It's simple, elegant and doesn't contain any crap icons I won't need anyways. If you can't get a GTK+ app built without that butt-ugly crap on the top, then GTK+ isn't the proper toolkit for things like this.
Until the coders of Linux apps realize that and a few other similarly simply truths, the "year of the Linux desktop" will remain several years in the future forever.
Wow. Thanks for that link, I haven't looked for a new text editor for a long time, tried a few IDEs recently and came to the same conclusion I've always come (i.e. they're sluggish, they suck as editors and the fabled "IDE magic" doesn't work half of the time on my projects).
ST2 is the first real contender to TextMate I've seen. I just might switch. At least I'll be giving it a try.
I've been using TextMate for several years. It has lots going for it, the primary point being that it is a text editor and it knows it. It doesn't try to do 500 unrelated things, but focusses on doing the one thing it was designed for really well. It follows the Mac philosophy in many ways. It gets out of your way and lets you do the actual text editing.
Yeah, it's rock-solid, too. Can't remember if it ever crashed on me.
It also has tons of plugins. For example, I use Subversion extensively, so I have an SVN plugin installed and can update, commit, etc. with a few keyboard shortcuts.
It blows gEdit and kate out of the waters. I've only seen screenshots of geany and that's enough to not make me try that one. My editor of choice back in my Linux days was FTE and nothing ever came close to it. TextMate is the one editor I found that beats FTE, and I tried finding something that does that many, many, many times.
Let me put it this way: If this was your daughter, I'm sure she has a nice character, and maybe she is really smart, too. But, to put it nicely, I just don't date women so ugly I wouldn't want to be caught dead with them.
My entire life I have hated text editors that give me icons and a mouse-driven interface. I've just (thanks to some other comment) discovered Sublime Text 2 - and they do that part very, very right: When I'm in a text editor, I'm obviously editing text, and I'll be 10x as fast with a keyboard-driven interface.
And geany looks so horribly ugly, if it's any good as an editor, I suggest starting a fund to buy the dev team a graphics and UI designer.
Had you told me during my Linux years that I would one day spend money on a text editor, I'd have laughed you out of the room. Years later, I'm a happy TextMate user and it kicks every IDE I've tried in the nuts. Yeah, sometimes I'd wish for some of the IDE features, but every... single... one... that I've tried has an editor that sucks compared to TextMate. The best ones just suck, the worse ones don't even compare. And in the end, I spend more time editing code than looking at fancy class navigation bars.
So I'm really curious about where a Free Software version of TextMate will go. Not sure if I'd rather go to bed (11 pm right now) or get all the dependencies and give it a try. Maybe if someone would post a binary, that would be really cool. Yeah, I've become lazy.
I've been told by teachers and parents that math classes are a must for any technology related career.
You already got your answer. What makes you doubt them?
Some math you'll never need again, some you'll wish you learnt more about. Trouble is that you don't know beforehand which. But you will need math in any tech career.
I think you've fallen for Kim's delusions of grandeur and think he's important enough to be terrorized. I think that some US contact guy enjoyed playing hardcore, and the NZ police went on it because they don't like to question their inofficial superiors.
If you expect someone to be heavily armed, you have a duty to act in such a way as to minimize the probabilities of a shoot-out, to protect the officers, innocent bystanders and the person(s) to be arrested.
Madoff was arrested by a couple (or at the most 5 or 6) lightly armed FTC investigators and FBI agents wearing ties
As someone else pointed out: Madoff wasn't known for showing off his gun collection and he didn't wait for the police with shotgun in hand. Also, he didn't already have a considerable collection of prior convictions in multiple countries.
I watched a few DVDs (again) recently - and being unable to get right into the movie pissed me off so much, mostly because I wasn't used to it anymore.
Some Linux players did it right - ignore all the "don't skip me" flags and jump right to the start of the movie when the DVD is started. If I want the menu, I can click one button.
The fact that people who are making millions on HFT can and will find a way to convert that money into a way to circumvent your "solution". I don't know how (and if I knew, I'd not post it, but wait until such a law is created and then sell the solution for a few dozen millions to the HFTs), but I do know that big money always finds a way. Why do you think the drug trade still exists?
Liquidity is important, no doubt. But not at any price. Liquidity is not a god-given mission that we must sacrifice everything to.
And - like everything - it comes at a price. Liquidity can only exist long-term if the people providing it are making a profit. Too much and the people who provide liquidity are making profits while the people doing the actual trading are paying the bill, which will also lead to a long-term collapse of the markets because the real traders get out.
Everything is deadly in too high a dose. Even the most important life-supporting substance - water - can kill you if you get too much of it (and I'm not even talking about drowning).
And which real-world application needs one-second trading? Make it once-per-minute, that also does away with the insane computing needs of the exchanges and the extreme consequences of any glitches.
I've been following stories about what to do for months now. Most of the authors still live in the 20th century, if not the 19th.
Here's the ugly truth: There are no simple answers.
The HFTs are making money faster than they could print it if they had a printing press. There is no way you will solve this problem with a simple tax or a simple regulation or a simple law. You will need multiple, interacting component, or your nifty little "solution" will be circumvented before the ink is dry.
I distrust any "solution" that can be explained in less than three paragraphs. We don't live in a world that simple anymore.
Well, let's see... Something that tons of the hardcore user base are complaining about at every opportunity... slipping market share... Nah, there could not possibly be any relation, totally unlikely...
It's not the rapid release nonsense, it's alienating your userbase that kills you. Chrome doesn't have the same problem because it was on rapid release from day one. Its users don't expect anything else. But Firefox users do. That's why it was stupid to copy it.
It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse.
I don't only agree, I'd go a step further: The admins job is not to filter content, but to keep the network running.
Filter malware, yes. Content? Why should the admin care if that image shows a tit or a cat?
Maybe I'm too open-minded but I don't get what the fuss is all about. If I came upon a co-worker or even a subordinate watching porn, I'd be more worried that he's not working than what he is watching. Sure it's not very tasteful, but as long as his hands stay out of his trousers (or skirt, let's stop pretending only men watch porn), I don't care all that much. Maybe if our society were a little less sexually repressed, we could focus on what actually matters instead of political correctness?
The strength of good cryptography lies exactly in that not one but many men, and not just any but the top experts in the field have been trying to break it - and have failed. A crypto algorithm is considered strong exactly if there are no known attacks against it that are significantly faster than brute-force, despite said experts looking for one. All the major ciphers in use today have withstood at least one, usually several decades of attempts to break them.
Is it theoretically imaginable that tomorrow, someone will publish something that drops the strength of a major cipher by at least a thousand orders of magnitude? Well, it is not impossible in the sense that FTL travel is, but it is about as unlikely as the existence of the famous teapot in orbit around Jupiter.
Nobody in the academic field of cryptography assumes humand infallability. Like any academic field, new discoveries will be made. However, just like in physics we will certainly improve upon, say, the theory of gravity, and modify the formulas to be more precise, but nobody sane gives a significantly different from zero probability to a complete falsification of gravity these days.
Likewise, there will certainly be more weaknesses found in say, the SHA family (we already know a few), which will provide attacks that are ten or even a hundred times faster than brute-force. SHA-1, for example, is considered broken by the cryptographic community. That is mathematically broken - you can crack it in a billion years instead of the trillion years that a brute-force would require. That is the dimensions we're talking about. Find another weakness in SHA-1 and make it a thousand times weaker, and you are still far beyond anything that will matter in our lifetimes.
You are assuming that there is a real "crack", a crucial weakness that will enable a practical attack, instead of a theoretical. Those things happen - Deep Crack - but they don't happen suddenly, they don't happen unexpected, and by the time you and I hear about them, the people who actually work in cryptography think of it as yesterday's news.
We already have SHA-2 which you can use if you don't think SHA-1 is secure enough. And we're working on SHA-3. It's not like encryption would stand still while people attack it, you know?
man can break it.
Check this history of SHA-3, and how many candidates were rejected for which reasons. That should give you some perspective - and humility.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. If you already have a majority to pass the law, then you also have a majority to declare anything you like "related" and anything you don't "unrelated".
So basically, such a rule would bring zero benefit.
No, it is not. You need go back to Cryptography 101.
A properly seeded hash using a proper cryptographic one-way hash function is impossible to revert using todays and any technology within the forseable future. It's not a matter of raising CPU powers by a few orders of magnitude, but by a couple billion orders of magnitude.
Heck, you can reverse engineer hashing algorithms by just making a bunch of passwords then recovering them.
The proper term is rainbow tables, and they don't work for good salts because you need one table per possible salt value, meaning with 2 bytes you need 65k rainbow tables. If that frightens you, use 4 bytes for the salt and you need 4 billion rainbow tables. Good luck.
Public-key crypto has been around how long?
Someone has eaten a buzzword.:-)
Public-key crypto is not any more (nor less) secure than one-way hashing. Properly applying the appropriate crypto is what matters.
Bottom line, reusing a password is negligent on your own part.
Welcome to the real world, where people have dozens of accounts. Since we request password policies that are insane from the human memory perspective POV, very few people can reasonably be expected to remember more than 2 or 3 of those Sc8OOlB1hu0Bj%7 beasts you have the choice between re-use or storing it somewhere (paper or password manager). Both of these approaches have their own security issues.
The average computer user these days has how many different logins to how many different services, websites, etc. etc.? I'd guess that 20 is on the low end, and 100 not entirely uncommon.
So, Einstein, pick one: Re-using passwords or writing them down somewhere (or storing them somewhere, like a password manager). It's one or the other, because you can not seriously expect people to remember several dozen different passwords. All of which, of course, are not meaningful words but random jumbles of letters numbers and special characters.
Then apparently I'm not (enough of) a fan, because I'm not nervous at all. The only thing that I'm a bit worried about is whether or not the iPhone 5 launch will coincide nicely with the timeframe for my intended carrier switch.
Innovation is not always technical innovation. A lot of what Apple did with the iPhone and the iPad is design innovation and HCI innovation, and not that much technical innovation.
And no matter how you skin the cat, you'll have to admit that the massive change towards multitouch was prompted by the iPhone and later the iPad. That's an innovation right there - not just technical, but also in design and interface.
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market,
No, you idiot, that is not only not the reason, it's also wrong. There have been many, many attempts at the tablet market before, many of whom were intended and manufactured for the mass market, except that the market left them on the shelves.
The iPad is so popular because it simply works. Your little kid can pick it up and use it. And your grandma. And your uncle John who hasn't seen a computer since he was sent to prison 12 years ago.
Also, it has a cool factor.
It's not the first. It's just the first that actually works. And it still offers more than all the competitors. Not necessarily "more" in the geek categories nobody really cares about (memory, CPU power and other stuff that you can spend an hour explaining to your non-geek friends), but more in the categories that matter to normal people. And that's why they're still being bought as fast as they roll off the production lines.
Slashdot Mirror
You've never used TextMate, it seems. Here is what TextMate looks like when you open it plain (i.e. before loading a file):
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9638874/tm.png
It's simple, elegant and doesn't contain any crap icons I won't need anyways. If you can't get a GTK+ app built without that butt-ugly crap on the top, then GTK+ isn't the proper toolkit for things like this.
Until the coders of Linux apps realize that and a few other similarly simply truths, the "year of the Linux desktop" will remain several years in the future forever.
Wow. Thanks for that link, I haven't looked for a new text editor for a long time, tried a few IDEs recently and came to the same conclusion I've always come (i.e. they're sluggish, they suck as editors and the fabled "IDE magic" doesn't work half of the time on my projects).
ST2 is the first real contender to TextMate I've seen. I just might switch. At least I'll be giving it a try.
I've been using TextMate for several years. It has lots going for it, the primary point being that it is a text editor and it knows it. It doesn't try to do 500 unrelated things, but focusses on doing the one thing it was designed for really well. It follows the Mac philosophy in many ways. It gets out of your way and lets you do the actual text editing.
Yeah, it's rock-solid, too. Can't remember if it ever crashed on me.
It also has tons of plugins. For example, I use Subversion extensively, so I have an SVN plugin installed and can update, commit, etc. with a few keyboard shortcuts.
It blows gEdit and kate out of the waters. I've only seen screenshots of geany and that's enough to not make me try that one. My editor of choice back in my Linux days was FTE and nothing ever came close to it. TextMate is the one editor I found that beats FTE, and I tried finding something that does that many, many, many times.
I've just had one look at the screenshots.
Let me put it this way: If this was your daughter, I'm sure she has a nice character, and maybe she is really smart, too. But, to put it nicely, I just don't date women so ugly I wouldn't want to be caught dead with them.
My entire life I have hated text editors that give me icons and a mouse-driven interface. I've just (thanks to some other comment) discovered Sublime Text 2 - and they do that part very, very right: When I'm in a text editor, I'm obviously editing text, and I'll be 10x as fast with a keyboard-driven interface.
And geany looks so horribly ugly, if it's any good as an editor, I suggest starting a fund to buy the dev team a graphics and UI designer.
Had you told me during my Linux years that I would one day spend money on a text editor, I'd have laughed you out of the room. Years later, I'm a happy TextMate user and it kicks every IDE I've tried in the nuts. Yeah, sometimes I'd wish for some of the IDE features, but every ... single ... one ... that I've tried has an editor that sucks compared to TextMate. The best ones just suck, the worse ones don't even compare. And in the end, I spend more time editing code than looking at fancy class navigation bars.
So I'm really curious about where a Free Software version of TextMate will go. Not sure if I'd rather go to bed (11 pm right now) or get all the dependencies and give it a try. Maybe if someone would post a binary, that would be really cool. Yeah, I've become lazy.
I've been told by teachers and parents that math classes are a must for any technology related career.
You already got your answer. What makes you doubt them?
Some math you'll never need again, some you'll wish you learnt more about. Trouble is that you don't know beforehand which. But you will need math in any tech career.
Why was this done if not to terrorize him?
I think you've fallen for Kim's delusions of grandeur and think he's important enough to be terrorized. I think that some US contact guy enjoyed playing hardcore, and the NZ police went on it because they don't like to question their inofficial superiors.
If you expect someone to be heavily armed, you have a duty to act in such a way as to minimize the probabilities of a shoot-out, to protect the officers, innocent bystanders and the person(s) to be arrested.
Madoff was arrested by a couple (or at the most 5 or 6) lightly armed FTC investigators and FBI agents wearing ties
As someone else pointed out: Madoff wasn't known for showing off his gun collection and he didn't wait for the police with shotgun in hand. Also, he didn't already have a considerable collection of prior convictions in multiple countries.
What goes around, comes around.
Maybe you should've read beyond the first line...
This.
I watched a few DVDs (again) recently - and being unable to get right into the movie pissed me off so much, mostly because I wasn't used to it anymore.
Some Linux players did it right - ignore all the "don't skip me" flags and jump right to the start of the movie when the DVD is started. If I want the menu, I can click one button.
What am I missing?
The fact that people who are making millions on HFT can and will find a way to convert that money into a way to circumvent your "solution". I don't know how (and if I knew, I'd not post it, but wait until such a law is created and then sell the solution for a few dozen millions to the HFTs), but I do know that big money always finds a way. Why do you think the drug trade still exists?
It's worse than that. It's a slot machine that will be re-filled with taxpayer money every time it runs out.
Market liquidity is extremely important.
The does makes the poison.
Liquidity is important, no doubt. But not at any price. Liquidity is not a god-given mission that we must sacrifice everything to.
And - like everything - it comes at a price. Liquidity can only exist long-term if the people providing it are making a profit. Too much and the people who provide liquidity are making profits while the people doing the actual trading are paying the bill, which will also lead to a long-term collapse of the markets because the real traders get out.
Everything is deadly in too high a dose. Even the most important life-supporting substance - water - can kill you if you get too much of it (and I'm not even talking about drowning).
a once-per-second clock
And which real-world application needs one-second trading? Make it once-per-minute, that also does away with the insane computing needs of the exchanges and the extreme consequences of any glitches.
I've been following stories about what to do for months now. Most of the authors still live in the 20th century, if not the 19th.
Here's the ugly truth: There are no simple answers.
The HFTs are making money faster than they could print it if they had a printing press. There is no way you will solve this problem with a simple tax or a simple regulation or a simple law. You will need multiple, interacting component, or your nifty little "solution" will be circumvented before the ink is dry.
I distrust any "solution" that can be explained in less than three paragraphs. We don't live in a world that simple anymore.
Well, let's see... Something that tons of the hardcore user base are complaining about at every opportunity... slipping market share... Nah, there could not possibly be any relation, totally unlikely...
It's not the rapid release nonsense, it's alienating your userbase that kills you. Chrome doesn't have the same problem because it was on rapid release from day one. Its users don't expect anything else. But Firefox users do. That's why it was stupid to copy it.
It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse.
I don't only agree, I'd go a step further: The admins job is not to filter content, but to keep the network running.
Filter malware, yes. Content? Why should the admin care if that image shows a tit or a cat?
Maybe I'm too open-minded but I don't get what the fuss is all about. If I came upon a co-worker or even a subordinate watching porn, I'd be more worried that he's not working than what he is watching. Sure it's not very tasteful, but as long as his hands stay out of his trousers (or skirt, let's stop pretending only men watch porn), I don't care all that much. Maybe if our society were a little less sexually repressed, we could focus on what actually matters instead of political correctness?
You really need to go back to some basics.
The strength of good cryptography lies exactly in that not one but many men, and not just any but the top experts in the field have been trying to break it - and have failed. A crypto algorithm is considered strong exactly if there are no known attacks against it that are significantly faster than brute-force, despite said experts looking for one. All the major ciphers in use today have withstood at least one, usually several decades of attempts to break them.
Is it theoretically imaginable that tomorrow, someone will publish something that drops the strength of a major cipher by at least a thousand orders of magnitude? Well, it is not impossible in the sense that FTL travel is, but it is about as unlikely as the existence of the famous teapot in orbit around Jupiter.
Nobody in the academic field of cryptography assumes humand infallability. Like any academic field, new discoveries will be made. However, just like in physics we will certainly improve upon, say, the theory of gravity, and modify the formulas to be more precise, but nobody sane gives a significantly different from zero probability to a complete falsification of gravity these days.
Likewise, there will certainly be more weaknesses found in say, the SHA family (we already know a few), which will provide attacks that are ten or even a hundred times faster than brute-force. SHA-1, for example, is considered broken by the cryptographic community. That is mathematically broken - you can crack it in a billion years instead of the trillion years that a brute-force would require. That is the dimensions we're talking about. Find another weakness in SHA-1 and make it a thousand times weaker, and you are still far beyond anything that will matter in our lifetimes.
You are assuming that there is a real "crack", a crucial weakness that will enable a practical attack, instead of a theoretical. Those things happen - Deep Crack - but they don't happen suddenly, they don't happen unexpected, and by the time you and I hear about them, the people who actually work in cryptography think of it as yesterday's news.
We already have SHA-2 which you can use if you don't think SHA-1 is secure enough. And we're working on SHA-3. It's not like encryption would stand still while people attack it, you know?
man can break it.
Check this history of SHA-3, and how many candidates were rejected for which reasons. That should give you some perspective - and humility.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. If you already have a majority to pass the law, then you also have a majority to declare anything you like "related" and anything you don't "unrelated".
So basically, such a rule would bring zero benefit.
It is *always possible to recover* a password.
No, it is not. You need go back to Cryptography 101.
A properly seeded hash using a proper cryptographic one-way hash function is impossible to revert using todays and any technology within the forseable future. It's not a matter of raising CPU powers by a few orders of magnitude, but by a couple billion orders of magnitude.
Heck, you can reverse engineer hashing algorithms by just making a bunch of passwords then recovering them.
The proper term is rainbow tables, and they don't work for good salts because you need one table per possible salt value, meaning with 2 bytes you need 65k rainbow tables. If that frightens you, use 4 bytes for the salt and you need 4 billion rainbow tables. Good luck.
Public-key crypto has been around how long?
Someone has eaten a buzzword. :-)
Public-key crypto is not any more (nor less) secure than one-way hashing. Properly applying the appropriate crypto is what matters.
Bottom line, reusing a password is negligent on your own part.
Welcome to the real world, where people have dozens of accounts. Since we request password policies that are insane from the human memory perspective POV, very few people can reasonably be expected to remember more than 2 or 3 of those Sc8OOlB1hu0Bj%7 beasts you have the choice between re-use or storing it somewhere (paper or password manager). Both of these approaches have their own security issues.
disclaimer: I am an IT security professional.
Because nobody has ever thought about properly seeding hashes...
What world do you live in? 1975?
The average computer user these days has how many different logins to how many different services, websites, etc. etc.? I'd guess that 20 is on the low end, and 100 not entirely uncommon.
So, Einstein, pick one: Re-using passwords or writing them down somewhere (or storing them somewhere, like a password manager). It's one or the other, because you can not seriously expect people to remember several dozen different passwords. All of which, of course, are not meaningful words but random jumbles of letters numbers and special characters.
Apple fanbois are getting nervous.
Then apparently I'm not (enough of) a fan, because I'm not nervous at all. The only thing that I'm a bit worried about is whether or not the iPhone 5 launch will coincide nicely with the timeframe for my intended carrier switch.
Innovation is not always technical innovation. A lot of what Apple did with the iPhone and the iPad is design innovation and HCI innovation, and not that much technical innovation.
And no matter how you skin the cat, you'll have to admit that the massive change towards multitouch was prompted by the iPhone and later the iPad. That's an innovation right there - not just technical, but also in design and interface.
why is the iPad so popular? Simple, it was the first tablet to go mass market,
No, you idiot, that is not only not the reason, it's also wrong. There have been many, many attempts at the tablet market before, many of whom were intended and manufactured for the mass market, except that the market left them on the shelves.
The iPad is so popular because it simply works. Your little kid can pick it up and use it. And your grandma. And your uncle John who hasn't seen a computer since he was sent to prison 12 years ago.
Also, it has a cool factor.
It's not the first. It's just the first that actually works. And it still offers more than all the competitors. Not necessarily "more" in the geek categories nobody really cares about (memory, CPU power and other stuff that you can spend an hour explaining to your non-geek friends), but more in the categories that matter to normal people. And that's why they're still being bought as fast as they roll off the production lines.