Hosting email, including web access and even calendaring, is not particularly CPU-intensive. A 1GHz machine would be massively overspec'd for the task.
Microsoft Exchange I find can be really demanding with just ten users when there is loads of e-mails stored, Zimbra can be an issue with just it's MySQL and Java components, Novell Groupwise can be a real pain in the ass at times on slower hardware, making you wait and this is all with a minimal amount of users. Now, admittedly, the systems I've mentioned didn't degrate significantly beyond what it had reached already (except for Microsoft Exchange. but that's another story) when under far greater loads of users, but still...
I'm not convinced about your 'recommended requirements' from my real world experience to be perfectly honest.
Actually that's still miss interpreted. Oracle dropped paid development of Ruby on Rails and is leaving the development for the plugin to the community now.
to trace and identify the source of a communication - Source IP address. to trace and identify the destination of a communication - Destination IP address to identify the date, time and duration of a communication - Time until TCP connection dies or UDP session ends to identify the type of communication - being able to determine if it was TCP, UDP or some other packet type was considered sufficient. to identify the communication device - In the case of mobile phones and mobile phone networks to identify the location of mobile communication equipment - Obvious.
I can set that up on IOS without an issue. Storing text is not really that much of an issue on a day to day basis. Having a daily backup that compresses the data would not take that considerable amount of room as you'd think.
You could even eleviate storage issues by using amazon S3 to store the compressed data.
You can't use passwordless public-key authentication on stock Telnet.
NTLM actually makes it possible, which is on the stock telnet client in Windows since NT days.
Also the lack of X tunneling might be an issue if there's a firewall in the way.
In a *nix environment, you can open new telnet sessions and each session can be used to pipe data to/from a specific port on the remote machine, not really hard.
I know someone who works for an ISP and know just how much work and additional equipment it would require if the ISP had to do things like the European ISPs.
Then elaborate. Give details instead of just hoarding this knowledge to yourself because last I checked, setting up IOS to spit log events to some specific IP on the internal network wasn't hard.
Uh, you have to verify whether or not want to accept mail from SES to begin with, I don't really think spammers are going to get far with using it as a spamming platform.
Putting '0' in my hosts file for a site just resolves the site normally.
Eh? Not using Windows I take it. 0 is short for 0.0.0.0
255.255.255.255 gives a 'permission denied' when I try a traceroute.
Of course.
I assume we stick with 127.0.0.1 for troubleshooting ease.
Using 127.0.0.1 however wastes the browser's time and resources on trying to establish a socket, if you use anti-virus software, you further waste even more resources by having the anti-virus software intercept the connection and try to connect it self.
But the real question is, would Firefox (and Chrome) add "no signature/generic signature" mode, where headers sent out to the server get synchronized to the lowest common denominator for a large set of users?
How would you determine what is a login cookie for authentication to a website veres an advertising tracking cookie? They can look identical and even have the exact same field names.
I'm guessing you're one of those ridiculous people that uses only software approved with the seal of RMS's beard.
I'm typing on a Windows 7 system right now (screenshot evidence) and I buy a lot of commercial software as well use a lot of free opensource software, I consider myself platform agnostic and use what is best for the job. h.264's support in video tags is lacking and not as widely supported both legally and in practical uses, to me it is quite clear it is not better for a web video in practical, philosophical and even legal.
For those of us living in the real world, the only thing this does at all is annoy the vast majority of the population.
Yes, I mean after all, the lack of proper plugins to support the content in your favorite browser, who wouldn't get pissed off? I'm serious about the lack of h.264 plugin video tag support while the opposite exists across pretty much all major browsers that don't have it built in.
I didn't respond to the rest because I didn't feel it was worth reading in the first place.
Seriously, don't get riled up over this Eric, drink a cold Pepsi or something.
What browser other than Chrome and possibly Firefox support WebM?
Out of the box, you forgot Opera.
"relying on the OS to provide codecs is a terrible idea!"?
Sir, you twist my words. "Didn't really work" is not "terrible idea". It didn't really work because it wasn't orchestrated properly. Just look at the container hell between quicktime (mov / proprietary mp4-like container), windows media (wmv container, screwy mp4 container support), real player (rm container) and adobe flash (flv container) - while they all supported h.264 in their proprietary containers, you ended up with players that couldn't play each other's files and lets not forget the mass amounts of different audio codecs, subtitling support etc. That is not good for the web.
None of the proprietary non-sense above is part of h.264 (since it's just a video codec). Hence, no specific container, audio codec (which likely requires even further licensing), subtitling format defined which is what WebM defines too.
And how can you go on to say "well it's in WMP or QT"
Because Safari relies on QuickTime for the video tag and IE relies on windows media for the video tag. Take a step back and note that in that segment, I am talking about the matter of general browser support in this scenario.
The fact the codec support is available for these players and the licensing is free means that adoption across pretty much the majority of browsers is easier than the other way around - where there is no magical ns-plugin that is properly licensed etc. available for the various browsers and platforms out there was the point I was getting at.
I did read it, I'm still talking about QuickTime, not iTunes and I am replying to your specific comment about codecs instead of players. Now answer it properly instead of side stepping.
No, it's not. Google is trying to force the inferior codec, that's a loss for users and people using the web.
I disagree, H.264 is an inferior codec due to the licensing schemes, that's a loss for users and people using the web. I'll go even further and state that you can't even download a properly licensed HTML5 video tag enabled ns-plugin for h.264 but you can for webm.
And the worst part is that this whole codec nonsense could have easily been avoided entirely simply by making the browser plug into its platforms video framework for codec support.
I think the worst part of that is that it was done previously and didn't really work.
nothing stops the user from installing it themselves
The lack of appropriate licensing prevents them and having it built into the webbrowser is easier. Right now webm is supported by most browsers, and those that don't just require the codec to be installed in WMP or QuickTime. Compare this the other way around where it is not supported out of the box in most browsers and you can't even get a legitimately licensed h.264 downloadable plugin for the browsers that don't support it out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
Please check yourself in the nearest mental hospital. Game consoles are not living beings nor do they have 'rights' like animals or people.
Microsoft Exchange I find can be really demanding with just ten users when there is loads of e-mails stored, Zimbra can be an issue with just it's MySQL and Java components, Novell Groupwise can be a real pain in the ass at times on slower hardware, making you wait and this is all with a minimal amount of users. Now, admittedly, the systems I've mentioned didn't degrate significantly beyond what it had reached already (except for Microsoft Exchange. but that's another story) when under far greater loads of users, but still...
I'm not convinced about your 'recommended requirements' from my real world experience to be perfectly honest.
I remember recieving 3GB uncompressed avi files constantly from co-workers in my mail, honestly.
Actually that's still miss interpreted. Oracle dropped paid development of Ruby on Rails and is leaving the development for the plugin to the community now.
Of all the excuses, you refer hitting a single extra key ('d') "more effort", compared to shift + ] = }.
I cannot see how that is even measurable 'effort' wise.
Ruby highlighting works fine for me in vim. Must be just you.
What are you talking about 'contents'.
Here is what the EU data retension asks for:
to trace and identify the source of a communication - Source IP address.
to trace and identify the destination of a communication - Destination IP address
to identify the date, time and duration of a communication - Time until TCP connection dies or UDP session ends
to identify the type of communication - being able to determine if it was TCP, UDP or some other packet type was considered sufficient.
to identify the communication device - In the case of mobile phones and mobile phone networks
to identify the location of mobile communication equipment - Obvious.
I can set that up on IOS without an issue. Storing text is not really that much of an issue on a day to day basis. Having a daily backup that compresses the data would not take that considerable amount of room as you'd think.
You could even eleviate storage issues by using amazon S3 to store the compressed data.
I'm not convinced by your arguments.
NTLM actually makes it possible, which is on the stock telnet client in Windows since NT days.
In a *nix environment, you can open new telnet sessions and each session can be used to pipe data to/from a specific port on the remote machine, not really hard.
I find it far more likely that this would happen:
Tom DeWitt: Star Wars Kid, I am your father.
Star Wars Kid: Je ne compris pas.
Then elaborate. Give details instead of just hoarding this knowledge to yourself because last I checked, setting up IOS to spit log events to some specific IP on the internal network wasn't hard.
How do you change your name on facebook continiously, Amber?
Uh, you have to verify whether or not want to accept mail from SES to begin with, I don't really think spammers are going to get far with using it as a spamming platform.
Eh? Not using Windows I take it. 0 is short for 0.0.0.0
Of course.
Using 127.0.0.1 however wastes the browser's time and resources on trying to establish a socket, if you use anti-virus software, you further waste even more resources by having the anti-virus software intercept the connection and try to connect it self.
Why would you use 127.0.0.1 instead of just '0' or 255.255.255.255 ?
Haha, I honestly like the new icon (had to refresh to see it). A spin off the classical one. :3
Slashdot still uses ancient logos for KDE and Gnome, I don't see an issue.
Charge a very high price on the facebook credits side.
Of course if people are typing in 'www.facebook.com' by hand, you can intercept it unencrypted first and never let them go encrypted to begin with.
How would you determine what is a login cookie for authentication to a website veres an advertising tracking cookie? They can look identical and even have the exact same field names.
It doesn't, hence the problem.
I'm typing on a Windows 7 system right now (screenshot evidence) and I buy a lot of commercial software as well use a lot of free opensource software, I consider myself platform agnostic and use what is best for the job. h.264's support in video tags is lacking and not as widely supported both legally and in practical uses, to me it is quite clear it is not better for a web video in practical, philosophical and even legal.
Yes, I mean after all, the lack of proper plugins to support the content in your favorite browser, who wouldn't get pissed off? I'm serious about the lack of h.264 plugin video tag support while the opposite exists across pretty much all major browsers that don't have it built in.
Whatever you say.
I didn't see any advice in the grandparent's post?
Seriously, don't get riled up over this Eric, drink a cold Pepsi or something.
Out of the box, you forgot Opera.
Sir, you twist my words. "Didn't really work" is not "terrible idea". It didn't really work because it wasn't orchestrated properly. Just look at the container hell between quicktime (mov / proprietary mp4-like container), windows media (wmv container, screwy mp4 container support), real player (rm container) and adobe flash (flv container) - while they all supported h.264 in their proprietary containers, you ended up with players that couldn't play each other's files and lets not forget the mass amounts of different audio codecs, subtitling support etc. That is not good for the web.
None of the proprietary non-sense above is part of h.264 (since it's just a video codec). Hence, no specific container, audio codec (which likely requires even further licensing), subtitling format defined which is what WebM defines too.
Because Safari relies on QuickTime for the video tag and IE relies on windows media for the video tag. Take a step back and note that in that segment, I am talking about the matter of general browser support in this scenario.
The fact the codec support is available for these players and the licensing is free means that adoption across pretty much the majority of browsers is easier than the other way around - where there is no magical ns-plugin that is properly licensed etc. available for the various browsers and platforms out there was the point I was getting at.
I did read it, I'm still talking about QuickTime, not iTunes and I am replying to your specific comment about codecs instead of players. Now answer it properly instead of side stepping.
QuickTime, not iTunes.
How does that make the QuickTime plugin work in browsers and Second life then?
I disagree, H.264 is an inferior codec due to the licensing schemes, that's a loss for users and people using the web. I'll go even further and state that you can't even download a properly licensed HTML5 video tag enabled ns-plugin for h.264 but you can for webm.
I think the worst part of that is that it was done previously and didn't really work.
The lack of appropriate licensing prevents them and having it built into the webbrowser is easier. Right now webm is supported by most browsers, and those that don't just require the codec to be installed in WMP or QuickTime. Compare this the other way around where it is not supported out of the box in most browsers and you can't even get a legitimately licensed h.264 downloadable plugin for the browsers that don't support it out of the box.