And this is why we should all start using the ISO date format. Today is 2005.10.20. If you can get confused by that, congratulations.
Also, the current temperature here is a dismal 48 degrees.
Re:Yes, but is it better than emacs??
on
Vim 6.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Well, considering how much vimscript is growing....
I think there's an addendum to the rule that all software must grow until it can read mail; all software must grow until it implements half of common lisp. Well, at least it has to implement its own scripting language. Emacs just decided to go that route from the start.
If EU/UN/!ICANN controls "Teh Intarweb" (DNS), then they can tax it. Anybody up for a "Universal Service Charge" attached to every domain name registration and lookup?
Lucky for us, this whole thing is retarded, and we'll just keep our resolvers pointed where we want while anybody else does fuck all for what we care.
Last time I watched O'Reilly, he was lambasting the oil companies for price gouging. Given the the usual line is that the Bush Administration is in bed with "Big Oil," -- though that argument is beyond the scope of this point -- that doesn't seem too supportive.
Or you just give all admins write access to the spreadsheet file. Hell, you should even be able to do that on NT with all their ACL's that don't ever seem to help. This does assume the presence of NFS or SMB or SSH.
Actually, if you don't mind breaking EVERYTHING, you could accomplish the about same by just chmod'ing sh to 700. Oh, and disable root logins on SSH. That'll give 'em a challenge to break.
Considering that NT is, theoretically the successor to VMS, it sure is lame.
Where's our versioning file system? Where's our ironclad clustering? (Someone who's a real VMS geek can probably offer more examples)
Micrsoft hires Dave Cutler, who wrote VMS, and a bunch of the DEC engineers, has them write a brand spankin' new OS to Rule Them All, and they try to sell some retarded crapheap that doesn't have some of the best features of the '80's.
Of course, the perfectly sensible reason they're selling a crapheap is that performance mattered more than a secure microkernel architecture (which NT, at one point, supposedly was), and backwards compatability with win32 is the only thing keeping people running to back to MS like a crackhead to his dealer.
Give me my good 'ol 70's Unix. The '80's died, and the 90's just won't.
For trusted networks, couldn't the problem be mitigated by limiting arbitrary DNS queries to the trusted network? You could still allow queries from the Internet for your authorative domains.
This would prevent the attacker from directly causing your server to query for his domain.
The allow-query and allow-recursion directives should accomplish this.
However, you would still be vulnerable if a query to the hostile domain is performed from inside the network.
The clone is just another animal with the same DNA. Nobody gets freaked out about identical twins, but there are always some people who make this complaint about clones.
As best as I can tell, all the "playing God" complaints are from religious luddites.
There may be some socio-economic consequences of cloning that are worth considering though. If we get to some more advanced genetic engineering, there certainly will be. Designer genes, anyone?
What is so hard about this? I sign this email, you know it's from me. I sign X-Random piece of data, you know it's from me. You send me a challenge, I sign it, and you know I'm on the other end.
There are nice email frontends for PGP, and the web of trust makes damn good sense. It's flexible, and it makes sure that nobody's got you by the balls.
This sounds like MS trying to reinvent something that's already working just fine, and making it horribly complicated and broken.
Ok, so I've used both ant and make, and my personal view is that ant is a retarded pain in the ass, and make is an elegant, general tool.
That being said, can anybody tell me what's wrong with make that we need half a dozen other tools to control builds? The fact the Windows doesn't come with a real shell out of the box doesn't count. If you're gonna download a build tool, you might as well pick up cygwin/mingw/sfu while you're at it.
I think make's syntax is much cleaner that ant's XML, and since every make command is just a shell command, there's no need to learn another special purpose language just for your build system. Make also starts up faster since it doesn't need to initialize a JVM or JIT anything (though this could be alleviated by compiling ant with GCJ). Ant seemed to have some type of dependencies, but it didn't seem to support the file based dependencies that make does.
I haven't use Ant for a while, and I haven't used NAnt at all. If I have any misconceptions here, I'd appreciate them getting cleared up.
The floppy's been dying for about 7 years now. It's death will continue to be slow and agonizing.
On a personal note, the next box I build will not have a floppy drive considering that the most use I've gotten out of my current one was a disastrous encounter with dd.
There's no reinventing anything going on here. All the root does is point your resolver at the appropriate DNS server for the various TLDS (.com,.br,.whatever). It's a relatively trivial job, so I really think everyone is seriously over reacting here when the say "US is pwnxoring teh Internet!!1". It's not like the EU wants to create a competing DNS hierarchy. That would confuse every layman on the on the planet, and almost surely go nowhere.
I said they EU's decision is probably good because they're trying to improve on the current system by increasing the automation, and because, on the off chance the the US DoC does bork things up, we'll have a backup root to go to.
Let's hope they set up a good system that we all can use.
I'm not really sure why everyone's so worked up about this. If the US Gov. doesn't run things right, we can all just point our resolvers at an alternate root, like this one. And considering the the US was just maintaining the status quo, it really seems like even less of a big deal.
It looks like these guys are just gonna set up an alternate root for everyone and try to automate the system as much as possible. Hopefully it works.
BTW, anybody else annoyed that all these news articles on this keep confusing DNS with "The Internet?"
For any given set of data, there is a lower limit beyond which it cannot be compressed. This is called the "entropy" of the data. This is essentially how much actual information the data contains. We talked about it in one of my sophomore CS courses. Lempel-Ziv (gzip, I think) compression approaches the entropy of the data as the size of the data approaches infinity.
From the vobcopy website: vobcopy copies DVD.vob files to harddisk, decrypting (if you have libdvdcss installed) them on the way (thanks to libdvdread and libdvdcss)
So maybe I misspoke. You don't get a perfect copy. You get a decrypted version of all content on the DVD, which is really what you probably want and is easier to use anyway.
I've backed up my dvd's via this method. It works and without loss from transcoding. And after the initial copy, there's no need to screw with any bs css crap. This means you can burn an image of all content to a dvd to play in a standalone player if your orginal gets scratched. I'm not aware of a better solution, but if there is one, I'd like to know about it.
This isn't quite as simple as just ripping the iso image, but it can easily be done. I'm assuming you're running on *nix.
First, you'll use either vobcopy or dvdbackup to mirror the dvd image to your hard drive decrypting the css. Vobcopy is slightly nicer to use. Ogle can usually play that copied dvd filesystem as is, but I've some trouble with a few dvd's. So, you use 'mkisofs --dvd-video' to create a dvd udf filesystem. Then, you point xine to that udf image as the dvd device, and it works.
It took me a little bit of research to figure all that out, but it works. You'll end up with a perfect copy of your dvd without any lossy transcoding.
I would be very suprised if the shell was a high priority in beta 1, especially when they are changing the graphics subsystem and parts of the file system.
You can't go and toss up a new shell using new technology that hasn't been designed yet
I first thought "WTF does the graphics system have to do with the shell? All you need are the standard c library and a few basic syscalls that any undergrad should know, and that stuff surely shouldn't be changing now." Then I remembered that in Windows-land, shell means Desktop Environment.
Not true. Trade marks are only valid within an industry. Consider Remy, which makes Cognac, and Remy, which makes starter motors and alternators. Even within.com then, there are name collisions. Ideally,.com should be separated based on industry.
Incidentally, the two companies were founded by the same family once upon a time.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is why we should all start using the ISO date format. Today is 2005.10.20. If you can get confused by that, congratulations.
Also, the current temperature here is a dismal 48 degrees.
Well, considering how much vimscript is growing....
I think there's an addendum to the rule that all software must grow until it can read mail; all software must grow until it implements half of common lisp. Well, at least it has to implement its own scripting language. Emacs just decided to go that route from the start.
(quoth a vim user)
If EU/UN/!ICANN controls "Teh Intarweb" (DNS), then they can tax it. Anybody up for a "Universal Service Charge" attached to every domain name registration and lookup?
Lucky for us, this whole thing is retarded, and we'll just keep our resolvers pointed where we want while anybody else does fuck all for what we care.
Last time I watched O'Reilly, he was lambasting the oil companies for price gouging. Given the the usual line is that the Bush Administration is in bed with "Big Oil," -- though that argument is beyond the scope of this point -- that doesn't seem too supportive.
Or you just give all admins write access to the spreadsheet file. Hell, you should even be able to do that on NT with all their ACL's that don't ever seem to help. This does assume the presence of NFS or SMB or SSH.
Classic bit of coding wisdom, there.
Thanks to my Tin Foil Deflector Beanie.
I dunno what the rest of you are gonna once Thought Police start patrolling though.
Actually, if you don't mind breaking EVERYTHING, you could accomplish the about same by just chmod'ing sh to 700. Oh, and disable root logins on SSH. That'll give 'em a challenge to break.
Considering that NT is, theoretically the successor to VMS, it sure is lame.
Where's our versioning file system? Where's our ironclad clustering? (Someone who's a real VMS geek can probably offer more examples)
Micrsoft hires Dave Cutler, who wrote VMS, and a bunch of the DEC engineers, has them write a brand spankin' new OS to Rule Them All, and they try to sell some retarded crapheap that doesn't have some of the best features of the '80's.
Of course, the perfectly sensible reason they're selling a crapheap is that performance mattered more than a secure microkernel architecture (which NT, at one point, supposedly was), and backwards compatability with win32 is the only thing keeping people running to back to MS like a crackhead to his dealer.
Give me my good 'ol 70's Unix. The '80's died, and the 90's just won't.
In Linux, you have to recompile a kernel if you want to so much as change your modem!
Not since sometime in the 90's. In my opinion, GNOME/KDE are both easier to use than XP. Tastes, may vary, however.
Here is a company that single handedly created the market for Personal Computers...
And this is why we can respect Microsoft in the same way we respect Hitler for single handedly brining Germany out of a massive depression.
For trusted networks, couldn't the problem be mitigated by limiting arbitrary DNS queries to the trusted network? You could still allow queries from the Internet for your authorative domains.
This would prevent the attacker from directly causing your server to query for his domain.
The allow-query and allow-recursion directives should accomplish this.
However, you would still be vulnerable if a query to the hostile domain is performed from inside the network.
And so are identical twins.
(Yes, I'm joking)
The clone is just another animal with the same DNA. Nobody gets freaked out about identical twins, but there are always some people who make this complaint about clones.
As best as I can tell, all the "playing God" complaints are from religious luddites.
There may be some socio-economic consequences of cloning that are worth considering though. If we get to some more advanced genetic engineering, there certainly will be. Designer genes, anyone?
What is so hard about this? I sign this email, you know it's from me. I sign X-Random piece of data, you know it's from me. You send me a challenge, I sign it, and you know I'm on the other end.
There are nice email frontends for PGP, and the web of trust makes damn good sense. It's flexible, and it makes sure that nobody's got you by the balls.
This sounds like MS trying to reinvent something that's already working just fine, and making it horribly complicated and broken.
Ok, so I've used both ant and make, and my personal view is that ant is a retarded pain in the ass, and make is an elegant, general tool.
That being said, can anybody tell me what's wrong with make that we need half a dozen other tools to control builds? The fact the Windows doesn't come with a real shell out of the box doesn't count. If you're gonna download a build tool, you might as well pick up cygwin/mingw/sfu while you're at it.
I think make's syntax is much cleaner that ant's XML, and since every make command is just a shell command, there's no need to learn another special purpose language just for your build system. Make also starts up faster since it doesn't need to initialize a JVM or JIT anything (though this could be alleviated by compiling ant with GCJ). Ant seemed to have some type of dependencies, but it didn't seem to support the file based dependencies that make does.
I haven't use Ant for a while, and I haven't used NAnt at all. If I have any misconceptions here, I'd appreciate them getting cleared up.
BarbeauBot!
kinda like a "Drill License"
I believe you meant "License to Drill."
The floppy's been dying for about 7 years now. It's death will continue to be slow and agonizing.
On a personal note, the next box I build will not have a floppy drive considering that the most use I've gotten out of my current one was a disastrous encounter with dd.
There's no reinventing anything going on here. All the root does is point your resolver at the appropriate DNS server for the various TLDS (.com, .br, .whatever). It's a relatively trivial job, so I really think everyone is seriously over reacting here when the say "US is pwnxoring teh Internet!!1". It's not like the EU wants to create a competing DNS hierarchy. That would confuse every layman on the on the planet, and almost surely go nowhere.
I said they EU's decision is probably good because they're trying to improve on the current system by increasing the automation, and because, on the off chance the the US DoC does bork things up, we'll have a backup root to go to.
Let's hope they set up a good system that we all can use.
I'm not really sure why everyone's so worked up about this. If the US Gov. doesn't run things right, we can all just point our resolvers at an alternate root, like this one. And considering the the US was just maintaining the status quo, it really seems like even less of a big deal.
It looks like these guys are just gonna set up an alternate root for everyone and try to automate the system as much as possible. Hopefully it works.
BTW, anybody else annoyed that all these news articles on this keep confusing DNS with "The Internet?"
For any given set of data, there is a lower limit beyond which it cannot be compressed. This is called the "entropy" of the data. This is essentially how much actual information the data contains. We talked about it in one of my sophomore CS courses. Lempel-Ziv (gzip, I think) compression approaches the entropy of the data as the size of the data approaches infinity.
From the vobcopy website: .vob files to harddisk, decrypting (if you have libdvdcss installed) them on the way (thanks to libdvdread and libdvdcss)
vobcopy copies DVD
So maybe I misspoke. You don't get a perfect copy. You get a decrypted version of all content on the DVD, which is really what you probably want and is easier to use anyway.
I've backed up my dvd's via this method. It works and without loss from transcoding. And after the initial copy, there's no need to screw with any bs css crap. This means you can burn an image of all content to a dvd to play in a standalone player if your orginal gets scratched. I'm not aware of a better solution, but if there is one, I'd like to know about it.
This isn't quite as simple as just ripping the iso image, but it can easily be done. I'm assuming you're running on *nix.
First, you'll use either vobcopy or dvdbackup to mirror the dvd image to your hard drive decrypting the css. Vobcopy is slightly nicer to use. Ogle can usually play that copied dvd filesystem as is, but I've some trouble with a few dvd's. So, you use 'mkisofs --dvd-video' to create a dvd udf filesystem. Then, you point xine to that udf image as the dvd device, and it works.
It took me a little bit of research to figure all that out, but it works. You'll end up with a perfect copy of your dvd without any lossy transcoding.
Hope that helps.
I would be very suprised if the shell was a high priority in beta 1, especially when they are changing the graphics subsystem and parts of the file system.
You can't go and toss up a new shell using new technology that hasn't been designed yet
I first thought "WTF does the graphics system have to do with the shell? All you need are the standard c library and a few basic syscalls that any undergrad should know, and that stuff surely shouldn't be changing now." Then I remembered that in Windows-land, shell means Desktop Environment.
It's almost sad, really...
I'd say Broadcom drivers, personally.
Or rather the lack thereof.
Not true. Trade marks are only valid within an industry. Consider Remy, which makes Cognac, and Remy, which makes starter motors and alternators. Even within .com then, there are name collisions. Ideally, .com should be separated based on industry.
Incidentally, the two companies were founded by the same family once upon a time.