Why don't we do something less invasive, like snmpwalk every address on the Internet?
Heh. I doubt you'd be able to walk every SNMP capable device on the Internet though. I'd bet that in these security conscious* times, at least a few percent have had the monitor community string changed to something other than "public".
* Fuck. I had to check the spelling of "conscious" so I tried to go to dictionairy.com. Which is of course mis-spelled. Goes to a fucking link farm / search engine. How embarassing. Oh well, at least they provided a link to dictionary.com.
to my surprise, sometimes, several sequential compilations of the same code (with the same flags, and everything) produced a different binary. Almost similiar size, but certainly different md5sums. Using g++.
Could it be embedding the build time in the binary? Or it may be time you ran Memtest for a few hours.
The Harvard architecture that the PowerPC uses is inherently more secure than x86.
This sentence illustrates why Mac owners should not be allowed to comment on technical matters.
Note that not a single Mac owner in this thread has called him on this.
Some free clues for you:
A Harvard Architecture is one where there is a separate bus and memory for code and data.
PowerPC does not have a separate bus & memory for code & data.
x86 does not have a separate bus & memory for code & data.
In terms of Harvard versus von Neumann, x86 & PowerPC are on the same side.
Writing shellcode for PowerPC is not significantly different to writing shellcode for x86.
You forgot to mention that x86 is bad because it has a segmented memory architecture. It is compulsory for PowerPC fans to do this. It is most definitely not compulsory for you to have the first fucking clue what it means.
A remote exploit on running code has a very low chance of working on the PPC, but nearly a 100% chance on the x86 (which is why all these IE exploits work all the time). When they fail to execute code, the PPC application just crashes.
You really are a fucking imbecile. Congratulations on getting +5 Insightful for a post which consists almost entirely of bullshit and misunderstood technical terms. Still, it makes Macs sound good so I doubt you or anyone else will care.
A friend of mine and I can reliably crash some similar-generation AMD chips with a loop setting a region of memory to all zeroes, but not with a loop setting it to 0xaaaaaaaa. The chips just lock up. Takes anywhere from a few seconds (linux) to a few minutes (windows).
For Christ's sake, does the fact that the time required to crash is completely different depending on the OS not suggest to you that it's a software issue?
If this was a pure hardware problem then surely the timing would mainly depend on the number of loop iterations? So do you think that your loop runs 60 times faster under Windows?
Let's face it, the overwhelmingly likely explanation is that your code, which is presumably running at Ring 0 and written in assembly (let me guess - you don't normally program in assembly), is clobbering some registers used by the OS. Nothing happens until the OS tries to use those registers, then bang - game over. The time taken for that to happen depends on the OS. Linux just happens to do it slower than Windows.
I can't program in any language, but this scenario seems rather obvious to me. Did it not occur to you before you started to suspect an incredibly unlikely hardware bug? Or do you think that CPU errata are more common than bugs in your code?
And for programmers, the Intel C/C++ compilers for Core look fantastic. The extra performance that will come out of compiling with those will be really amazing I think.
Yes, you can get a huge boost out of a specially designed compiler. That's why Itanium is doing so well - you can write slow, shitty code but once you've fed it through that incredible Intel compiler it just runs like shit off a shovel.
Seriously, when you say that the compiler will provide an amazing boost, I assume your definition of amazing is "maybe a couple of percent on average code with architecture specific optimisations"?
Think about it. Everything Google is building is going to allow you integrate many of the features articles are talking about with Second Life. Only you'll be able to do it over HTTP with AJAX and their web service APIs.
Dude, while I'm certain that Google Maps uses AJAX I am not entirely convinced that Google Earth uses AJAX. Lack of a web browser being the main impediment.
Do you really need 3D acceleration when the complexity of what you're making amounts to, say, a hundred thousand flat-shaded polygons, max?
Oh no, I'm sure it's just so much easier to write all of your own low level drawing and shading code instead of just using DirectX or OpenGL like everyone else. I can see you've given this a lot of thought.
Doesn't appear to be a way to get a copy to look at unless you have Passport which seems to require a hotmail account. I don't have time to read a couple of dozen licensing agreements atm and it looks like if I register I'm basically signing a non-compete license with Microsoft. Not really a term that I am willing to agree to. Has anyone gone through the contracts?
How the fuck is this a troll? Those are perfectly reasonable concerns. Learn to tell the difference, fucktards.
Anyway now that we've got all of the MS zealots in one place, can we please just take off and nuke this story from orbit?
I was just looking for something to do this same thing. I haven't solved the problem yet, but Netgear and Linksys have some inexpensive stuff.
Dude, there is a reason why they're inexpensive. If you stick to exactly the same model with the same firmware version at each site, you might be OK as long as you don't do anything too strenuous with it. Or expect it to work the majority of the time.
If this is something you're doing at home then fine. If you're proposing to implement a corporate VPN with consumer routers, I suggest you start browsing the following website http://www.monster.com/
Unfortunately I do this for a living, so my opinion is likely to get drowned out by all the people suggesting OpenVPN and PPTP. Actually, just listen to them - anyone recommending PPTP for a secure multi-site VPN must really know what they're talking about.
I've always heard that windows support for multiple processors was pretty limited. Is this still the case?
No. Not unless you're running Windows 98.
Is limited multi proc support for windows encouraging the development of this technology?
No. As a side note, this whole story is probably bullshit. The concept doesn't really make any sense at all. More likely they are just adding more execution units - this is a suspected feature of the upcoming K8L anyway. Remember that this story was reported by the Inquirer. They are rather prone to technical flights of fancy.
Does load balancing of processes or threads across processors happen automatically?
The OS scheduler does that.
I keep hearing that people get dual proc or dual core machines like the apple core duos, but that one proc or core lies dead under windows. Is this actually the case?
No. Unless they are loading XP Home on it. In fact I seem to remember that although XP Home doesn't support SMP it does support dual cores. So they're probably just bullshitting you. Although I find it hard to believe that a Mac owner would lie about Windows to make it look bad.
I have a PCMCIA SATA card on my laptop and get 85MB/sec on it.
No you don't. You have a Cardbus or ExpressCard slot. PCMCIA runs at about the same speed as the old ISA bus, so getting 85MB/sec out of it is somewhat unlikely.
I've never heard of an SATA expansion card for laptops either, but I'll take your word for it.
i ended up grabbing a dell axim x51v to replace it. you have to jump through a couple hoops to get certain apps to run in vga, but i've been pleased with the unit overall. i use the pre-release opera web browser on it, and i haven't had any problems like i encountered with the 770.
most recently, i bought a slingbox media streamer so now i can watch my own tv on it!
Wow, your comment gives me a real case of deja vu. Let's quote from another post in this thread :
you can get a dell axim x51v for about the same price and it works pretty good. its display resolution is a bit smaller at 640x480, but it is also lighter and it supports ms office docs and windows media. install orb and you can watch tv over wifi.
Hmm. It covers pretty much the same subjects that your post does. Stranger still, the writing style is exactly the same - the author is too retarded to use capital letters, but knows how to use punctuation. That can't be too common.
But that other post is by sucati (611768) and not you! I'm sure this is all a coincidence and it would be quite wrong of me to call you an asto-turfing little cocksucker with multiple sock puppet accounts on this evidence alone.
What would you rather they did? I mean they could've not added these features - would that be better? They're NOT going to offer to extend these protections to their competitors - that's less evil to consumers but more evil to shareholders - what could they have done that would be less evil?
Yeah that's great, with such controversial opinions you must be a really interesting individual etc.etc...
How do you explain them not telling anybody about this wonderful new security feature? You know, the one that modifies how the OS works at a fairly low level?
Can anyone even tell me if DDR2 is an official standard yet?
Yes, it is.
Because last I heard, it wasn't - and that was AMD's reason for never supporting it. AFAIK, DDR2 is basically just a rogue project for overclockers.
You're spectacularly wrong. AMD's main reason for not supporting it until now was the much higher latency of DDR2. The K8 gets some of its performance advantage from having much lower memory latencies due to the built-in memory controller. The theoretical extra bandwidth of DDR2 didn't make up for that at the time. Now that DDR2 800 is available the picture is beginning to change, hence the new Socket AM2 AMD motherboards that support DDR2.
Let's remember some of the other things that CNET (the.com.com.com people) thought were "sure things" back in the day -- portals, push (think Pointcast), the Thin Client, etc.
Don't forget Apple moving to Intel chips. That one was totally absurd.
This didn't happen to me, since I switched to (cross platform) F/OSS apps for pretty much everything before jumping on the Mac bandwagon, but it may for others.
Um, you do realise that you forgot to moan about how the F/OSS apps don't fit in with the look & feel of OSX don't you?
Did you not know that it was compulsory for all Mac users to do that? I believe it's mentioned on page 2 of the manual.
If you don't do it, people might get the idea that Mac owners are more concerned with actually getting things done than how the applications look. If you want to be properly elitist you have to put a bit of effort into it.
These benchmarks of Windows games running on XP on an Intel Mac are all very interesting - I mean who would have thought that a standard Intel laptop with an Apple logo on it would have performance roughly equivalent to a standard Intel laptop without an Apple logo on it?
But so far no-one seems to have gotten around to benchmarking the Intel Mac running a cross platform game under both Windows and OSX.
I just don't understand that. Is it possible that OSX would score too highly and the Apple crowd don't want to embarass the Windows users? That's got to be it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't we do something less invasive, like snmpwalk every address on the Internet?
Heh. I doubt you'd be able to walk every SNMP capable device on the Internet though. I'd bet that in these security conscious* times, at least a few percent have had the monitor community string changed to something other than "public".
* Fuck. I had to check the spelling of "conscious" so I tried to go to dictionairy.com. Which is of course mis-spelled. Goes to a fucking link farm / search engine. How embarassing. Oh well, at least they provided a link to dictionary.com.
to my surprise, sometimes, several sequential compilations of the same code (with the same flags, and everything) produced a different binary. Almost similiar size, but certainly different md5sums. Using g++.
Could it be embedding the build time in the binary? Or it may be time you ran Memtest for a few hours.
I noticed a calpoly.edu address in the header, so I sent a copy of the message to abuse@calpoly.edu.
Well if it's in the header then that must be where it came from. Congratulations on your superlative detective work.
I'm sure that the abuse admin at calpoly.edu will also soon be writing to you to let you know how much he appreciates your skills.
The Harvard architecture that the PowerPC uses is inherently more secure than x86.
:
This sentence illustrates why Mac owners should not be allowed to comment on technical matters.
Note that not a single Mac owner in this thread has called him on this.
Some free clues for you
A Harvard Architecture is one where there is a separate bus and memory for code and data.
PowerPC does not have a separate bus & memory for code & data.
x86 does not have a separate bus & memory for code & data.
In terms of Harvard versus von Neumann, x86 & PowerPC are on the same side.
Writing shellcode for PowerPC is not significantly different to writing shellcode for x86.
You forgot to mention that x86 is bad because it has a segmented memory architecture. It is compulsory for PowerPC fans to do this. It is most definitely not compulsory for you to have the first fucking clue what it means.
A remote exploit on running code has a very low chance of working on the PPC, but nearly a 100% chance on the x86 (which is why all these IE exploits work all the time). When they fail to execute code, the PPC application just crashes.
You really are a fucking imbecile. Congratulations on getting +5 Insightful for a post which consists almost entirely of bullshit and misunderstood technical terms. Still, it makes Macs sound good so I doubt you or anyone else will care.
A friend of mine and I can reliably crash some similar-generation AMD chips with a loop setting a region of memory to all zeroes, but not with a loop setting it to 0xaaaaaaaa. The chips just lock up. Takes anywhere from a few seconds (linux) to a few minutes (windows).
For Christ's sake, does the fact that the time required to crash is completely different depending on the OS not suggest to you that it's a software issue?
If this was a pure hardware problem then surely the timing would mainly depend on the number of loop iterations? So do you think that your loop runs 60 times faster under Windows?
Let's face it, the overwhelmingly likely explanation is that your code, which is presumably running at Ring 0 and written in assembly (let me guess - you don't normally program in assembly), is clobbering some registers used by the OS. Nothing happens until the OS tries to use those registers, then bang - game over. The time taken for that to happen depends on the OS. Linux just happens to do it slower than Windows.
I can't program in any language, but this scenario seems rather obvious to me. Did it not occur to you before you started to suspect an incredibly unlikely hardware bug? Or do you think that CPU errata are more common than bugs in your code?
And for programmers, the Intel C/C++ compilers for Core look fantastic. The extra performance that will come out of compiling with those will be really amazing I think.
Yes, you can get a huge boost out of a specially designed compiler. That's why Itanium is doing so well - you can write slow, shitty code but once you've fed it through that incredible Intel compiler it just runs like shit off a shovel.
Seriously, when you say that the compiler will provide an amazing boost, I assume your definition of amazing is "maybe a couple of percent on average code with architecture specific optimisations"?
Think about it. Everything Google is building is going to allow you integrate many of the features articles are talking about with Second Life. Only you'll be able to do it over HTTP with AJAX and their web service APIs.
Dude, while I'm certain that Google Maps uses AJAX I am not entirely convinced that Google Earth uses AJAX. Lack of a web browser being the main impediment.
Do you really need 3D acceleration when the complexity of what you're making amounts to, say, a hundred thousand flat-shaded polygons, max?
Oh no, I'm sure it's just so much easier to write all of your own low level drawing and shading code instead of just using DirectX or OpenGL like everyone else. I can see you've given this a lot of thought.
If you are any type of game/graphics/engineering/media engineer you want one of these Cell systems NOW.
Yeah, single precision floating point is just what you need in engineering you astroturfing little fuckstain.
This is the standard *nix way of doing things, and it should be far more effective in Vista once proper LUA is finally well-implemented.
Does anyone have Satan's postal address? Because when the above actually happens, I'm going to send him my spare pair of skis and a wooly hat.
Doesn't appear to be a way to get a copy to look at unless you have Passport which seems to require a hotmail account. I don't have time to read a couple of dozen licensing agreements atm and it looks like if I register I'm basically signing a non-compete license with Microsoft. Not really a term that I am willing to agree to. Has anyone gone through the contracts?
How the fuck is this a troll? Those are perfectly reasonable concerns. Learn to tell the difference, fucktards.
Anyway now that we've got all of the MS zealots in one place, can we please just take off and nuke this story from orbit?
I was just looking for something to do this same thing. I haven't solved the problem yet, but Netgear and Linksys have some inexpensive stuff.
Dude, there is a reason why they're inexpensive. If you stick to exactly the same model with the same firmware version at each site, you might be OK as long as you don't do anything too strenuous with it. Or expect it to work the majority of the time.
If this is something you're doing at home then fine. If you're proposing to implement a corporate VPN with consumer routers, I suggest you start browsing the following website http://www.monster.com/
Unfortunately I do this for a living, so my opinion is likely to get drowned out by all the people suggesting OpenVPN and PPTP. Actually, just listen to them - anyone recommending PPTP for a secure multi-site VPN must really know what they're talking about.
Barby says, "IPSEC is hard!"
Brilliant post - really enjoyed it. Thanks.
Would have been a lot funnier had it been attributed to the original author in my opinion.
and Linux, well, isn't there yet (I'm wondering if that shouldn't be an acronym: LITY. I seem to be using it a lot since I switched to a Mac).
Here's another acronym for ya - MUASAALC. It stands for Mac Users are Smug and Annoying Little Cocksuckers.
I've been using it a lot since I started reading Slashdot.
Eh? What? The Register is British.
Yes, embarassing isn't it old chap?
I've always heard that windows support for multiple processors was pretty limited. Is this still the case?
No. Not unless you're running Windows 98.
Is limited multi proc support for windows encouraging the development of this technology?
No. As a side note, this whole story is probably bullshit. The concept doesn't really make any sense at all. More likely they are just adding more execution units - this is a suspected feature of the upcoming K8L anyway. Remember that this story was reported by the Inquirer. They are rather prone to technical flights of fancy.
Does load balancing of processes or threads across processors happen automatically?
The OS scheduler does that.
I keep hearing that people get dual proc or dual core machines like the apple core duos, but that one proc or core lies dead under windows. Is this actually the case?
No. Unless they are loading XP Home on it. In fact I seem to remember that although XP Home doesn't support SMP it does support dual cores. So they're probably just bullshitting you. Although I find it hard to believe that a Mac owner would lie about Windows to make it look bad.
I have a PCMCIA SATA card on my laptop and get 85MB/sec on it.
No you don't. You have a Cardbus or ExpressCard slot. PCMCIA runs at about the same speed as the old ISA bus, so getting 85MB/sec out of it is somewhat unlikely.
I've never heard of an SATA expansion card for laptops either, but I'll take your word for it.
C'mon people. Quit talking about things you have no idea about. Its articles like this that remind me why I don't read Tom's.
So you don't like people talking about things they know nothing about? But you still read Slashdot? I sense some double standards.
i ended up grabbing a dell axim x51v to replace it. you have to jump through a couple hoops to get certain apps to run in vga, but i've been pleased with the unit overall. i use the pre-release opera web browser on it, and i haven't had any problems like i encountered with the 770.
most recently, i bought a slingbox media streamer so now i can watch my own tv on it!
Wow, your comment gives me a real case of deja vu. Let's quote from another post in this thread :
you can get a dell axim x51v for about the same price and it works pretty good. its display resolution is a bit smaller at 640x480, but it is also lighter and it supports ms office docs and windows media. install orb and you can watch tv over wifi.
Hmm. It covers pretty much the same subjects that your post does. Stranger still, the writing style is exactly the same - the author is too retarded to use capital letters, but knows how to use punctuation. That can't be too common.
But that other post is by sucati (611768) and not you! I'm sure this is all a coincidence and it would be quite wrong of me to call you an asto-turfing little cocksucker with multiple sock puppet accounts on this evidence alone.
What would you rather they did? I mean they could've not added these features - would that be better? They're NOT going to offer to extend these protections to their competitors - that's less evil to consumers but more evil to shareholders - what could they have done that would be less evil?
d =15139637
Yeah that's great, with such controversial opinions you must be a really interesting individual etc.etc...
How do you explain them not telling anybody about this wonderful new security feature? You know, the one that modifies how the OS works at a fairly low level?
Read this post from grudgelord for an excellent and completely non-sensational example of how this type of shit can bite people in the ass - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183258&ci
Can anyone even tell me if DDR2 is an official standard yet?
Yes, it is.
Because last I heard, it wasn't - and that was AMD's reason for never supporting it. AFAIK, DDR2 is basically just a rogue project for overclockers.
You're spectacularly wrong. AMD's main reason for not supporting it until now was the much higher latency of DDR2. The K8 gets some of its performance advantage from having much lower memory latencies due to the built-in memory controller. The theoretical extra bandwidth of DDR2 didn't make up for that at the time. Now that DDR2 800 is available the picture is beginning to change, hence the new Socket AM2 AMD motherboards that support DDR2.
Let's remember some of the other things that CNET (the .com.com.com people) thought were "sure things" back in the day -- portals, push (think Pointcast), the Thin Client, etc.
Don't forget Apple moving to Intel chips. That one was totally absurd.
This didn't happen to me, since I switched to (cross platform) F/OSS apps for pretty much everything before jumping on the Mac bandwagon, but it may for others.
Um, you do realise that you forgot to moan about how the F/OSS apps don't fit in with the look & feel of OSX don't you?
Did you not know that it was compulsory for all Mac users to do that? I believe it's mentioned on page 2 of the manual.
If you don't do it, people might get the idea that Mac owners are more concerned with actually getting things done than how the applications look. If you want to be properly elitist you have to put a bit of effort into it.
Powerstone 2 was the best party game I ever owned.
Mod this man up, he speaks the truth. Powerstone 2 is still the most insanely fun game I've played on any platform. Emphasis on insane.
These benchmarks of Windows games running on XP on an Intel Mac are all very interesting - I mean who would have thought that a standard Intel laptop with an Apple logo on it would have performance roughly equivalent to a standard Intel laptop without an Apple logo on it?
But so far no-one seems to have gotten around to benchmarking the Intel Mac running a cross platform game under both Windows and OSX.
I just don't understand that. Is it possible that OSX would score too highly and the Apple crowd don't want to embarass the Windows users? That's got to be it.