The major Free browsers show https: but hide http:. I tried them on a site with a domain-validated certificate from StartSSL:
Firefox 44
HTTP shows no scheme and a gray globe, whereas HTTPS shows https: and a green lock.
Chromium 48
HTTP shows no scheme and a gray dog-eared page, whereas HTTPS shows https: and a green lock.
I run about 50 websites, some for myself and some for local non-profit organizations. They're all simple information/brochure websites with no real interaction or sensitive content.
The "sensitive content" is what a man in the middle could insert into your stream: pornography, libel, ransomware downloads, or what have you.
yet it's going to cost me a small fortune in certificates to keep them alive in the future.
Let's Encrypt is a trusted certificate authority. And I don't see that going away any time soon, as the division of Google responsible for Chrome is a platinum sponsor of Let's Encrypt.
What's an acceptable level of "verifiable accountability" to you? I assume HTTPS with a self-signed certificate. Is a domain-validated certificate enough? Or do you demand an organization-validated certificate because of the risk of someone registering bankofarnerica.com and obtaining a domain-validated cert?
it actively tries to impress upon the user that the https connection with a self signed certificate is worse than a plain text http connection
A URL using the https: scheme and an unknown certificate authority gives a false sense of security, while a URL using the http: scheme gives a true sense of insecurity. Browser publishers rank truth of sense greater than security.
HTTPS makes filtering or caching in a proxy harder: the proxy operator has to convince the user to install the proxy operator's root certificate. It doesn't make IP address-based filtering, hostname-based filtering (hello APK), browser-side filtering, or browser-side caching any harder at all.
When you use HTTPS the browser notices the difference in protocol and makes an encrypted connection to port 443.
Which discloses the hostname in the clear in the Server Name Indication (SNI) field of the ClientHello packet. Otherwise, if the server hosts more than one website, how does it know which site's certificate to use?
Just about everything else is available on-demand via streaming services
Let me know what streaming service offers the film Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea in the United States.
Then perhaps Slashdot could adopt Stack Overflow's policy of treating duplicates: keep them around, but deemphasize them in the user interface, treat them as signposts to the original story, and provide links back and forth between an original story and its dupes or updates.
Kuro5hin also went quite political when it split off from Slashdot. In any case, if there's too much wingnuttery, you could always submit some well-written center and left stories to try to balance it out. Or have you tried doing so? If so, what was the response?
I was referring to people in general, not just my own case. On Slashdot, I have tried to move away from asking questions specific to my own situation because in the past, the answer has been "you are an edge case, and it would be unprofitable for a for-profit company to serve only you. Them's the breaks."
As for mainland Europe, wouldn't I have to learn the national language before leaving in order to qualify for a work visa? I haven't studied a foreign language in an organized manner since high school Spanish class over a decade and a half ago.
One caveat: So long as you retain your US citizenship while working abroad, you may be obligated to pay US taxes. That can be a bit complicated.
Provided the operating system license permits running it in a VM. Some operating systems require the purchase of a separate license for the host and guest.
He was ahead of his time. Android eventually proved him right. Which term do you prefer for GUI Linux that resembles Debian and Fedora more than Android?
Considering that the $20 computer already has a windows license, why?
It may in fact come with unlicensed Windows. I recently bought a used PC whose included copy of Windows ended up having been activated to some company's volume activation server that it could not reach. I concluded that said server was almost certainly behind the previous owner's corporate firewall. And a lot of thrift shops have an "AS IS" policy on electronics purchases.
If you want to be in the game, you have to go by the rules of the people handing out the money.
Then is it reasonable to include the cost of complying with the rules, including the cost of a Windows license for said $20 computer, in the grant request?
First, it's not GNU/Linux. GNU is not the kernel, and the GNU utilities are easily replaced to make a completely GNU-free system.
It's to distinguish GUI Linux distributions that resemble Debian or Fedora, designed for multi-window display and a physical keyboard and precise pointing device, from Linux distributions that resemble Android, designed for an all-maximized window management policy and a touch screen, and Linux distributions that resemble DD-WRT, designed for a usually headless appliance. Would you prefer the term "the X11 desktop"?
Slashdot Mirror
The major Free browsers show https: but hide http:. I tried them on a site with a domain-validated certificate from StartSSL:
Firefox 44 HTTP shows no scheme and a gray globe, whereas HTTPS shows https: and a green lock. Chromium 48 HTTP shows no scheme and a gray dog-eared page, whereas HTTPS shows https: and a green lock.I run about 50 websites, some for myself and some for local non-profit organizations. They're all simple information/brochure websites with no real interaction or sensitive content.
The "sensitive content" is what a man in the middle could insert into your stream: pornography, libel, ransomware downloads, or what have you.
yet it's going to cost me a small fortune in certificates to keep them alive in the future.
Let's Encrypt certificates cost zip.
Now I have to pay someone else to have a web site that will visible to the public.
You already have to pay your domain registrar and hosting provider.
Now big-ass Google is coming in and I need to pay someone else to have an encryption certificate.
But you don't have to pay StartSSL, WoSign, or Let's Encrypt for a TLS certificate.
Next, only content signed by "trusted" CA's?
Let's Encrypt is a trusted certificate authority. And I don't see that going away any time soon, as the division of Google responsible for Chrome is a platinum sponsor of Let's Encrypt.
What's an acceptable level of "verifiable accountability" to you? I assume HTTPS with a self-signed certificate. Is a domain-validated certificate enough? Or do you demand an organization-validated certificate because of the risk of someone registering bankofarnerica.com and obtaining a domain-validated cert?
it actively tries to impress upon the user that the https connection with a self signed certificate is worse than a plain text http connection
A URL using the https: scheme and an unknown certificate authority gives a false sense of security, while a URL using the http: scheme gives a true sense of insecurity. Browser publishers rank truth of sense greater than security.
Unless the feature is going to be added not only to Google Chrome but also to Google Search. The latter already uses HTTPS availability as a weak tiebreaker for ranking.
HTTPS makes filtering or caching in a proxy harder: the proxy operator has to convince the user to install the proxy operator's root certificate. It doesn't make IP address-based filtering, hostname-based filtering (hello APK), browser-side filtering, or browser-side caching any harder at all.
When you use HTTPS the browser notices the difference in protocol and makes an encrypted connection to port 443.
Which discloses the hostname in the clear in the Server Name Indication (SNI) field of the ClientHello packet. Otherwise, if the server hosts more than one website, how does it know which site's certificate to use?
Then do what on break-time?
iTunes Radio sucked anyways. Just use Clear Channel instead.
I thought people were using streaming services to get away from what iHeart (the new name for Clear Channel) stations were playing.
This is not down. This is Zombo Com.
In this case, the "elsewhere" is switching from the pop music scene to the Creative Commons music scene.
Stallman wants kde-centric distros like OpenSUSE to be referred to as GNU/linux.
I'm still waiting for a precise term to distinguish GNOME, KDE, and Xfce distros on the one hand from Android on the other.
Just about everything else is available on-demand via streaming services
Let me know what streaming service offers the film Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea in the United States.
Then perhaps Slashdot could adopt Stack Overflow's policy of treating duplicates: keep them around, but deemphasize them in the user interface, treat them as signposts to the original story, and provide links back and forth between an original story and its dupes or updates.
Kuro5hin also went quite political when it split off from Slashdot. In any case, if there's too much wingnuttery, you could always submit some well-written center and left stories to try to balance it out. Or have you tried doing so? If so, what was the response?
The last time I checked, I could obtain tax forms during tax season from the public library.
You don't see anyone calling it gnu/freebsd.
That's because kFreeBSD is more often used with the FreeBSD userland. For a while there was a monstrosity called "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD".
I was referring to people in general, not just my own case. On Slashdot, I have tried to move away from asking questions specific to my own situation because in the past, the answer has been "you are an edge case, and it would be unprofitable for a for-profit company to serve only you. Them's the breaks."
As for mainland Europe, wouldn't I have to learn the national language before leaving in order to qualify for a work visa? I haven't studied a foreign language in an organized manner since high school Spanish class over a decade and a half ago.
One caveat: So long as you retain your US citizenship while working abroad, you may be obligated to pay US taxes. That can be a bit complicated.
And in fact, filing some mandatory tax forms requires use of Windows.
So run it in a vm.
Provided the operating system license permits running it in a VM. Some operating systems require the purchase of a separate license for the host and guest.
He was ahead of his time. Android eventually proved him right. Which term do you prefer for GUI Linux that resembles Debian and Fedora more than Android?
Considering that the $20 computer already has a windows license, why?
It may in fact come with unlicensed Windows. I recently bought a used PC whose included copy of Windows ended up having been activated to some company's volume activation server that it could not reach. I concluded that said server was almost certainly behind the previous owner's corporate firewall. And a lot of thrift shops have an "AS IS" policy on electronics purchases.
If you want to be in the game, you have to go by the rules of the people handing out the money.
Then is it reasonable to include the cost of complying with the rules, including the cost of a Windows license for said $20 computer, in the grant request?
First, it's not GNU/Linux. GNU is not the kernel, and the GNU utilities are easily replaced to make a completely GNU-free system.
It's to distinguish GUI Linux distributions that resemble Debian or Fedora, designed for multi-window display and a physical keyboard and precise pointing device, from Linux distributions that resemble Android, designed for an all-maximized window management policy and a touch screen, and Linux distributions that resemble DD-WRT, designed for a usually headless appliance. Would you prefer the term "the X11 desktop"?