Hmm. They are suing KaZaa because they make software that allows file sharing over the internet.
Are RIAA/MPAA et al going to sue Microsoft, too? After all, Microsoft makes software that allows file sharing over the internet with no content control.
Shoot, even WITHOUT all the unintended security holes, it's pretty easy to set up a web server with all your mp3's and get a search engine to list them all.
Or, it could be that they are looking at server logs to see what OS's are reported from the user agent field. There's a bunch of Linux/Netscape/Mozilla users out there who have tweek'd their user.js files to reflect a user agent of Windows/IE5 so that sites won't block content because they aren't using a "compatible browser" (read: Win/IE5). I had to do this the other day for exactly this same reason.
I had a great ISP, reasonable rates, 50 meg personal web space, UNIX shell account, etc. & the other thing....
Then they got swallowed up by Earthlink.
Services were reduced, rates rose. Now only 10 megs, no shell, not even scp. They moved everything to new servers and broke everybody's cgi scripts and screwed up a whole bunch of URLs and domain names. Where before I paid ~21 bucks a month before, now they want $24.95 for their premium dialup. Plus $1 for a paper invoice. Plus $1 because I won't give them my credit card number or (gasp) my checking account #.
Nevermind that they totally screwed up my bill because they lost the records that I had prepaid for an entire year with my old ISP (Earthstink assimilated them after 9 mos). Then they send me overdue notices, threatening collection (for that which I had prepaid).
Bybye Earthstink.
But wait, I get to call a national, toll free number for tech support and sit on hold for hours listening to crappy music. O, Joy! (Heck, I can sit on the can for hours and listen to crappy music; at least I'll feel better when I'm done!)
Myth: Linux is a "hacker's OS"
Rebuttal: There are more well-known, well-*cough*-exploited security holes in *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than in any *nix. This makes it appear that *cough* hackers *cough* no, crackers, *cough* are more interested in cracking *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than Linux. (Please excuse my *cough* hacking, I have junk in my *cough* throat.)
Myth: Linux is hard to set up.
Rebuttal: No harder than setting up multiple simultaneous users and desktops under Windows 95.
Myth: Linux has no support.
Rebuttal: On the contrary, my Linux server is sitting on a concrete block as we speak. I set my Win2K server on the edge of my beanbag chair and it crashed immediately. On to the floor, I mean.
Myth: Linux is not ready for the desktop.
Rebuttal: In my new office, I will have a Linux box sitting on the floor on each side of me. A large sheet of plywood will lay across the tower cases, on which I will set my monitor and keyboard.
Myth: Linux is hard to use.
Rebuttal: Bicycles are hard to use, too, if you've never ridden one before. Windows probably was the first time you used it. It's just a matter of having patience, learning, trying, experimenting, and falling over a few times, getting up, dusting off, a couple of stiches here and there, you'll be good as new. And you'll have learned something.
Myth: I don't have time to learn Linux.
Rebuttal: You have time to wait for your Winows box to restart 10 times a day.
Myth: Most Linux advocates are zealots.
Rebuttal: All. (Just kidding)
Myth: The command shell is obsolete.
Rebuttal: The command shell is ugly. It's also extremely useful when you screw up your window manager or need to administer the system remotely. vi from the command line, you can change the configuration very much more efficiently than from a pretty window. You've also got access to every configuration parameter this way. Nothing beats the command shell for a quick connection to your mailserver to check your mail when you don't have time to wait for Outlook Express to open, download all your messages, render and display the HTML, ad nauseum.
Myth: Linux is hard to configure.
Rebuttal: Learn how to use a vi. In Linux, every option can be changed with a text editor. In Windows, you might get lucky in the Registry Editor -- if the option is there, if it's documented, etc.
I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.
I mean, how many devices are going to be plugging into your toaster?
#/sbin/modprobe bread
#/usr/local/bin/toast
toast v0.1 alpha
Usage:
toast [flags] slot-device
Flags:
-s n number of slices (increments slot-devices by n-1, default n=1)
-c XX color; (one of dry, golden [default], crispy, burnt)
-e eject toast upon completion (default)
+e do not eject toast
slot-device the first slot you are toasting in (default/dev/toast0)
Examples:
toast # makes one slice of golden toast in the first slot
toast -s 2/dev/toast2 # makes two slices of golden toast in third and fourth slots
toast -c golden/dev/toast0 -c burnt +e/dev/toast3 # ejects slot 0 but not slot 4
#/usr/local/bin/toast -s 1 -c burnt -e/dev/toast0
#/usr/bin/eject/dev/toast0
# killall -9 firealarm
Somehow, I don't think so. But if I know the Linux community, someone will implement. And put into a crontab. For perfect toast tomorrow morning as you are getting out of bed. If only we had a changer device (toast jukebox?) then we could implement an automatic jellier.
Appears to me that interpretation is the keyword here.
In Microsoft's viewpoint, the ideal system is a "ready to run" package containing everything they think you might possibly need, taking most every possible situation into account. Microsoft seems to be interpreting the phrase "major OS components" as meaning "everything we provide in the package." Some developers may want purchase a large feature set in one lump, and Microsoft delivers a superior product in this respect.
To the Linux developer, however, "major OS components" is interpreted as meaning "the kernel." And only the kernel. Everything else -- device drivers, window managers, web browsers, server daemons, user interface, user software -- are extras added on top, with only those components required being chosen.
Linux also provides very model-generic and very model-specific hardware drivers, whereas Windows drivers tend to be very model-specific. As a result, a windows hardware developer must rebuild the driver in order to use it on an updated device; in Linux, chances are the generic driver will work (even if not optimally).
Microsoft interprets "solid development" as "we make everything." While this does allow for tight quality control (debatable) and standardized programming practices, it loses the adavantage of a-thousand-monkeys-at-a-thousand-typewriters efficiency that Linux development has. When you have a large, diverse programming base, you can pick and choose from the best of the code offered. It is unlikely that any Microsoft developer can see the entire code base of his project; only in Linux and other OSS OS's is this possible.
I like this little bit of FUD: "Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset." Microsoft implies here that their toolset is not costly, in fact cheaper than the many free toolsets available for Linux developers.
I'm guessing it's not gonna work through a power line transformer (the grey garbage can up on the pole or the green box in your flowerbed). However, any of your neighbors who happen to be on the secondary side of your transformer will most likely be able to share your broadband connection.
I think you may have an uphill battle here. As far as I know, Win2K expects a filesystem to be either a physical partition or on a Windows 2000 dynamic disk. I don't think it knows how to handle image files.
There may be a third-party utility which allows this. I don't know what it is.
Your best bet may be (impossible, but who knows...) to convince the powers-that-be that the only way to implement this is using *nix/Samba and that the Total Cost of Ownership will be less than the TCO of the current implementation.
If the TCO is more than what you're doing now, consider the proposal toilet paper.
Remember that TCO includes not only the cost of implementation, but productivity issues as well. If productivity is sufficiently increased, then TCO will be lower than it currently is.
You mentioned that the datacenter only supports Windows 2000. In my opinion, that is short-sighted, but that is a topic for another flameb^H^H^H^H^H^H story.
You may find the following Microsoft Knowledge Base articles informative, if not the answer to you questions:
How to Create and Manipulate NTFS Junction Points (Q205524)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k b; EN-US;Q205524
How Single Instance Storage Identifies Which Volumes to Manage (Q226545)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k b; en-us;Q226545
Dynamic vs. Basic Storage in Windows 2000 and Windows XP (Q175761)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k b; EN-US;Q175761
(Be sure to remove spaces in the URLs. The slashcode on slashdot has a bug that inserts spaces in long words.)
I think that Windows 2000/XP may not support filesystems that are not seen as physical volumes (partitions) or logical volumes on a dynamic partition. I have not been able to find anything that indicates file-based filesystem images are supported.
You've got it backwards. The poster wants to mount some 200 images as folders, not drive letters. SUBST isn't going to help him.
For example, disc 1 would be a file such as c:\images\disc1.iso and be mounted as c:\library\disc1\ ; disc 2 would be c:\images\disc2.iso mounted as c:\library\disc2\ and so on. Basically, the single *.iso file is an entire file system (read: disc) squashed into a file and sitting on another file system.
By way of explanation, file system images are individual files representing a disk partition. They are as if you were to take the data off of a disk bit by bit, in sequence, with all partition information, file tables, etc., and put it into a file. This image can be ISO, FAT, NTFS, VFAT, FAT32, EXT2, EXT3, whatever format you can think of. You can have a FAT32 filesystem residing within an NTFS filesystem. With a proper operating system, you can mount this "virtual filesystem in a file" as a filesystem. In UNIX type OS's, there are no drive letters, but the filesystem can be mounted to a directory. In Microsoft-type OS's, every filesystem is mounted as a drive letter rather than a directory, which inherently limits you to a maximum of 26 simultaneously mounted "drives." The UNIX limitation is much higher.
In the days of DOS, it was found that some programs work best if their folders were in the root directory of some drive. Unfortunately, this made for a very cluttered root directory. A workaround was implemented: SUBST allows you to mount a directory as a virtual drive letter, letting the program have it's own root directory, while allowing the user to "sort out" his hard drive by having directories for programs, etc.
DOS and Windows have never had native support for mounting partitions as directories; this support IS available (finally) under Windows XP. Mounting image files as folders is uniquely UNIX-like; I don't know if XP supports this or not.
This don't work in 9x/Me, but for NT4 and 2K download PageDefrag from Sysinternals. It's free and works great for defragging page files and registry hives at boot time.
Once you copy the win98 directory to the hard disk, change a registry entry so you don't have to type in the path to the files whenever the config changes. For example, if you put the contents in C:\win98, do this change:
Gates personally wrote the Word Processing program in the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 100 computer. In assembly language. Nobody at Microsoft in the early days was a 'suit.' That you folks refuse to recognize that fact is a sign of ignorance.
In my own defense let me say: I wasn't refusing to recognize this: rather, I did not know this. The wonderful thing about Slashdot is that someone will always tell you something you did not know! In any event, kudos to Bill Gates for his contributions to making PC's a commodity available to the average consumer.
CEO's are masters at running businesses. They are not masters at using computers or making them work better.
As evidence, I'd like to direct your attention to this little company. It's former CEO is a proven master -- probably one of the best in the world -- at making a business successful. However, I don't believe that any code he has ever produced has ever been labeled as well-written. For that matter, I'm not sure he has ever written any code. Instead, the CEO in question bought the rights to an existing product and found a way to sell it to the masses. Later "innovations" and "improvements" to the product were not his, but the ideas of people he hired. Heck, he probably can't even set up user accounts in Windows XP (one of the most basic administrative tasks, in his company's flagship product no less). He doesn't need to, he can pay someone to do that!
The point? To make a company a success, the leaders of it must be able to sell the product, regardless of its quality. Management is what makes a company successful, and that is the realm of the CEO. Not technical prowess.
No matter the quality, no matter the technical merits, no matter the price of the product, if the company is poorly managed it will fail. --
Need an internet file-sharing utility (let's call it "KaZaak" for sake of this argument) that needs absolutely NO central servers, not even for d/l'ing KaZaak. Not even for a database of those KaZaaks that happen to have files to share.
Want to d/l KaZaak? Simply do a Google search (or other search engine) for KaZaak. Bound to turn up something. Hopefully not a lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement (which, when considering the option to view a cached page, surprises me that this hasn't happened already).
Once you find KaZaak, when you d/l it, it d/l's the database of the KaZaak you d/l'd it from. This lets you contact other KaZaaks in search of the file you are looking for.
Basically, it needs to be made bullet-proof... if bombs (or lawsuits) fall on the parent servers, the service keeps operating. If 90% of the clients are taken out by thugs in pinstripe suits, the service keeps operating. If only two are left... the service keeps operating... and can grow again.
Remember, all you need is two to tango.
In retrospect, I think I know what the failing of previous file-sharing programs is. They mention that you can share "music." Instead, they should say you can share "files containing digitized representations of analog waveforms."
It seems to me that the media companies are not so much opposed to copying for personal use, perhaps not even copying to share with friends at no profit, but rather are opposed to high quality copies lacking the artifacts that analog devices inherently leave behind when making multi-generation copies.
VHS to VHS ulitimately makes a poorer-quality copy that few people are willing to pay money for (except before release on VHS format). Digital to digital (any form factor) results in perfect copies. People don't have to give up quality for a lower price like they do in analog.
The media companies fear, and I think it is a valid fear, that perfect copies will cut into their profits to a much greater degree than the analog formats of days past.
Where this fear loses its foundation is when you consider that most people who purchase pirated copies of media (digital, analog, software, videos, music, books, whatever) probably would not purchase the item if the (cheap or free) copy was not available.
Put another way, I will never buy a legal copy of Microsoft Office. In my opinion, the quality of the product is not commensurate with its price (I have a legally licensed copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 that I am very happy with). On the other hand, if a copy were made available to me at a low price (read: free), I may consider it. Profits be damned.
But then, it's none of your business how I spend my money, now is it?
Packing peanuts are bad news. As packages are bumped, or even dropped, a sufficiently massive object in the package can compress the peanuts on one side, allowing peanuts to fill the resulting cavity on the opposite side. This results in a cavity elsewhere, possibly even leaving NO peanuts between the object and the wall of the box. If bumped in another direction, the object can shift toward that cavity, resulting in a situation where it has no padding.
Since most of the time you've probably thrown away the original styrofoam blocks, here's a way you can simulate them.
Get some small trash bags and a can of triple-expanding spray foam insulation. Place a trash bag in the bottom of the box and partially fill it with the spray foam, so that it's 1/3 to 1/2 as much as you really want. Seal the bag very well with a band of adhesive tape (NOT a twist tie). Place the object on top. Allow the spray foam to reach its full expansion, this may take a while. Do the same at the top, remembering to only use 1/3 to 1/2 of the desired amount. Seal the bag, then close the top. Wait for the top bag to reach full expansion and for the foam to harden. Shake the box to make sure things don't rattle.
The foam-filled bag should reach all 8 corners of the box; you may need to use a small bag in each corner. Don't get the foam on ANYTHING, you will never be able to completely remove it.
Breakable things (as in dishes, not as in computers) should have a layer of bubble wrap to prevent them from knocking against each other, but bubble wrap by itself is insufficient packaging for anything more valuable than a turd.
Slashdot Mirror
What does BSOD look like on a 2" LCD?
Hmm. They are suing KaZaa because they make software that allows file sharing over the internet.
Are RIAA/MPAA et al going to sue Microsoft, too? After all, Microsoft makes software that allows file sharing over the internet with no content control.
Shoot, even WITHOUT all the unintended security holes, it's pretty easy to set up a web server with all your mp3's and get a search engine to list them all.
Or, it could be that they are looking at server logs to see what OS's are reported from the user agent field. There's a bunch of Linux/Netscape/Mozilla users out there who have tweek'd their user.js files to reflect a user agent of Windows/IE5 so that sites won't block content because they aren't using a "compatible browser" (read: Win/IE5). I had to do this the other day for exactly this same reason.
I had a great ISP, reasonable rates, 50 meg personal web space, UNIX shell account, etc. & the other thing....
Then they got swallowed up by Earthlink.
Services were reduced, rates rose. Now only 10 megs, no shell, not even scp. They moved everything to new servers and broke everybody's cgi scripts and screwed up a whole bunch of URLs and domain names. Where before I paid ~21 bucks a month before, now they want $24.95 for their premium dialup. Plus $1 for a paper invoice. Plus $1 because I won't give them my credit card number or (gasp) my checking account #.
Nevermind that they totally screwed up my bill because they lost the records that I had prepaid for an entire year with my old ISP (Earthstink assimilated them after 9 mos). Then they send me overdue notices, threatening collection (for that which I had prepaid).
Bybye Earthstink.
But wait, I get to call a national, toll free number for tech support and sit on hold for hours listening to crappy music. O, Joy! (Heck, I can sit on the can for hours and listen to crappy music; at least I'll feel better when I'm done!)
I have found that my system is not infected with virii when I use the following command to read my mail:
/bin/vi /var/spool/mail/myusername
$
That is, until someone finds a vulnerability in vi.
wanting goatse?
(sorry... it had to be said)
to clarify, the owners of the corporation are exempt from workman's comp, even if they are also employees. At least in WA state.
It may vary by state, but in some I believe that if you are the sole employee of the corporation, you are exempt from workman's comp insurance.
Myth: Linux is a "hacker's OS"
Rebuttal: There are more well-known, well-*cough*-exploited security holes in *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than in any *nix. This makes it appear that *cough* hackers *cough* no, crackers, *cough* are more interested in cracking *cough* Microsoft Windows *cough* than Linux. (Please excuse my *cough* hacking, I have junk in my *cough* throat.)
Myth: Linux is hard to set up.
Rebuttal: No harder than setting up multiple simultaneous users and desktops under Windows 95.
Myth: Linux has no support.
Rebuttal: On the contrary, my Linux server is sitting on a concrete block as we speak. I set my Win2K server on the edge of my beanbag chair and it crashed immediately. On to the floor, I mean.
Myth: Linux is not ready for the desktop.
Rebuttal: In my new office, I will have a Linux box sitting on the floor on each side of me. A large sheet of plywood will lay across the tower cases, on which I will set my monitor and keyboard.
Myth: Linux is hard to use.
Rebuttal: Bicycles are hard to use, too, if you've never ridden one before. Windows probably was the first time you used it. It's just a matter of having patience, learning, trying, experimenting, and falling over a few times, getting up, dusting off, a couple of stiches here and there, you'll be good as new. And you'll have learned something.
Myth: I don't have time to learn Linux.
Rebuttal: You have time to wait for your Winows box to restart 10 times a day.
Myth: Most Linux advocates are zealots.
Rebuttal: All. (Just kidding)
Myth: The command shell is obsolete.
Rebuttal: The command shell is ugly. It's also extremely useful when you screw up your window manager or need to administer the system remotely. vi from the command line, you can change the configuration very much more efficiently than from a pretty window. You've also got access to every configuration parameter this way. Nothing beats the command shell for a quick connection to your mailserver to check your mail when you don't have time to wait for Outlook Express to open, download all your messages, render and display the HTML, ad nauseum.
Myth: Linux is hard to configure.
Rebuttal: Learn how to use a vi. In Linux, every option can be changed with a text editor. In Windows, you might get lucky in the Registry Editor -- if the option is there, if it's documented, etc.
I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.
/sbin/modprobe bread
/usr/local/bin/toast
/dev/toast0)
/dev/toast2 # makes two slices of golden toast in third and fourth slots
/dev/toast0 -c burnt +e /dev/toast3 # ejects slot 0 but not slot 4
/usr/local/bin/toast -s 1 -c burnt -e /dev/toast0
/usr/bin/eject /dev/toast0
I mean, how many devices are going to be plugging into your toaster?
#
#
toast v0.1 alpha
Usage:
toast [flags] slot-device
Flags:
-s n number of slices (increments slot-devices by n-1, default n=1)
-c XX color; (one of dry, golden [default], crispy, burnt)
-e eject toast upon completion (default)
+e do not eject toast
slot-device the first slot you are toasting in (default
Examples:
toast # makes one slice of golden toast in the first slot
toast -s 2
toast -c golden
#
#
# killall -9 firealarm
Somehow, I don't think so. But if I know the Linux community, someone will implement. And put into a crontab. For perfect toast tomorrow morning as you are getting out of bed. If only we had a changer device (toast jukebox?) then we could implement an automatic jellier.
Appears to me that interpretation is the keyword here.
In Microsoft's viewpoint, the ideal system is a "ready to run" package containing everything they think you might possibly need, taking most every possible situation into account. Microsoft seems to be interpreting the phrase "major OS components" as meaning "everything we provide in the package." Some developers may want purchase a large feature set in one lump, and Microsoft delivers a superior product in this respect.
To the Linux developer, however, "major OS components" is interpreted as meaning "the kernel." And only the kernel. Everything else -- device drivers, window managers, web browsers, server daemons, user interface, user software -- are extras added on top, with only those components required being chosen.
Linux also provides very model-generic and very model-specific hardware drivers, whereas Windows drivers tend to be very model-specific. As a result, a windows hardware developer must rebuild the driver in order to use it on an updated device; in Linux, chances are the generic driver will work (even if not optimally).
Microsoft interprets "solid development" as "we make everything." While this does allow for tight quality control (debatable) and standardized programming practices, it loses the adavantage of a-thousand-monkeys-at-a-thousand-typewriters efficiency that Linux development has. When you have a large, diverse programming base, you can pick and choose from the best of the code offered. It is unlikely that any Microsoft developer can see the entire code base of his project; only in Linux and other OSS OS's is this possible.
I like this little bit of FUD: "Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset." Microsoft implies here that their toolset is not costly, in fact cheaper than the many free toolsets available for Linux developers.
I'm guessing it's not gonna work through a power line transformer (the grey garbage can up on the pole or the green box in your flowerbed). However, any of your neighbors who happen to be on the secondary side of your transformer will most likely be able to share your broadband connection.
You didplan on sharing, didn't you?
Microsoft is like a condom. It'll protect you, but if you use it, you're screwed.
Reminds me of a pair of pants my neighbor had. So many patches there wasn't any original fabric left.
Thanks. I realized my mistake after hitting "submit." :-P
I think you may have an uphill battle here. As far as I know, Win2K expects a filesystem to be either a physical partition or on a Windows 2000 dynamic disk. I don't think it knows how to handle image files.
There may be a third-party utility which allows this. I don't know what it is.
Your best bet may be (impossible, but who knows...) to convince the powers-that-be that the only way to implement this is using *nix/Samba and that the Total Cost of Ownership will be less than the TCO of the current implementation.
If the TCO is more than what you're doing now, consider the proposal toilet paper.
Remember that TCO includes not only the cost of implementation, but productivity issues as well. If productivity is sufficiently increased, then TCO will be lower than it currently is.
You mentioned that the datacenter only supports Windows 2000. In my opinion, that is short-sighted, but that is a topic for another flameb^H^H^H^H^H^H story.
You may find the following Microsoft Knowledge Base articles informative, if not the answer to you questions:
k b; EN-US;Q205524
k b; en-us;Q226545
k b; EN-US;Q175761
How to Create and Manipulate NTFS Junction Points (Q205524)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
How Single Instance Storage Identifies Which Volumes to Manage (Q226545)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
Dynamic vs. Basic Storage in Windows 2000 and Windows XP (Q175761)
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=
(Be sure to remove spaces in the URLs. The slashcode on slashdot has a bug that inserts spaces in long words.)
I think that Windows 2000/XP may not support filesystems that are not seen as physical volumes (partitions) or logical volumes on a dynamic partition. I have not been able to find anything that indicates file-based filesystem images are supported.
You've got it backwards. The poster wants to mount some 200 images as folders, not drive letters. SUBST isn't going to help him.
For example, disc 1 would be a file such as c:\images\disc1.iso and be mounted as c:\library\disc1\ ; disc 2 would be c:\images\disc2.iso mounted as c:\library\disc2\ and so on. Basically, the single *.iso file is an entire file system (read: disc) squashed into a file and sitting on another file system.
By way of explanation, file system images are individual files representing a disk partition. They are as if you were to take the data off of a disk bit by bit, in sequence, with all partition information, file tables, etc., and put it into a file. This image can be ISO, FAT, NTFS, VFAT, FAT32, EXT2, EXT3, whatever format you can think of. You can have a FAT32 filesystem residing within an NTFS filesystem. With a proper operating system, you can mount this "virtual filesystem in a file" as a filesystem. In UNIX type OS's, there are no drive letters, but the filesystem can be mounted to a directory. In Microsoft-type OS's, every filesystem is mounted as a drive letter rather than a directory, which inherently limits you to a maximum of 26 simultaneously mounted "drives." The UNIX limitation is much higher.
In the days of DOS, it was found that some programs work best if their folders were in the root directory of some drive. Unfortunately, this made for a very cluttered root directory. A workaround was implemented: SUBST allows you to mount a directory as a virtual drive letter, letting the program have it's own root directory, while allowing the user to "sort out" his hard drive by having directories for programs, etc.
DOS and Windows have never had native support for mounting partitions as directories; this support IS available (finally) under Windows XP. Mounting image files as folders is uniquely UNIX-like; I don't know if XP supports this or not.
This don't work in 9x/Me, but for NT4 and 2K download PageDefrag from Sysinternals. It's free and works great for defragging page files and registry hives at boot time.
Once you copy the win98 directory to the hard disk, change a registry entry so you don't have to type in the path to the files whenever the config changes. For example, if you put the contents in C:\win98, do this change:
u rr entVersion\Setup\
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\C
SourcePath="C:\win98\"
For NT4, it's in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\WindowsNT\CurrentVersion\
SourcePath="C:\" (where sources are in C:\i386\)
CEO's are masters at running businesses. They are not masters at using computers or making them work better.
As evidence, I'd like to direct your attention to this little company. It's former CEO is a proven master -- probably one of the best in the world -- at making a business successful. However, I don't believe that any code he has ever produced has ever been labeled as well-written. For that matter, I'm not sure he has ever written any code. Instead, the CEO in question bought the rights to an existing product and found a way to sell it to the masses. Later "innovations" and "improvements" to the product were not his, but the ideas of people he hired. Heck, he probably can't even set up user accounts in Windows XP (one of the most basic administrative tasks, in his company's flagship product no less). He doesn't need to, he can pay someone to do that!
The point? To make a company a success, the leaders of it must be able to sell the product, regardless of its quality. Management is what makes a company successful, and that is the realm of the CEO. Not technical prowess.
No matter the quality, no matter the technical merits, no matter the price of the product, if the company is poorly managed it will fail.
--
Need an internet file-sharing utility (let's call it "KaZaak" for sake of this argument) that needs absolutely NO central servers, not even for d/l'ing KaZaak. Not even for a database of those KaZaaks that happen to have files to share.
Want to d/l KaZaak? Simply do a Google search (or other search engine) for KaZaak. Bound to turn up something. Hopefully not a lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement (which, when considering the option to view a cached page, surprises me that this hasn't happened already).
Once you find KaZaak, when you d/l it, it d/l's the database of the KaZaak you d/l'd it from. This lets you contact other KaZaaks in search of the file you are looking for.
Basically, it needs to be made bullet-proof... if bombs (or lawsuits) fall on the parent servers, the service keeps operating. If 90% of the clients are taken out by thugs in pinstripe suits, the service keeps operating. If only two are left... the service keeps operating... and can grow again.
Remember, all you need is two to tango.
In retrospect, I think I know what the failing of previous file-sharing programs is. They mention that you can share "music." Instead, they should say you can share "files containing digitized representations of analog waveforms."
It seems to me that the media companies are not so much opposed to copying for personal use, perhaps not even copying to share with friends at no profit, but rather are opposed to high quality copies lacking the artifacts that analog devices inherently leave behind when making multi-generation copies.
VHS to VHS ulitimately makes a poorer-quality copy that few people are willing to pay money for (except before release on VHS format). Digital to digital (any form factor) results in perfect copies. People don't have to give up quality for a lower price like they do in analog.
The media companies fear, and I think it is a valid fear, that perfect copies will cut into their profits to a much greater degree than the analog formats of days past.
Where this fear loses its foundation is when you consider that most people who purchase pirated copies of media (digital, analog, software, videos, music, books, whatever) probably would not purchase the item if the (cheap or free) copy was not available.
Put another way, I will never buy a legal copy of Microsoft Office. In my opinion, the quality of the product is not commensurate with its price (I have a legally licensed copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 that I am very happy with). On the other hand, if a copy were made available to me at a low price (read: free), I may consider it. Profits be damned.
But then, it's none of your business how I spend my money, now is it?
Packing peanuts are bad news. As packages are bumped, or even dropped, a sufficiently massive object in the package can compress the peanuts on one side, allowing peanuts to fill the resulting cavity on the opposite side. This results in a cavity elsewhere, possibly even leaving NO peanuts between the object and the wall of the box. If bumped in another direction, the object can shift toward that cavity, resulting in a situation where it has no padding.
Since most of the time you've probably thrown away the original styrofoam blocks, here's a way you can simulate them.
Get some small trash bags and a can of triple-expanding spray foam insulation. Place a trash bag in the bottom of the box and partially fill it with the spray foam, so that it's 1/3 to 1/2 as much as you really want. Seal the bag very well with a band of adhesive tape (NOT a twist tie). Place the object on top. Allow the spray foam to reach its full expansion, this may take a while. Do the same at the top, remembering to only use 1/3 to 1/2 of the desired amount. Seal the bag, then close the top. Wait for the top bag to reach full expansion and for the foam to harden. Shake the box to make sure things don't rattle.
The foam-filled bag should reach all 8 corners of the box; you may need to use a small bag in each corner. Don't get the foam on ANYTHING, you will never be able to completely remove it.
Breakable things (as in dishes, not as in computers) should have a layer of bubble wrap to prevent them from knocking against each other, but bubble wrap by itself is insufficient packaging for anything more valuable than a turd.