Woah, might want to invest in an enter key there dude.
But anyway, those are really good ideas. However, I don't see it necessary to turn off DHCP, though I would encourage layering your network and only the inner box has DHCP, and then only on the LAN interface.
How I do it is a 3COM OfficeConnect on the outside, which is a 4-port ADSL Router. I don't have a modem because ADSL technically can't have MODEMs (ADSL lacks modulating AND demodulating) - even though I can't get Blizzard support to understand this. One of the ports runs to the web server. Another port runs to a Sonicwall SOHO3's WAN port (old, but does the job). The Sonicwall's LAN port plugs into an 8 port switch (cheap one, but all it needs to do is allow me to plug 8 machines into one LAN port)
The webserver cannot access any machines on the internal network (behind the Sonicwall), nor can any internet machine. The 3COM is on a completely different IP range (and even subnet!) from the Sonicwall's LAN machines, and the Sonicwall wont bridge them. Both of them use an HTML form to authenticate, not HTTP BASIC. They don't even have the same password.
Though the 3COM only has support for MAC filtering on the WLAN interface (which I have enabled, as WLAN is only for my laptop, nothing else), no such feature that I can find offhand exists on the Sonicwall. No matter, since any clandestine devices being attached to that segment of the network need to be plugged in to the switch beside my desk anyway (good luck with that).
Um, yeah. "Has a default password" should read "has a changed default password". I've been drinking recently, and have a bit of a headache, so sue me.
Not literally, you crazy US folks.
(Seriously Slashdot, it requires pretty much the same fucking processing power to tell me "slow down cowboy" as to just write the fucking comment to the DB... your comment wait time is a complete waste of resources)
So, I suppose this "hack" fails entirely on any router which... well, either has a default password or (like any high end router) doesn't use HTTP basic authentication? No worries for me, my 3com is safe as houses.
So I assume Wikipedia will be removing their DTD to comply with the HTML5 standard (and causing all versions of IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others to drop into Quirks mode, screwing it up) or adding that weird "empty" DTD (and causing all versions of Firefox to drop into quirks mode, and all versions of Firefox, Opera, and Safari to jump into HTML4 standards compliant mode, also screwing it up)? This of course assumes that this change occurs before the HTML5 compliant Opera is released, and IE8 isn't HTML5 compliant.
I also don't see them dragging Microsoft, Apple, Opera or Google kicking and screaming at all (nice hyperbole though) since they're all on the group that's WRITING the spec.
I did no such thing, and this will be my final response, as you're clearly one of those people who refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good flame. There's another user around here like that: Twitter.
You are indeed. You are missing that Windows Server Update Services and Windows Update are completely unrelated, and Windows Server Update Services is what the article is talking about - and even (half) the bloody summary!
Actually that's MS downloads. Watch out for the Silverlight popup, followed by the "want to try the beta downloads centre?" popup, followed by the big, hulking, "you need Silverlight to use the beta downloads centre" popup.
The dev tools for ASP.NET (VS2005+) generate extremely good standards compliant markup, and bitch horribly if you use IE or Firefox specific markup or CSS. So much so, that they often generate code that looks better in Firefox than IE. This is because the Dev Tools team are pretty fired up on making decent tools rather than horrific IE-specific ones.
Oh, and they steer you so hard away from VBScript you can't remember which way you're facing.
No, it's so your sysadmin can decide to keep IE6 on your machine if they want to, and incompetent sysadmins or those who see no need to stay with IE6 can let it automatically trickle through their WSUS server to the clients if they feel like it. No user choice involved, since WSUS is for corporate environments anyway.
Careful though - in IE it submits the innerHTML of the element as the value, the HTML spec (and every other browser) submits the value attribute as the button's value.
And some mobile browsers don't like it either - I know OpenWave doesn't.
Specific problem: Firefox chews ungodly amounts of memory doing nothing. Steps to reproduce: Use Firefox. Internet Explorer eats 40MB of RAM to display 8 tabs, Firefox uses 120MB. Three times Internet Explorer's.
Seriously, it cannot get more detailed than that. From what I've seen, all you're doing is answering every person who says what the problem is with "that's a useless bug report" just so you can avoid admitting Firefox has an issue. It does, just some of us don't really care that much and don't bother jumping through hoops to get such responses as "Mozilla is not an HTML user agent" (and Firefox by extension, but that bug is ancient).
So you lambast Microsoft for violating the specs, and then praise Mozilla for doing the same? Double standard much? This'll go the way of Netscape - we all remember "<blink>" don't we? This is what that's meant to read like. Apparently Slash eats unsupported HTML rather than rendering it as text.
So you're looking forward to Firefox violating the HTML spec by introducing an element which is not within the DTD? Are you insane? As a web developer, I hope Firefox drops this mad "video" element idea, since it's only meant to exist in HTML5, which no browser implements (since it's still not even a draft spec).
So you lambast Microsoft for violating the specs, and then praise Mozilla for doing the same? Double standard much? This'll go the way of Netscape - we all remember "" don't we?
Load of bullshit. Individual ActiveX controls can have security issues. ActiveX in general can not. And considering the tools are available (Group Policy) to block all controls except whitelisted ones, your situation cannot happen with IT administrators who know what they're doing. Essentially, the first part of your "scenario" is completely made up and can't happen.
No, that will happen to those whose network administrator chose to download and install all updates from their corporate WSUS server. Nothing will happen to home users at all.
Except that pushing the update to WSUS (finally) has nothing to do with the general public at all - WSUS is the local Windows Update cache used by enterprises to save bandwidth costs and keep control over patch deployment. In which case who gives a damn about the unaware, it's their sysadmin's decision and they DO know about it.
Getting in ahead of the crowd...
on
Geekonomics
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Just to get in the troll everyone is going to use, even though it's pretty much a load of bollocks:
"This book could be summed up in three words: 'don't use windows'"
I suppose that should be suffixed with some 'tard thing like "lol!!111!!1one"
Wow, you pay only 6 cents per kWh? I'd love to pay less than 20c per kWh, but noone charges so little here. It was way better when we had a monopoly - this competition sucks.
This is true, and yet at the same time not true. Even if there were competition, the ISP is still not capable of delivering unlimited bandwidth without overcharging people who use little bandwidth and undercharging people who use significant bandwidth. This is because bandwidth isn't free at any stage of the peering. You pay your ISP for bandwidth, they pay their upstream carrier for their bandwidth, and they pay their peering points for the switching. Providing unlimited bandwidth would require they have unlimited money.
So as such, not having competition is a big problem, in that he can't get better pricing. However his neighbours are also a different problem, were he on flat rate.
The second fallacy is that generating much traffic is unfair towards casual users who pay the same price. There's always someone who uses the net much less. Even without any P2P, most of the/. readers would without a doubt create several hundred times as much traffic as people who only use email and read news on the web. On the other hand, the casual users will make frequent use of the ISP's helpline to configure an email client or "fix the internet." The heavy users on the other hand would not be caught dead calling ISP support staff. Not true. I call my ISP almost weekly requesting a PVC rebuild. I think they're getting sick of it, and will just give me a new ATM PVC next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Woah, might want to invest in an enter key there dude.
But anyway, those are really good ideas. However, I don't see it necessary to turn off DHCP, though I would encourage layering your network and only the inner box has DHCP, and then only on the LAN interface.
How I do it is a 3COM OfficeConnect on the outside, which is a 4-port ADSL Router. I don't have a modem because ADSL technically can't have MODEMs (ADSL lacks modulating AND demodulating) - even though I can't get Blizzard support to understand this. One of the ports runs to the web server. Another port runs to a Sonicwall SOHO3's WAN port (old, but does the job). The Sonicwall's LAN port plugs into an 8 port switch (cheap one, but all it needs to do is allow me to plug 8 machines into one LAN port)
The webserver cannot access any machines on the internal network (behind the Sonicwall), nor can any internet machine. The 3COM is on a completely different IP range (and even subnet!) from the Sonicwall's LAN machines, and the Sonicwall wont bridge them. Both of them use an HTML form to authenticate, not HTTP BASIC. They don't even have the same password.
Though the 3COM only has support for MAC filtering on the WLAN interface (which I have enabled, as WLAN is only for my laptop, nothing else), no such feature that I can find offhand exists on the Sonicwall. No matter, since any clandestine devices being attached to that segment of the network need to be plugged in to the switch beside my desk anyway (good luck with that).
Um, yeah. "Has a default password" should read "has a changed default password". I've been drinking recently, and have a bit of a headache, so sue me.
Not literally, you crazy US folks.
(Seriously Slashdot, it requires pretty much the same fucking processing power to tell me "slow down cowboy" as to just write the fucking comment to the DB... your comment wait time is a complete waste of resources)
So, I suppose this "hack" fails entirely on any router which... well, either has a default password or (like any high end router) doesn't use HTTP basic authentication? No worries for me, my 3com is safe as houses.
So I assume Wikipedia will be removing their DTD to comply with the HTML5 standard (and causing all versions of IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others to drop into Quirks mode, screwing it up) or adding that weird "empty" DTD (and causing all versions of Firefox to drop into quirks mode, and all versions of Firefox, Opera, and Safari to jump into HTML4 standards compliant mode, also screwing it up)? This of course assumes that this change occurs before the HTML5 compliant Opera is released, and IE8 isn't HTML5 compliant.
I also don't see them dragging Microsoft, Apple, Opera or Google kicking and screaming at all (nice hyperbole though) since they're all on the group that's WRITING the spec.
I did no such thing, and this will be my final response, as you're clearly one of those people who refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good flame. There's another user around here like that: Twitter.
You are indeed. You are missing that Windows Server Update Services and Windows Update are completely unrelated, and Windows Server Update Services is what the article is talking about - and even (half) the bloody summary!
Actually that's MS downloads. Watch out for the Silverlight popup, followed by the "want to try the beta downloads centre?" popup, followed by the big, hulking, "you need Silverlight to use the beta downloads centre" popup.
Oh no they don't!
The dev tools for ASP.NET (VS2005+) generate extremely good standards compliant markup, and bitch horribly if you use IE or Firefox specific markup or CSS. So much so, that they often generate code that looks better in Firefox than IE. This is because the Dev Tools team are pretty fired up on making decent tools rather than horrific IE-specific ones.
Oh, and they steer you so hard away from VBScript you can't remember which way you're facing.
No, it's so your sysadmin can decide to keep IE6 on your machine if they want to, and incompetent sysadmins or those who see no need to stay with IE6 can let it automatically trickle through their WSUS server to the clients if they feel like it. No user choice involved, since WSUS is for corporate environments anyway.
Careful though - in IE it submits the innerHTML of the element as the value, the HTML spec (and every other browser) submits the value attribute as the button's value.
And some mobile browsers don't like it either - I know OpenWave doesn't.
You mean we'll see which browser has the greatest growth rate in businesses in February.
WSUS is the corporate deployment server. It's not Windows Update.
Specific problem: Firefox chews ungodly amounts of memory doing nothing.
Steps to reproduce: Use Firefox. Internet Explorer eats 40MB of RAM to display 8 tabs, Firefox uses 120MB. Three times Internet Explorer's.
Seriously, it cannot get more detailed than that. From what I've seen, all you're doing is answering every person who says what the problem is with "that's a useless bug report" just so you can avoid admitting Firefox has an issue. It does, just some of us don't really care that much and don't bother jumping through hoops to get such responses as "Mozilla is not an HTML user agent" (and Firefox by extension, but that bug is ancient).
So you're looking forward to Firefox violating the HTML spec by introducing an element which is not within the DTD? Are you insane? As a web developer, I hope Firefox drops this mad "video" element idea, since it's only meant to exist in HTML5, which no browser implements (since it's still not even a draft spec).
So you lambast Microsoft for violating the specs, and then praise Mozilla for doing the same? Double standard much? This'll go the way of Netscape - we all remember "" don't we?
Load of bullshit. Individual ActiveX controls can have security issues. ActiveX in general can not. And considering the tools are available (Group Policy) to block all controls except whitelisted ones, your situation cannot happen with IT administrators who know what they're doing. Essentially, the first part of your "scenario" is completely made up and can't happen.
We've got NT4 machines for software that wont even work in 2000.
It's also a product of less Linux users running as root. Apply the Windows user mentality to Linux, I bet it would be just as much of a disaster.
No, but we rely on a COBOL application running on HP/UX on $80,000 servers to run our medical records system... that count?
No, that will happen to those whose network administrator chose to download and install all updates from their corporate WSUS server. Nothing will happen to home users at all.
Except that pushing the update to WSUS (finally) has nothing to do with the general public at all - WSUS is the local Windows Update cache used by enterprises to save bandwidth costs and keep control over patch deployment. In which case who gives a damn about the unaware, it's their sysadmin's decision and they DO know about it.
Just to get in the troll everyone is going to use, even though it's pretty much a load of bollocks:
"This book could be summed up in three words: 'don't use windows'"
I suppose that should be suffixed with some 'tard thing like "lol!!111!!1one"
That... comedy gold that. Fucking awesome.
Wow, you pay only 6 cents per kWh? I'd love to pay less than 20c per kWh, but noone charges so little here. It was way better when we had a monopoly - this competition sucks.
This is true, and yet at the same time not true. Even if there were competition, the ISP is still not capable of delivering unlimited bandwidth without overcharging people who use little bandwidth and undercharging people who use significant bandwidth. This is because bandwidth isn't free at any stage of the peering. You pay your ISP for bandwidth, they pay their upstream carrier for their bandwidth, and they pay their peering points for the switching. Providing unlimited bandwidth would require they have unlimited money.
So as such, not having competition is a big problem, in that he can't get better pricing. However his neighbours are also a different problem, were he on flat rate.