If MS sue'd this brazilian guy and succeeded wouldn't that create legal ground for RedHat (or some other linux company) to sue MS over the cancer statement?
With whatever terminal I use I occassionally stumble into resizing issues where not all available area is used until I resize again (or run "resize" or something).
Does anyone know why that crap has *still* not been fixed or is just my distro to blame?
Also some of the settings can cause increased load on your proxy server. If it is not your proxy then you should probably stick with one digit for the max-connection settings.
But as I understand it you wouldn't be using this all the time but only when you want to copy from one physical machine to another. No more explaining where on the fileserver that document can be found. No more memorystick/floppy/CDR shuffling. I hope this turns into commodity hardware soon because I find it pretty damn useful. Especially when the clipboard contents are actually stored on the device that you are carrying. Just tip at a couple files that you want to carry away, wait till the LED turns off, go. For "pasting" there could be a button on the device that when clicked simply launches the $filemanager of $os on the screen that you are pointing at - offering the contents of your stick.
Slightly offtopic but this story reminds me how far the linux "desktop" still is from happening. We're still far from getting even the very basic copy/paste-functionality straight (there was a story on here recently...) and drag'n'drop tends to be more attempt-to-drag'n'curse in most situations.
I'm just ranting because just a minute ago I was trying to copy/paste a block of friggin' plaintext from mozilla to an editor. Guess what, the block of text was too long (try it, highlight a whole webpage and attempt to paste...) so I had to drag it over paragraph by paragraph. My message to those involved with gnome/kde: Screw all the bloat and eyecandy. Go back and fix the very basics. Thanks.
Your link is either horribly out of date or there haven't been security related bugs in Mozilla for a long time. According to your source the last security bug was fixed on 2003-10-07.
IE is the open RPC facility of MS Windows, similar to sun.RPC. In the early days it was shipped as a separate application. Starting with Windows XP/2000 MS decided to integrate it directly into the kernel. For the sake of convenience and performance Microsoft didn't bloat it with authentication or security features so when active basically anyone can remotely execute code on your machine in a comfortable drill&drop-fashion.
Since IE requires the local user to be actively browsing the web in order to provide RPC service MS is working on an extension of the RPC concept to allow for asynchrone/sheduled remote code execution. Early beta-versions of the latter software (Project name Outlook) are included for evaluation with MS Office 2000/XP which can be purchased for a modest fee at your local MS retailer.
MS Outlook supports the robust SMTP protocol for remote access so it may be considered the most reliable RPC-interface available for MS windows to date.
Shouldn't MS be charged for all the network pollution (excess traffic, spam countermeasures, wasted time) and damage (trojans, worms) it causes to the internet community?
After all MS does have the ressources (read: money) to fix all these bugs that are causing us headache daily. They could so so in reasonable time by simply moving to sane testing and developement practices. Most of these bugs that pop up weekly appear to be very stupid programming mistakes. There are various fairly simple methods to generally avoid buffer overflows (or at least make them unexploitable) known for years. What is the excuse at MS to not implement them?
Why can I be held responsible (at least in my country) when my machine is turned into a spam-distributing zombie by some worm without me even noticing while MS gets away with not applying even the lowest common denominator of sane programming practices - over years?
Occassionally, we need to send documents to each other, or to our clients. These are not just simple text documents - they are design specs, product proposals, and other docs that contain images, graphs, charts, and other multimedia content.
Sounds like you want to learn about pdf.
Why shouldn't we just email them the document, if we know that everyone in the circle has Word?
Because many word documents contain a history of the last n changes that were made to them. So your client might get to see some "old" figures that they're not supposed to see. Or the name of that other client that you've sent that.doc to the other day...
Exactly. Why would you want to get a copy of the TV-crap on CD? Just turn your TV or radio on and there you have it, 24/7. You can even go for a friggin' Walk In The Park and all the latest and greatest "Hits" will still be bleeping and blabbering at you from all sides.
Bleeping and blabbering plastic sausages. Everywhere. I feel scattered.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy: hnb.
If MS sue'd this brazilian guy and succeeded wouldn't that create legal ground for RedHat (or some other linux company) to sue MS over the cancer statement?
I've made a torrent.
I'd like it in the browser, too. For editing textareas.
Wiki anyone?
That has been fixed already.
It's a blind shot but maybe GnuCash can do what you need? GnuCash supports HBCI, does your bank?
With whatever terminal I use I occassionally stumble into resizing issues where not all available area is used until I resize again (or run "resize" or something).
Does anyone know why that crap has *still* not been fixed or is just my distro to blame?
Actually a raid1-card for two ide-drives is quite affordable.
Also some of the settings can cause increased load on your proxy server.
If it is not your proxy then you should probably stick with one digit for the max-connection settings.
Anyone know whether drag'n'drop is possible with wxWindows?
If it is then I see a bright future for slashManager.
I think parent has a point and you don't. Sorry.
A *real* QA process, involving weeks of regression test passes and shedloads of machines.
So, is MS applying that *real* QA process?
If they do then it is obviously no solution to the problem.
Programs are not supposed to be stored in folders.
Programs are what you launch from a context menu after you have selected which file to work on.
Yes, it's really that simple. Yes, a "start menu" is also a folder.
But as I understand it you wouldn't be using this all the time but only when you want to copy from one physical machine to another.
No more explaining where on the fileserver that document can be found.
No more memorystick/floppy/CDR shuffling.
I hope this turns into commodity hardware soon because I find it pretty damn useful.
Especially when the clipboard contents are actually stored on the device that you are carrying. Just tip at a couple files that you want to carry away, wait till the LED turns off, go. For "pasting" there could be a button on the device that when clicked simply launches the $filemanager of $os on the screen that you are pointing at - offering the contents of your stick.
Patents anyone?
Slightly offtopic but this story reminds me how far the linux "desktop" still is from happening. We're still far from getting even the very basic copy/paste-functionality straight (there was a story on here recently...) and drag'n'drop tends to be more attempt-to-drag'n'curse in most situations.
I'm just ranting because just a minute ago I was trying to copy/paste a block of friggin' plaintext from mozilla to an editor.
Guess what, the block of text was too long (try it, highlight a whole webpage and attempt to paste...) so I had to drag it over paragraph by paragraph.
My message to those involved with gnome/kde: Screw all the bloat and eyecandy. Go back and fix the very basics. Thanks.
Windows 2000 or Server 2003, most likely, and those are simply not operating systems to be laughed at.
Laugh? Never heard that. Crying is more common...
Your link is either horribly out of date or there haven't been security related bugs in Mozilla for a long time.
According to your source the last security bug was fixed on 2003-10-07.
IE is the open RPC facility of MS Windows, similar to sun.RPC. In the early days it was shipped as a separate application. Starting with Windows XP/2000 MS decided to integrate it directly into the kernel. For the sake of convenience and performance Microsoft didn't bloat it with authentication or security features so when active basically anyone can remotely execute code on your machine in a comfortable drill&drop-fashion.
Since IE requires the local user to be actively browsing the web in order to provide RPC service MS is working on an extension of the RPC concept to allow for asynchrone/sheduled remote code execution. Early beta-versions of the latter software (Project name Outlook) are included for evaluation with MS Office 2000/XP which can be purchased for a modest fee at your local MS retailer.
MS Outlook supports the robust SMTP protocol for remote access so it may be considered the most reliable RPC-interface available for MS windows to date.
Buy two, make backups, problem solved.
Shouldn't MS be charged for all the network pollution (excess traffic, spam countermeasures, wasted time) and damage (trojans, worms) it causes to the internet community?
After all MS does have the ressources (read: money) to fix all these bugs that are causing us headache daily. They could so so in reasonable time by simply moving to sane testing and developement practices. Most of these bugs that pop up weekly appear to be very stupid programming mistakes. There are various fairly simple methods to generally avoid buffer overflows (or at least make them unexploitable) known for years. What is the excuse at MS to not implement them?
Why can I be held responsible (at least in my country) when my machine is turned into a spam-distributing zombie by some worm without me even noticing while MS gets away with not applying even the lowest common denominator of sane programming practices - over years?
How about just taking out the harddrive before sending the device back?
Someone mod this insighful. Please...
Occassionally, we need to send documents to each other, or to our clients. These are not just simple text documents - they are design specs, product proposals, and other docs that contain images, graphs, charts, and other multimedia content.
.doc to the other day...
Sounds like you want to learn about pdf.
Why shouldn't we just email them the document, if we know that everyone in the circle has Word?
Because many word documents contain a history of the last n changes that were made to them. So your client might get to see some "old" figures that they're not supposed to see. Or the name of that other client that you've sent that
So, as universal as the bluescreen in the wintendo universe next door?
Exactly.
Why would you want to get a copy of the TV-crap on CD?
Just turn your TV or radio on and there you have it, 24/7.
You can even go for a friggin' Walk In The Park and all the latest and greatest "Hits" will still be bleeping and blabbering at you from all sides.
Bleeping and blabbering plastic sausages. Everywhere. I feel scattered.