible in the bright Sydney sunlight.
Ok, I want to try one of the BSD's. Which one should I get? this FreeBSD? Or Which one would you recommend? Also, whre can I find some good documentation with the linux compatibility mode of the BSD's?
I very much like OpenBSD. After trying out *lots* of Linux distros, including Redhat, SuSE, Debian and also FreeBSD and NetBSD, I feel comfortably "at home" with OpenBSD (which I started using at 2.5).
OpenBSD is very clean. Code, system layout and documentation. They also go to great lengths to improve security with both passive and active means (code audits and extreme consistency checks respectively).
If you want to try it, I would suggest you dedicate a hard drive to it (to test) and bear with the installer. The installer is fantastic in it's simplicity, once you figure it out. This might sound silly, but it won't once you do figure it out.
Once you have installed OpenBSD, note what it asks of new users after the install and heed it. Read the man pages it asks for, then look at the FAQ and Google if you have questions. If you like what you see, Secure Architectures with OpenBSD is an excellent book, that will help you appreciate even more, how wonderful this system is.
Please Google before asking questions in the mailing lists. Almost exact same questions sometimes get asked days apart and the subscribers can get a little annoyed at that (especially when the question may have already been answered well with a Google search).
Downloading it does not take long either (comparitively speaking). Just go to an ftp site that hosts the latest version, click on your architecture (i386 for example), download all the files within that directory (typically less that 150MB), then burn to a CD using cdrom35.fs (for example) as a bootable floppy image. The structure on the CD should be ver/arch (eg. 3.5/i386) if you want to be able to simply hit enter when it asks for the files to install.
You can also just download a floppy image, boot it and install directly from-the-net. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone but those already comfortable with OpenBSD, simply because if you find you have made a mistake after installing, you'll need to download the same data again. Having it on CD or a local web/ftp server allows you to tinker with installation to your hearts content, without wasting bandwidth.
I host the latest i386, macppc and sparc64 files on an internal web/ftp server so that I can do quick network installs and also keep the latest source there too.
People say OpenBSD is "not good for desktop usage". This is just not true, unless you specifically need 3D accelerated video. I have run KDE, Gnome and WindowMaker for *years* with OpenBSD. Another thing is that OpenBSD is quite consistent across architectures. Whether you run an OpenBSD desktop on x86, Apple or Sun equipment, it seems the same. I can't speak of the other architectures, because I have not tried them.
BTW, when they say OpenBSD -stable is stable, they are not kidding. The project leader is VERY strict when it comes to where and when new features come in.
I hope you try it and enjoy it.
I'd really appreciate it if my fellow BSD users would get a bit more of a sense of humor etc...
Me too. I am responsible for the first post. I meant it as a jab to the trolls who keep posting the BSD is dead crap. They just keep on posting, while FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD and Mac OSX just keep taking huge strides forward.
I posted as AC because I did not want to submit my login details from where I was at the time.
Packets-per-second doesn't really tell you the characteristics of the packets being sent.
No it doesn't, however, being capable of sustaining 1 million packets per second, even if they are the smallest packets possible, is pretty impressive.
The packets have to each be serviced, so at around the same line bandwidth, smallest packets could be coming around 30 times more frequently than the largest packets.
Lots of small packets tend to be more taxing than much fewer large packets.
The fact that there is perhaps a 10 fold difference in performance ceiling between Linux and FreeBSD, should show that this is not a simple bandwidth limit. I would go so far as to say that bits per second can be more misleading than packets per second if used alone or in an inappropriate context.
Packets per second says a lot about the stack, bits per second says more about the interface driver.
Which is what you see in DoSc attacks:
Yes. A DoS should be most effective with the smallest packets you can send.
stuff like SYN floods
SYN floods work by requestion permision to statefully connect, without then going through with replying to the handshake that is sent back. When done over and over, this eventually fills the table of half-connections, which in turn prevents the initiation of any more connections and thus a denial of service.
The fact that these packets are small, is coincidental to this discusion. In other words, SYN floods don't work because the packets are small, they work because completing the required handshake sequence is not done.
and smurf attacks.
Ahh, DDoS of lots of little packets, via simple spoofing. What fun.