I use Mozilla for all my web browsing, except when I use lynx for speed. It hasn't crashed on me in a month or so, and it seems to render all sites well.
Please. I use Mozilla on two platforms - Solaris and Linux. It crashes on me on average about once every other day. This represents a *vast* improvement over Netscape, which was virtually unusable except that there was no viable alternative. It is certainly a monument to poor programming the sheer number of ways netscape/mozilla are able to crash.
So far as lynx, use links - it is as much better than lynx as Mozilla is over Netscape.
How about filesystem encryption for Linux? Something that works effectively, well enough that it can be used in the real world. The kernel loopback encryption would be perfect, except it breaks with each kernel release and an indefinite time must be waited for patches - and patches might make old data unreadable. Is there any practical solution?
Anti Aliasing isn't the end-all be-all of fonts. What matters is to have good fonts to begin with. If you go get the Microsoft ttf fonts and install them,
So I just read all the information on this and tried it out. Unfortunately, most of the Microsoft fonts are just as ugly as the standard ones - they render incorrectly, such as missing or extra pixels, like when a bitmapped font is scaled too small.
I am currently going through every font in gtkfontsel to see if I can find any of my new truetype fonts that do not render ugly like this, so that I can indeed use them. I have not found one yet. This is an extremely tedious process because it takes about a minute while xfstt uses 100% of the CPU to select each next font.
If your "server" looses power, you have bigger issues... Anything you want to label a server should have:
Come on, that's silly. You need to be prepared for a server to lose power. What if a CPU in a different machine catches fire and the halon goes off? Halon systems always cut power to the room. It will then be your responsibility to get all the servers back up as fast as possible.
There is no reason to have failure modes that do not need to exist, even if these are as a result of some other failure.
The projects to redo the Unix configuration system always fail because nobody has come up with a better architecture. (e.g. the stagnant unixconfig Sourceforge project). Your method sounds nice until you attempt to implement it. Then you will realize that/etc isn't so bad after all.
Now, if there is *serious damage* that might result in your filesystem going to the big Disk in the Sky, then yes, you will get asked to make some decisions about what happens. I *much* prefer to know if my filesystem might be totally trashed in a minute than to just have it happen because a system blindly started guessing what to do.
Come on. I've had to manually fsck systems hundreds of times - easily 10 different Unixes. You never want to say no. What are you going to do, fix it yourself? Please. If it's that bad, you are going to have to restore from backups. fsck always knows best. The init scripts should start it with the appropriate options so that it never asks.
Surely when I said none of the options under the fonts menu influenced the problem, you understood that I was including the options to change the fonts.
Users consider Exchange's calendaring to be a critical feature. While there are many free competetitors, they are all of extremely poor - unusable, really - quality.
In the long run, it will only hurt the plagarizer anyway.
Do you really, honestly, believe that "cheaters are only cheating themselves"? I find it hard to believe that someone could genuinely be so ignorant as to make such a statement. The US public school system is so completely corrupt that it serves in no way to educate the students. Since cheating can not possibly have an impact on the education a student receives, it will only affect grades. Better grades are important if someone wishes to go to college in order to be able to get easy semi-menial jobs on the basis of having a degree and no other qualifications.
The fonts on the slashdot main page are extremely ugly, using Mozilla 1.0 on a Debian system. The fonts on the other slashdot pages, and on other websites, are not nearly so ugly (beyond how ugly all Unix fonts (except OS X) are). NONE of the options under the edit/preferences/appearance/fonts have any impact. Yes I am reloading the page each time. The letters are drawn screwed up, like a font that has been sized too small, except I need fonts about 20 pixels high before they actually look OK.
And perhaps it is this attitude that allows questionable practices to continue. Do not come complaining to anyone with the statement "Well, I didnt read the contract". I have no pity for such lathargy. If you are to 'busy' to read something you agree to involving the bottom line, hire an attorney. Otherwise RTFM!
You are discussing a course of action that will result in difficulty interacting with society in a normal manner. When you insist on properly having a contract reviewed by an attorney they will be shocked and appalled. When you attempt to remedy the situation by negotiating on the unacceptable points, you will be treated like a lunatic. That Is Just The Way It Is. Sometimes you have to concede in order to be accepted by society. I'm sure you understand how that is.
I can't think of a practical situation, but if somebody could explain why you would need to send a gigabyte of data in one second vs. 8 second I'd be more impressed.
It is logically the next step in the evolution of networking, but it currently outstrips even the memory bandwidth of most systems. Even gigabit today is rarely necessary. In both cases, even if you don't use anywhere near your full bandwidth, you still win if you are using more than the 10 times slower generation provides. There are still, however, some compelling applications that immediately present themselves.
As an uplink between network switches, more bandwidth is always needed. This is what was done in the experiment. If you can't imagine a network that busy, consider switches with 256 100MB ethernet ports, or only a few gigabit ports. It is always better, if it all possible, to be able to guarantee that the switch uplink will never become a bottleneck. If they need to do this with many gigabit ports today, be it ethernet or fibre channel, it is done by using multiple gigabit uplinks.
In any cluster where there is substantial communcation between the nodes, more bandwidth and less latency is always useful. Sufficiently low latency and high bandwidth makes many types of computation feasible that would not otherwise be feasible. Shared memory within a cluster can always benefit from decreased latency. A cluster is always better (meaning VASTLY cheaper and VASTLY more reliable) than a many-many CPU system. Anything that makes the cluster nodes seem closer together will make it easier to move existing software onto cluster-based systems.
Um, it's just one guy doing this, so far and he'll do whatever interests him, obviously. If all free software people did what was "needed" and not what was personally interesting to them, commercial OS's would be extinct by now.
Indeed. Look at all the poor free software that there are multiple, independent, poor versions of. (e.g. DVD/mpeg players, web browsers, word processors, financial software, file managers). If people had coordinated, with a goal of producing what was needed, instead of each writing their own software independently because of what they personally wanted, the free solutions would be so vastly superior to the commercial solutions that only the free ones would survive. Unfortunately, this almost never happens.
Is it so hard to read a two or three page document, comprehend it, and then sign it?
Two or three pages is pretty short for a corporate-to-customer contract. It might be impossible to comprehend without understanding of all the applicable law, which includes not just statute but case law also.
If you sign anything, anywhere, at anytime without understanding the contents they you deserve to be screwed. Absolutely without equiovocations.
Frequently you agree to contracts without physically signing them (or sometimes without even giving your identity, as in some clickthrough agreements).
Contracts where there is no chance for negotiation are best dealt with as something you have no control over, just as your dealings with arbitrary rules of the government. Not doing so severely interferes with your ability to interact with socity in a way that most people will consider normal and appropriate.
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle.
Do I have no right to complain if I have sex with my girlfriend in a rented car, and the rental company sells the hidden camera footage to porn sites? What about my rented apartment?
That being said, if you sign a contract, and agree to limit your use to specific terms and conditions, expect it to be enforced.
The simple fact is that in our dealings with coroprations, we are frequently required to agree to large, complex, one-sided agreements. People sign (or otherwise agree to) these contracts because they really have no choice. Negotiating on the details of the agreement is simply not an option, and taking your business elsewhere may not be a realistic solution. Rarely are such contracts read - how many contracts have you agreed to without reading? I would imagine the number is in the thousands.
Really, elementary particles don't have any fur. You can't distinguish between them.
Is there any serious theory that it is somehow possible to distinguish between them, even if we can not do it? e.g. if the universe is a computer simulation, each electron might have a serial number barcoded on it. Or, since we do not know the nature of a quark - if it is round or pyramidal or furry - perhaps each one indeed is slightly different.
So, is this useless to speculate on because it is fundamentally impossible to ever arrive at an answer (like the first cause, or how the physical laws of our universe are implemented at the lower layer) if an answer even exists? Or is this known for some reason to not be the case? Or is it possible, and if possible, do we have some way to judge the likelyhood of it?
Does audio fingerprinting work? I have seen implementations of it that do not work. Are there any that do? This would immediately solve the problem, if there were a database of audio fingerprints.
Doing that will likely destroy the bearings, so you'll be replacing those fans soon, too. Please, if you're going to use compressed air to clean out the computer, stop the fans from moving so that you don't destroy them.
Sure it will cause some extra wear. You might even be able to measure it with the most sensitive equipment available. But is there really any reason to believe that doing this will cause the fan to fail any sooner. Not counting some statistical likelyhood to fail three seconds sooner.
Yes, I am seriously saying that a third party would not modify the binary, give it back to the Software Publisher and have the Software Publisher redistribute the modified binary to the public through their corporate FTP server.
Surely the availability of source has nothing to do with the security of an FTP server or the entire network (including DNS) between you and the FTP server.
Not to burst your bubble, but if BitchX was closed source, I doubt a third party would have access to the source code to inject the trojaned backdoor, modify the FTP server and set up a bizarre distribution method (has anyone figured this out yet?). Granted many eyes helped find this problem, but in a closed source world, this wouldn't happen unless you had a disgruntled employee or a really stupid project manager. If BitchX were a commercial, closed source product, the exploit would most likely be a buffer overflow, not a blatant backdoor.
Are you seriously claiming that it is not possible to modify a binary? It is only slightly more difficult than modifying the source, and if you are doing it for the purposes of spreading backdoored software, the small difference in difficulty is not relevant at all.
Indeed. However, no sane people are using telnet anyways,
He was not talking about telnet. He was clearly talking about rsh, as that is a protocol that uses the source IP address for authentication and allows a command to be run. Telnet does not authenticate based on source IP address.
, and if you try to spoof ssh you will have to spoof the crypto as well, which is not feasible (unless it's SSLv1).
This is irrelevant, as he was demonstrating the fact that any obstacles to carrying on a long spoofed connection in no way lessen the risks.
Your response, while containing some minimal level of technical accuracy, is a complete non sequitur.
Slashdot Mirror
Please. I use Mozilla on two platforms - Solaris and Linux. It crashes on me on average about once every other day. This represents a *vast* improvement over Netscape, which was virtually unusable except that there was no viable alternative. It is certainly a monument to poor programming the sheer number of ways netscape/mozilla are able to crash.
So far as lynx, use links - it is as much better than lynx as Mozilla is over Netscape.
How about filesystem encryption for Linux? Something that works effectively, well enough that it can be used in the real world. The kernel loopback encryption would be perfect, except it breaks with each kernel release and an indefinite time must be waited for patches - and patches might make old data unreadable. Is there any practical solution?
So I just read all the information on this and tried it out. Unfortunately, most of the Microsoft fonts are just as ugly as the standard ones - they render incorrectly, such as missing or extra pixels, like when a bitmapped font is scaled too small.
I am currently going through every font in gtkfontsel to see if I can find any of my new truetype fonts that do not render ugly like this, so that I can indeed use them. I have not found one yet. This is an extremely tedious process because it takes about a minute while xfstt uses 100% of the CPU to select each next font.
Come on, that's silly. You need to be prepared for a server to lose power. What if a CPU in a different machine catches fire and the halon goes off? Halon systems always cut power to the room. It will then be your responsibility to get all the servers back up as fast as possible.
There is no reason to have failure modes that do not need to exist, even if these are as a result of some other failure.
You lose power, and your server does not boot up because it is prompting for an fsck. This is not a flaw?
The projects to redo the Unix configuration system always fail because nobody has come up with a better architecture. (e.g. the stagnant unixconfig Sourceforge project). Your method sounds nice until you attempt to implement it. Then you will realize that /etc isn't so bad after all.
Come on. I've had to manually fsck systems hundreds of times - easily 10 different Unixes. You never want to say no. What are you going to do, fix it yourself? Please. If it's that bad, you are going to have to restore from backups. fsck always knows best. The init scripts should start it with the appropriate options so that it never asks.
Surely when I said none of the options under the fonts menu influenced the problem, you understood that I was including the options to change the fonts.
Users consider Exchange's calendaring to be a critical feature. While there are many free competetitors, they are all of extremely poor - unusable, really - quality.
Do you really, honestly, believe that "cheaters are only cheating themselves"? I find it hard to believe that someone could genuinely be so ignorant as to make such a statement. The US public school system is so completely corrupt that it serves in no way to educate the students. Since cheating can not possibly have an impact on the education a student receives, it will only affect grades. Better grades are important if someone wishes to go to college in order to be able to get easy semi-menial jobs on the basis of having a degree and no other qualifications.
The fonts on the slashdot main page are extremely ugly, using Mozilla 1.0 on a Debian system. The fonts on the other slashdot pages, and on other websites, are not nearly so ugly (beyond how ugly all Unix fonts (except OS X) are). NONE of the options under the edit/preferences/appearance/fonts have any impact. Yes I am reloading the page each time. The letters are drawn screwed up, like a font that has been sized too small, except I need fonts about 20 pixels high before they actually look OK.
You are discussing a course of action that will result in difficulty interacting with society in a normal manner. When you insist on properly having a contract reviewed by an attorney they will be shocked and appalled. When you attempt to remedy the situation by negotiating on the unacceptable points, you will be treated like a lunatic. That Is Just The Way It Is. Sometimes you have to concede in order to be accepted by society. I'm sure you understand how that is.
It is 10 gigabit, not 10.6 gigabit. 10.6Gb/s was the speed they got over a PAIR of 10 gigabit ethernet connections.
It is logically the next step in the evolution of networking, but it currently outstrips even the memory bandwidth of most systems. Even gigabit today is rarely necessary. In both cases, even if you don't use anywhere near your full bandwidth, you still win if you are using more than the 10 times slower generation provides. There are still, however, some compelling applications that immediately present themselves.
As an uplink between network switches, more bandwidth is always needed. This is what was done in the experiment. If you can't imagine a network that busy, consider switches with 256 100MB ethernet ports, or only a few gigabit ports. It is always better, if it all possible, to be able to guarantee that the switch uplink will never become a bottleneck. If they need to do this with many gigabit ports today, be it ethernet or fibre channel, it is done by using multiple gigabit uplinks.
In any cluster where there is substantial communcation between the nodes, more bandwidth and less latency is always useful. Sufficiently low latency and high bandwidth makes many types of computation feasible that would not otherwise be feasible. Shared memory within a cluster can always benefit from decreased latency. A cluster is always better (meaning VASTLY cheaper and VASTLY more reliable) than a many-many CPU system. Anything that makes the cluster nodes seem closer together will make it easier to move existing software onto cluster-based systems.
Indeed. Look at all the poor free software that there are multiple, independent, poor versions of. (e.g. DVD/mpeg players, web browsers, word processors, financial software, file managers). If people had coordinated, with a goal of producing what was needed, instead of each writing their own software independently because of what they personally wanted, the free solutions would be so vastly superior to the commercial solutions that only the free ones would survive. Unfortunately, this almost never happens.
Two or three pages is pretty short for a corporate-to-customer contract. It might be impossible to comprehend without understanding of all the applicable law, which includes not just statute but case law also.
If you sign anything, anywhere, at anytime without understanding the contents they you deserve to be screwed. Absolutely without equiovocations.
Frequently you agree to contracts without physically signing them (or sometimes without even giving your identity, as in some clickthrough agreements).
Contracts where there is no chance for negotiation are best dealt with as something you have no control over, just as your dealings with arbitrary rules of the government. Not doing so severely interferes with your ability to interact with socity in a way that most people will consider normal and appropriate.
I also find it odd that people think that they are allow privacy in a rented vehicle.
Do I have no right to complain if I have sex with my girlfriend in a rented car, and the rental company sells the hidden camera footage to porn sites? What about my rented apartment?
I'm sorry, you have nothing to hide? I did some websearches and was unable to find your email and the camera monitoring your bathroom. URL please?
The simple fact is that in our dealings with coroprations, we are frequently required to agree to large, complex, one-sided agreements. People sign (or otherwise agree to) these contracts because they really have no choice. Negotiating on the details of the agreement is simply not an option, and taking your business elsewhere may not be a realistic solution. Rarely are such contracts read - how many contracts have you agreed to without reading? I would imagine the number is in the thousands.
Is there any serious theory that it is somehow possible to distinguish between them, even if we can not do it? e.g. if the universe is a computer simulation, each electron might have a serial number barcoded on it. Or, since we do not know the nature of a quark - if it is round or pyramidal or furry - perhaps each one indeed is slightly different.
So, is this useless to speculate on because it is fundamentally impossible to ever arrive at an answer (like the first cause, or how the physical laws of our universe are implemented at the lower layer) if an answer even exists? Or is this known for some reason to not be the case? Or is it possible, and if possible, do we have some way to judge the likelyhood of it?
Does audio fingerprinting work? I have seen implementations of it that do not work. Are there any that do? This would immediately solve the problem, if there were a database of audio fingerprints.
Sure it will cause some extra wear. You might even be able to measure it with the most sensitive equipment available. But is there really any reason to believe that doing this will cause the fan to fail any sooner. Not counting some statistical likelyhood to fail three seconds sooner.
Surely the availability of source has nothing to do with the security of an FTP server or the entire network (including DNS) between you and the FTP server.
Are you seriously claiming that it is not possible to modify a binary? It is only slightly more difficult than modifying the source, and if you are doing it for the purposes of spreading backdoored software, the small difference in difficulty is not relevant at all.
He was not talking about telnet. He was clearly talking about rsh, as that is a protocol that uses the source IP address for authentication and allows a command to be run. Telnet does not authenticate based on source IP address.
, and if you try to spoof ssh you will have to spoof the crypto as well, which is not feasible (unless it's SSLv1).
This is irrelevant, as he was demonstrating the fact that any obstacles to carrying on a long spoofed connection in no way lessen the risks.
Your response, while containing some minimal level of technical accuracy, is a complete non sequitur.