To many people I know of, "1 GB of ram" is the same as having "gobs of ram". I still know people with as little as 64 to 128 megs of ram. If they left as many as 12 apps open, even if they use nearly no CPU power when idle, the memory usage alone will kill their gameplay performance since swapping to disk is always slower than using RAM.
Doesn't virtualization require more CPU power than just booting into the actual O/S to play the same game? Some people barely meet the minimum requirements to play some games, but play it fine in Windows. Virtualize that and you might not have enough CPU power to actually play the same games on their machines.
Are you sure about that? The last time I checked, bzflag needs an opengl accelerated video card to even play smoothly, despite barely having any real graphics, even though warcraft ran fine on the same machine without any opengl acceleration at all.
But, how would that increase security? If you allow all users to write to a folder that limited users would be running executables in, you allow the potential for one user's infection to spread to other user accounts when they run the same game from that same folder.
But then the high school would need to have $$$$ to purchase said software and many hardly have enough money to purchase the legal software they use already.
One time, I was searching for web hosters and saw a site that looked absolutely awful in Firefox with broken up images and overlapping text all over the site's pages. I emailed the web hoster and said their site doesn't look too good in Firefox. They responded that they "didn't know that" and "out of 5000 hits, only 80 or so were of browsers that weren't Internet Explorer, so it isn't worth making the site work in Firefox". I guess they didn't want a sale from someone willing to purchase web hosting service who was browsing their site in Firefox.
I can't name 3 sites, personally, but some users I've recommended Firefox to end up having major issues with their favorite or most visited sites in IE. And once they load IE for that ONE site, they don't feel like loading another browser since "they've already got one open". And yes...for one person it was definitely a banking site that they could not visit in Firefox that told them to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5 or 6".
The Permit Cookies extension sounds like what you need. It lets you allow a site's cookies via a hotkey (ALT + C by default). The version from Firefox's Extension site seems to require an older Firefox. Clicking through to the author's homepage gets you to a version that works in Firefox 1.0.4.
Why do some people think that one has to eat during a movie? Don't some people eat a regular meal like dinner or something before going to see a movie?
I understand where he's coming from. You can't actually put/usr/local in your path (you'd need to put/usr/local/bin), and many pieces of software want to have their own directory tree under/usr/local (such as "foo" binaries in/usr/local/foo/bin, and configs under/usr/local/foo/etc) and if you have a lot of software that does this, your $PATH gets unweildy in a hurry.
Maybe Unionfs would come in handy in this situation, with its ability to merge the view of/usr/local/*/bin into a single/usr/local/bin structure.
Well, RoadRunner uses only the MAC address of the cable modem as to whether to allow it on the local node or not and not the MAC address of any machine connected to the cable modem. So far, I have had no problem changing my MAC address of either of my NICs or using different routers with different default MAC addresses behind my cable modem without having to make a single phone call to my cable company get online. All I had to do, though, was power down the cable modem and power it back up each time I changed my MAC address since the cable modem is set (in the settings the cable co pushes, I guess) to allow only one MAC address at a time to get an IP via DHCP.
I guess I was with a rare ISP that actually did offer Netscape on their setup CDs (although one has to browse the CD to find it) and assumed other ISPs could easily do the same.
For the most part you can remove the problem. Block *all* executable attachments and scripts at the mailserver. If they want to send an executable, then need to zip it... This works extremely well (kept a couple of places I was at virus free for years without any other effort) but lately viruses have started hiding themselves in zip files.
Couldn't the same technique of blocking executable files based on extension also work inside a zip file too?
ISP's regularly ship Internet Explorer on their "Setup" CDs, so why can't they also ship alternative web browsers such as Firefox or Opera on those same CDs?
Slashdot Mirror
To many people I know of, "1 GB of ram" is the same as having "gobs of ram". I still know people with as little as 64 to 128 megs of ram. If they left as many as 12 apps open, even if they use nearly no CPU power when idle, the memory usage alone will kill their gameplay performance since swapping to disk is always slower than using RAM.
Doesn't virtualization require more CPU power than just booting into the actual O/S to play the same game? Some people barely meet the minimum requirements to play some games, but play it fine in Windows. Virtualize that and you might not have enough CPU power to actually play the same games on their machines.
Are you sure about that? The last time I checked, bzflag needs an opengl accelerated video card to even play smoothly, despite barely having any real graphics, even though warcraft ran fine on the same machine without any opengl acceleration at all.
But, how would that increase security? If you allow all users to write to a folder that limited users would be running executables in, you allow the potential for one user's infection to spread to other user accounts when they run the same game from that same folder.
If they do run linux and iptables, why do they crash so much more often than a PC running Linux and iptables for the same tasks?
But then the high school would need to have $$$$ to purchase said software and many hardly have enough money to purchase the legal software they use already.
/me puts on a pair of shades.
Too bad someone didn't think of having browsers send a "standards-supported" header instead of a "user-agent" one.
One time, I was searching for web hosters and saw a site that looked absolutely awful in Firefox with broken up images and overlapping text all over the site's pages. I emailed the web hoster and said their site doesn't look too good in Firefox. They responded that they "didn't know that" and "out of 5000 hits, only 80 or so were of browsers that weren't Internet Explorer, so it isn't worth making the site work in Firefox". I guess they didn't want a sale from someone willing to purchase web hosting service who was browsing their site in Firefox.
Until people get fiber internet access.
What makes you assume that a "geek" has bad eyesight? Many people I know of with bad eyesight aren't remotely "geeks" in any way.
I can't name 3 sites, personally, but some users I've recommended Firefox to end up having major issues with their favorite or most visited sites in IE. And once they load IE for that ONE site, they don't feel like loading another browser since "they've already got one open". And yes...for one person it was definitely a banking site that they could not visit in Firefox that told them to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5 or 6".
Sadly, the usage of the non-IE browser ends when the user needs to visit a site that requires IE.
Along with this adblock filterset :)
The Permit Cookies extension sounds like what you need. It lets you allow a site's cookies via a hotkey (ALT + C by default). The version from Firefox's Extension site seems to require an older Firefox. Clicking through to the author's homepage gets you to a version that works in Firefox 1.0.4.
Why do some people think that one has to eat during a movie? Don't some people eat a regular meal like dinner or something before going to see a movie?
And they are, once again, leaving us Linux users in the dark.
Maybe Unionfs would come in handy in this situation, with its ability to merge the view of /usr/local/*/bin into a single /usr/local/bin structure.
Sadly, Mozilla Firefox still supports that tag, even in its latest version, 1.0.4.
Well, RoadRunner uses only the MAC address of the cable modem as to whether to allow it on the local node or not and not the MAC address of any machine connected to the cable modem. So far, I have had no problem changing my MAC address of either of my NICs or using different routers with different default MAC addresses behind my cable modem without having to make a single phone call to my cable company get online. All I had to do, though, was power down the cable modem and power it back up each time I changed my MAC address since the cable modem is set (in the settings the cable co pushes, I guess) to allow only one MAC address at a time to get an IP via DHCP.
Mozilla CantThinkOfANameAnymoreDamnit?
Something like this?
I guess I was with a rare ISP that actually did offer Netscape on their setup CDs (although one has to browse the CD to find it) and assumed other ISPs could easily do the same.
Couldn't the same technique of blocking executable files based on extension also work inside a zip file too?
ISP's regularly ship Internet Explorer on their "Setup" CDs, so why can't they also ship alternative web browsers such as Firefox or Opera on those same CDs?