Just chiming in to agree. Kicked the tube habit a couple years ago. I don't miss it, and like you, I can't believe the garbage programming that people describe to me. I'd like to record them talking about the shows and play it back for them at a later date; it sounds incredibly stupid.
Who said it was buggy or insecure? I don't see what all the fuss is about: "OH GOD OH GOD, A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE CAN BE USED TO WRITE BAD STUFF!!!" A native shell with some power is a welcome addition to Windows. I was hoping for something that is designed better than 'wscript'. If they wanted to, they could have an option for it in the add/remove Windows programs, with the default being uninstalled.
I find the lack of AMD Opteron options with low-end servers very frustrating. I'd like the big-name support and options with Opteron performance, but it looks like I'll be building my own if I want something I can trust. When a good chunk of your services depend heavily on memory throughput, AMD is the obvious choice with multi-processor machines.
Sometimes I wish AMD would spin off a sub-division that sells and supports low- and mid-end server hardware.
That's some strange economics. FreeDOS probably generates next to no support costs, and OEMs are obligated to support OEM Windows installs. Microsoft doesn't do quantity discounts that way for OEMs. OEM is less than a retail copy, but apparently Microsoft uses pricing punishment to keep wayward OEMs in line. Also, the makers of FreeDOS don't require Dell to pay up front for their software (money that could be used elsewhere). Also, cloning is labor intensive. Unless the Windows people have Brainator, who writes data from his mind to a shipment of boxed hard disks, it costs a lot more to clone 100,000 installs over cloning 100.
Simple: It's because Dell isn't subtracting the cost for the MS OEM license, since they've been made to pay it in advance. They'll ship a PC w/o a Microsoft operating system if you push 'em enough, but you'll have to resort to deadly force to get the full refund from the OEM license. Believe me, I've tried, and they wouldn't do it even on an order consisting of hundreds of PCs. You're welcome to try.
Let me sum up: the USA boldly sends a probe in space, at a very great cost to taxpayers. Some decades later, NASA is forced to scrap the only computer that can access the unique (and very expensive) data collected by said probe, because the administration refuses to fund them properly.
Well screw the administration, then. Why do we need the government's help on everything? I think the PS is making the right move here, and I'd rather that there was more choice in funding things above and beyond the essential services. I give plenty of money every year in non-tax deductable donations because I'm looking to give money to people who do things I like, instead of looking for a tax break. It should be no problem whatsoever for 5,000 supporters to scrape up $50 a piece, especially if they send it in several transactions.
It never occured to me that the fact that some Apache directives are enclosed in markup tags makes it XML. To me, they are conceptually similar to braces for code blocks. Spaces in file names have never been an issue for me, since one can use an escape character, like everywhere else in a Unix-like filesystem.
I'm not puttin' up my dukes for a fight here, I'm just surprised that my perspective is entirely different from yours. Perhaps the fact that I was introduced to httpd almost a decade ago, and have accepted the config file format as such, explains a lot about why some of those "corner cases" still exist. I'm more than happy to shrug my shoulders and say, "well, that's the way it always was."
You're too late. Microsoft "sells" the OEM licensing in advance, so what you're doing doesn't have any effect; it's already bought and paid for. If you manage to haggle with the OEM and get a full refund for their OEM pricing, you're only screwing the OEM, not Microsoft.
I've run into half of these. I don't agree with everything, and some of the rants are dated (spare servers?), but it gave me a chuckle. I agree that the virtual hosts stuff is confusing, only because most people can't seem to articulate its operation. They go into an explanation of what it does to the request, and this and that. It should be two discussions, its theory of operation, and how to set it up, with examples for types of tricks you can do with it. Good explanations are out there, but you have to google it and piece 'em together.
I also agree on mod_rewrite. Don't go into unless you are very comfortable with regexps. However, if you know its limitations, have a clear idea of what you want to do, you'll save yourself tons of trouble trying to make it do something that it can't. The Apache people know it, but it's just too useful to screw with. From the project's own site:
``The great thing about mod_rewrite is it gives you all the configurability and flexibility of Sendmail. The downside to mod_rewrite is that it gives you all the configurability and flexibility of Sendmail.''
-- Brian Behlendorf
Apache Group
I don't see the problem with Apache's config file. It's one of the easiest to configure, since it's all in one file. Or you can split it if you want. And it's a snap to replicate that config across lots of boxes. It has also undergone considerable pruning over the years, and it's not that hard to understand. There are numberous, well-written, freely-available articles on the subject, so it should be no mystery. Maybe Apache Group should consider making a rapid config tool and selling support?
I'm on the fence about applying a config live. It would add a lot of logic and bugs to correct a minor inconvenience. Back in the day when there was all that min/max spares/threads/servers BS, I can see why you wouldn't want to restart a heavily-used box, but you really only need to avoid a handful of no-noes to get decent performance now.
I don't know, Apache has it's quirks, and I put up with the sluggish performance from the 1.3 branch (notably on Windows) because it was the most broadly supported, but I'm no IIS man. Its layout seems bizarre to me, especially configuring it for https. Now that Apache 2 is humming along quite nicely, I'm happy.
Because it's a bad idea to do anything to elevate your rights while some malware may be memory resident (key logger?). I'm thinking about the lowest common denominator here, and I think my paranoid option is good practice. If the user is accustomed to using the run-as dialog, he can easily be tricked into entering the credentials into a fake one.
Does that make sense, or should I be folding some foil into a little hat right now?
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't Microsoft, Apple, Sun and all the Linux distros merge? Please. Show me one example of massive centralization that ever made something better.*
* if your idea of better is to be able to sit atop that massive organization, control it, and wield the power, then don't bother to reply; that's the only reason someone would suggest it, anyway.
Although there are some exceptions (like a root-kit enabled malware program), there's a cheap way to remove malware and viruses from a Windows XP or 2000 machine, provided, of course, you have a chance to work on it before you connect it to the Internet, and that SP2 is installed.
You can create a 'Default User', wipe his old profile, and log-on as that account. Configure settings to your liking. Then go back in as Admin, disable simple file sharing controls, and block off access to the 'Users' group to various "fail-safe" areas, such as Admin's profile folder, for example. Then you create your own user, make yourself part of the 'Users' group, and grant that user read access to the 'Default User' profile, and maybe read/write to Def User's 'Local Settings' folder.
Disable the 'Default User' account, then log-in under your own. Only install or remove software as Administrator, not through run-as. If the malware gets unbearable, reboot and log-on as Admin, copy your user account's data files somewhere temporarily, wipe out the profile and anything in 'Default User/Local Settings', then log in again. Voila. All your preferences are recovered from Def User, the compromised account has been cleaned, and as soon as you copy back your data, you're back in business.
I've really condensed the set-up steps here, but properly configuring an XP/2000 machine can make removing 99% (just guessing) of the stuff out there a breeze. Throw in ClamWin, and you've got free virus detection if you're curious about what hit you.
The problem is that sloppy software developers make users run their programs under admin privileges. If commercial developers weren't so reluctant about maintenance (there you go Mark), OEMs could provide a properly configured machine OOTB....but hey, if you've got a spyware infected machine and this sounds too complicated, I'll take it off your hands for the cost of shipping.
I hope Linux is ready for the desktop (at least for Joe SP)
The problem is that vendors aren't ready for Linux. Your view of the situation is apparently that it's the fault of GNU and BSD that OSS operating systems haven't yet saturated the desktop marked. It should be reasonably obvious that the whole idea is for the content distributors to be able to exercise control from creation all the way down to viewing. This means that they will only support platforms where they have complete control. OSS development, by its very nature, will never be under the control of a central authority. So, it follows that Linux will never be ready for the desktop by your definition, because the technology will never be ported for it.
My apologies, then, because you've met and exceeded any reasonable expectations anyone could have for a free service, which are "none."
However, the lack of information about the severity or the status of the patch confused a lot of us, when if fact, just about every distribution had already included the patch by the 8th.
Thanks for the personal response, though, and sorry for being an asshole.
In the land of the free, you have the absolute and undeniable right to keep and bare arms. However, you absolutely do not have the right to bare breasts. You can shoot your weapon all over your front lawn but don't even think about shooting your load.
No, you can't. If I discharged a firearm anywhere outside my house (or inside for that matter) for any other reason than I was being attacked and felt my life was in danger, my guns would be immediately confiscated without due process, and I'd end up in jail shortly. I've been checked, re-checked, questioned, quizzed and fingerprinted all the way. You wouldn't believe the catalog of laws that gun nuts have to comply with. There is no comparison between the punishments and reaction by law enforcement for indecent exposure as opposed to a firearms violation. And please, owning a firearm doesn't turn you into a violent criminal any more than seeing a boob makes you into a rapist.
That said, this type of stuff is clearly a moral issue, and a mild one at that. If your argument is that the limits are non-sensical and arbitrary, I'm with you there. It shouldn't matter what's in the game, parents can read one of the 5,000 reviews on the Internet, dammit. They would get a more accurate idea about the game than a one sentence ESRB summary, anyway. This game and it's now infamous mod are a non-issue if I ever saw one.
Maybe they got paranoid because he knew something. You know, Microsoft is infamous for showering procurement people with "free stuff" so that they screw their employer by recommending only Microsoft solutions and no bargaining.
I guess you'd have to be forced to work with a bunch of frauds before it made sense to you. Any asshole can talk up an interviewer, however, he won't be able to fudge his way through a skill test. The computing industry is so littered with frauds, that a skill test should be required for hiring and subcontracting.
Re:ICMP flaw #1 on Linux: it's in the kernel
on
Examining ICMP Flaws
·
· Score: 1
You see, this is one of the failures of the moderation system
No, it worked perfectly. And here is one of those cases where the maligned "overrated" option would be put to good use. It's a moderation system, not an instantaneous fact checker. It's very name suggests a happy medium, and it requires time to work properly. While I saw at least a half-dozen replies correcting the OP, some with informative links, I never saw the parent comment, as it was moderated under my threshold. Granted, it sits now at "-1 Flamebait", which it definitely wasn't, and there were more appropriate ratings, but hey, mission accomplished.
Slashdot Mirror
Just chiming in to agree. Kicked the tube habit a couple years ago. I don't miss it, and like you, I can't believe the garbage programming that people describe to me. I'd like to record them talking about the shows and play it back for them at a later date; it sounds incredibly stupid.
Who said it was buggy or insecure? I don't see what all the fuss is about: "OH GOD OH GOD, A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE CAN BE USED TO WRITE BAD STUFF!!!" A native shell with some power is a welcome addition to Windows. I was hoping for something that is designed better than 'wscript'. If they wanted to, they could have an option for it in the add/remove Windows programs, with the default being uninstalled.
Thanks! :o)
I find the lack of AMD Opteron options with low-end servers very frustrating. I'd like the big-name support and options with Opteron performance, but it looks like I'll be building my own if I want something I can trust. When a good chunk of your services depend heavily on memory throughput, AMD is the obvious choice with multi-processor machines.
Sometimes I wish AMD would spin off a sub-division that sells and supports low- and mid-end server hardware.
That's some strange economics. FreeDOS probably generates next to no support costs, and OEMs are obligated to support OEM Windows installs. Microsoft doesn't do quantity discounts that way for OEMs. OEM is less than a retail copy, but apparently Microsoft uses pricing punishment to keep wayward OEMs in line. Also, the makers of FreeDOS don't require Dell to pay up front for their software (money that could be used elsewhere). Also, cloning is labor intensive. Unless the Windows people have Brainator, who writes data from his mind to a shipment of boxed hard disks, it costs a lot more to clone 100,000 installs over cloning 100.
Simple: It's because Dell isn't subtracting the cost for the MS OEM license, since they've been made to pay it in advance. They'll ship a PC w/o a Microsoft operating system if you push 'em enough, but you'll have to resort to deadly force to get the full refund from the OEM license. Believe me, I've tried, and they wouldn't do it even on an order consisting of hundreds of PCs. You're welcome to try.
It never occured to me that the fact that some Apache directives are enclosed in markup tags makes it XML. To me, they are conceptually similar to braces for code blocks. Spaces in file names have never been an issue for me, since one can use an escape character, like everywhere else in a Unix-like filesystem.
I'm not puttin' up my dukes for a fight here, I'm just surprised that my perspective is entirely different from yours. Perhaps the fact that I was introduced to httpd almost a decade ago, and have accepted the config file format as such, explains a lot about why some of those "corner cases" still exist. I'm more than happy to shrug my shoulders and say, "well, that's the way it always was."
You're too late. Microsoft "sells" the OEM licensing in advance, so what you're doing doesn't have any effect; it's already bought and paid for. If you manage to haggle with the OEM and get a full refund for their OEM pricing, you're only screwing the OEM, not Microsoft.
I also agree on mod_rewrite. Don't go into unless you are very comfortable with regexps. However, if you know its limitations, have a clear idea of what you want to do, you'll save yourself tons of trouble trying to make it do something that it can't. The Apache people know it, but it's just too useful to screw with. From the project's own site:I don't see the problem with Apache's config file. It's one of the easiest to configure, since it's all in one file. Or you can split it if you want. And it's a snap to replicate that config across lots of boxes. It has also undergone considerable pruning over the years, and it's not that hard to understand. There are numberous, well-written, freely-available articles on the subject, so it should be no mystery. Maybe Apache Group should consider making a rapid config tool and selling support?
I'm on the fence about applying a config live. It would add a lot of logic and bugs to correct a minor inconvenience. Back in the day when there was all that min/max spares/threads/servers BS, I can see why you wouldn't want to restart a heavily-used box, but you really only need to avoid a handful of no-noes to get decent performance now.
I don't know, Apache has it's quirks, and I put up with the sluggish performance from the 1.3 branch (notably on Windows) because it was the most broadly supported, but I'm no IIS man. Its layout seems bizarre to me, especially configuring it for https. Now that Apache 2 is humming along quite nicely, I'm happy.
Would you settle for a separate converter? Because I like plain text config files just the way they are.
Does that make sense, or should I be folding some foil into a little hat right now?
Because there was another paragraph below it, and I removed it without altering anything else. I have strange editing habits.
No, you just have a clue. The rest of the world randomly click on things and answer "yes" to every pop-up.
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't Microsoft, Apple, Sun and all the Linux distros merge? Please. Show me one example of massive centralization that ever made something better.*
* if your idea of better is to be able to sit atop that massive organization, control it, and wield the power, then don't bother to reply; that's the only reason someone would suggest it, anyway.
Although there are some exceptions (like a root-kit enabled malware program), there's a cheap way to remove malware and viruses from a Windows XP or 2000 machine, provided, of course, you have a chance to work on it before you connect it to the Internet, and that SP2 is installed.
...but hey, if you've got a spyware infected machine and this sounds too complicated, I'll take it off your hands for the cost of shipping.
You can create a 'Default User', wipe his old profile, and log-on as that account. Configure settings to your liking. Then go back in as Admin, disable simple file sharing controls, and block off access to the 'Users' group to various "fail-safe" areas, such as Admin's profile folder, for example. Then you create your own user, make yourself part of the 'Users' group, and grant that user read access to the 'Default User' profile, and maybe read/write to Def User's 'Local Settings' folder.
Disable the 'Default User' account, then log-in under your own. Only install or remove software as Administrator, not through run-as. If the malware gets unbearable, reboot and log-on as Admin, copy your user account's data files somewhere temporarily, wipe out the profile and anything in 'Default User/Local Settings', then log in again. Voila. All your preferences are recovered from Def User, the compromised account has been cleaned, and as soon as you copy back your data, you're back in business.
I've really condensed the set-up steps here, but properly configuring an XP/2000 machine can make removing 99% (just guessing) of the stuff out there a breeze. Throw in ClamWin, and you've got free virus detection if you're curious about what hit you.
The problem is that sloppy software developers make users run their programs under admin privileges. If commercial developers weren't so reluctant about maintenance (there you go Mark), OEMs could provide a properly configured machine OOTB.
My apologies, then, because you've met and exceeded any reasonable expectations anyone could have for a free service, which are "none."
However, the lack of information about the severity or the status of the patch confused a lot of us, when if fact, just about every distribution had already included the patch by the 8th.
Thanks for the personal response, though, and sorry for being an asshole.
So how about a patched version then, Adler? It's been four days.
That said, this type of stuff is clearly a moral issue, and a mild one at that. If your argument is that the limits are non-sensical and arbitrary, I'm with you there. It shouldn't matter what's in the game, parents can read one of the 5,000 reviews on the Internet, dammit. They would get a more accurate idea about the game than a one sentence ESRB summary, anyway. This game and it's now infamous mod are a non-issue if I ever saw one.
Or the Dawn patch for the Nvidia demo. They disabled the feature, and it's just a bunch of polygons, for cryin' out loud.
I'm not talking about mousepads and pens with the Microsoft logo on them, chief. Makes some employers wonder who exactly their people are working for.
Maybe they got paranoid because he knew something. You know, Microsoft is infamous for showering procurement people with "free stuff" so that they screw their employer by recommending only Microsoft solutions and no bargaining.
I guess you'd have to be forced to work with a bunch of frauds before it made sense to you. Any asshole can talk up an interviewer, however, he won't be able to fudge his way through a skill test. The computing industry is so littered with frauds, that a skill test should be required for hiring and subcontracting.
Sorry to pick on you in particular.