You guys are idiots. A standard Windows XP Tablet install does touch screen WAY BETTER than any Linux interface I have ever used. Maemo included.
Somehow it's assumed some propriatary interface of some kind is being used. You can seriously just tap the start menu with your finger.
The real worry is not MS raising patent concerns about Mono. It's other people out there raising patent concerns. Against Linux. Against Gnome. Against the rest of the software stack. Each of these is heavily patented. Mono is no different in this regard, except it has something to do with Microsoft. MS makes OSs, office products, business productivity apps, game engines, and huge amounts of other things. All of which are potentially patent ridden. At any point here MS could use their patent arsenal to sue about MUCH MORE than just Mono. But we're under that thread from other players too, not just MS. Other players which have sued people in the past. MS never has.
Well the half number is based on reports submitted through Moma which automatically figures out what priority what portions of the class library should be worked on. It's not a guess figure, it's actually collected by software.
I'm an avid Mono user. My company develops software internally that runs on Mono on Linux servers. We choose C# because it's a very good language. That's about it.
That's the stupidest thing ever. Man most of you people have no idea. Argh.
And it's been done. Mainsoft does it. It's called Grasshopper.
Mono as a VM is 100% compatible with.Net. Mono's problem is not it's VM, it's the class library. It's just incomplete. It's also apps that call to native Win32 libraries, which will never run on Linux.
Exchange does not use PSTs.
Migrating off Exchange is fine. You canc onnect to Exchange with IMAP and dump data. Just like you can with every other open source server. Problem is that Exchange has features which these other servers do not, and thus it's not really going to work out: Calendars/Contacts.
And yes. I do juggle backups, patches, etc. I run Exchange on a set of clustered boxes sharing storage. I can fail over a machine, patch one, and bring it back up. Pretty freaking easy.
I honestly never touch the thing except to apply patches. Once every 6 months.
Ever tried to migrate a user's mailbox from one site to another? One button. It moves it on it's own.
Authentication is integrated into AD. One password. All communication uses Kerberos. It's lovely.
Ask a lawyer. Duh.
That said, as a not-lawyer, I'd say don't ask for money. Just say you're using it as your last name and changing addresses would be a real issue. Say you conduct business over the email address.
You've then established that you actually want the address. Let them make an offer.
This is a well known attack vendor: Make a web page that looks like a real bank site and trick people into visiting it. This prevents those sites from using HTTPS, as it makes entering them pretty hard and obvious. Mission solved.
The collateral damage is admins who don't want to spend the time to properly set up their CAs. Nothing to see here, move along.
As to subsidizing the industry, if you feel you can do a better job being a default CA, please contact the Mozilla foundation and prove it.
My ass. I personally choose to use MS software for the majoirty of taskes because it is lower TCO for us. Hard to justify setting up LDAP, Kerberos and an extremely full featured e-mail server by hand when it's about $500 to do it with Active Directory and Exchange.
That's not really self signed then. Self signed is when the priv key signs it's own public key. Creating two keys and having one sign the other is perfectly fine, as long as you distribute the other properly.
Though this has actually prevented a man in the middle attack. If they become a MITM, they have to decrypt and reencrypt data as it flows through. Which means an encrypted connection has to be set up between the client and the MITM. This encrypted connection cannot use the same pk, as it exists only at the bank. Hence, the MITM is thwarted by a big warning that says the site is not trusted.
False dichotomy. You present two options: ultra paranoid verify everything; and verify nothing. There is in fact a third option: trust MS to publish a list of well established and trusted vendors, and trust those vendors to vouch for a sites authority. That is a third option.
And for most people it's the preferable option. If not, it would not be so.
That is true, but what Verisign and folks have done is given you an authority to contact the licensed owner of the certificate and make your complaint heard, and also the ability to revoke it because of misuse.
Am I the only one who thinks marketing to these people is a good idea? Maybe not direct spam, but identifying the people from their email and doing a marketing campaign towards them?
Sounds like a great idea to me!
Oh, and before somebody complains about power: I agree. I'd have them spin down after 5 minutes. This would mainly be for some large movie/music/media storage stuff. A single movie or something might only be spread across 3 drives, so to watch it you'd only have to spin up 3. I think this is reasonable. Probably only have to spin it up enough to buffer a 4GB movie into RAM, too. Stick 8GB in the machine or something and that solves that.
Well, I've always wanted to make a mass hard drive back plane thing for old drives. Do something liket ake a 5U rack mount drawer, put a backplain on the BOTTOM, build seperators and mounting stuff, and then find some source of hot swap trays, to mount vertically. Probably using a lot of IDE to SATA converters, which are unfortunately expensive. Then SATA multipliers. Then Linux LVM and MD. My main problem is I'd need to actually engineer the backplane and stuff by myself, and I don't have the EE experience to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are idiots. A standard Windows XP Tablet install does touch screen WAY BETTER than any Linux interface I have ever used. Maemo included. Somehow it's assumed some propriatary interface of some kind is being used. You can seriously just tap the start menu with your finger.
Write software. Then get a job. Amazing!
Check out Unity3D. It's a game engine written in .Net, that runs on Mono, and uses OpenGL.
The real worry is not MS raising patent concerns about Mono. It's other people out there raising patent concerns. Against Linux. Against Gnome. Against the rest of the software stack. Each of these is heavily patented. Mono is no different in this regard, except it has something to do with Microsoft. MS makes OSs, office products, business productivity apps, game engines, and huge amounts of other things. All of which are potentially patent ridden. At any point here MS could use their patent arsenal to sue about MUCH MORE than just Mono. But we're under that thread from other players too, not just MS. Other players which have sued people in the past. MS never has.
What if they don't want the latest and greatest, and they just want something 'better than Java', which Mono has qualifed as for 2 years now. =)
Well the half number is based on reports submitted through Moma which automatically figures out what priority what portions of the class library should be worked on. It's not a guess figure, it's actually collected by software.
Which patents are these? Nobody has ever spoken up and pointed them out to my knowledge.
I'm an avid Mono user. My company develops software internally that runs on Mono on Linux servers. We choose C# because it's a very good language. That's about it.
That's the stupidest thing ever. Man most of you people have no idea. Argh. And it's been done. Mainsoft does it. It's called Grasshopper. Mono as a VM is 100% compatible with .Net. Mono's problem is not it's VM, it's the class library. It's just incomplete. It's also apps that call to native Win32 libraries, which will never run on Linux.
Which patents were those?
So um. Why not negotiate a better contract?
Exchange does not use PSTs. Migrating off Exchange is fine. You canc onnect to Exchange with IMAP and dump data. Just like you can with every other open source server. Problem is that Exchange has features which these other servers do not, and thus it's not really going to work out: Calendars/Contacts. And yes. I do juggle backups, patches, etc. I run Exchange on a set of clustered boxes sharing storage. I can fail over a machine, patch one, and bring it back up. Pretty freaking easy. I honestly never touch the thing except to apply patches. Once every 6 months. Ever tried to migrate a user's mailbox from one site to another? One button. It moves it on it's own. Authentication is integrated into AD. One password. All communication uses Kerberos. It's lovely.
Ask a lawyer. Duh. That said, as a not-lawyer, I'd say don't ask for money. Just say you're using it as your last name and changing addresses would be a real issue. Say you conduct business over the email address. You've then established that you actually want the address. Let them make an offer.
A 'decent certificate' costs less than $100. If you can't deal with that, your web site probably isn't worth using SSL.
This is a well known attack vendor: Make a web page that looks like a real bank site and trick people into visiting it. This prevents those sites from using HTTPS, as it makes entering them pretty hard and obvious. Mission solved. The collateral damage is admins who don't want to spend the time to properly set up their CAs. Nothing to see here, move along. As to subsidizing the industry, if you feel you can do a better job being a default CA, please contact the Mozilla foundation and prove it.
It is transparent when you get one from Verisign. So do that. Pay for the service you get.
My ass. I personally choose to use MS software for the majoirty of taskes because it is lower TCO for us. Hard to justify setting up LDAP, Kerberos and an extremely full featured e-mail server by hand when it's about $500 to do it with Active Directory and Exchange.
That's not really self signed then. Self signed is when the priv key signs it's own public key. Creating two keys and having one sign the other is perfectly fine, as long as you distribute the other properly.
Though this has actually prevented a man in the middle attack. If they become a MITM, they have to decrypt and reencrypt data as it flows through. Which means an encrypted connection has to be set up between the client and the MITM. This encrypted connection cannot use the same pk, as it exists only at the bank. Hence, the MITM is thwarted by a big warning that says the site is not trusted.
False dichotomy. You present two options: ultra paranoid verify everything; and verify nothing. There is in fact a third option: trust MS to publish a list of well established and trusted vendors, and trust those vendors to vouch for a sites authority. That is a third option. And for most people it's the preferable option. If not, it would not be so.
That is true, but what Verisign and folks have done is given you an authority to contact the licensed owner of the certificate and make your complaint heard, and also the ability to revoke it because of misuse.
Am I the only one who thinks marketing to these people is a good idea? Maybe not direct spam, but identifying the people from their email and doing a marketing campaign towards them? Sounds like a great idea to me!
Oh, and before somebody complains about power: I agree. I'd have them spin down after 5 minutes. This would mainly be for some large movie/music/media storage stuff. A single movie or something might only be spread across 3 drives, so to watch it you'd only have to spin up 3. I think this is reasonable. Probably only have to spin it up enough to buffer a 4GB movie into RAM, too. Stick 8GB in the machine or something and that solves that.
Well, I've always wanted to make a mass hard drive back plane thing for old drives. Do something liket ake a 5U rack mount drawer, put a backplain on the BOTTOM, build seperators and mounting stuff, and then find some source of hot swap trays, to mount vertically. Probably using a lot of IDE to SATA converters, which are unfortunately expensive. Then SATA multipliers. Then Linux LVM and MD. My main problem is I'd need to actually engineer the backplane and stuff by myself, and I don't have the EE experience to do it.
All Intel boards which you buy today seem to come with them.