If you don't know the internal bugs and quirks of the 8255
I always found the 8255 had too few features, too many problems, and too large a footprint. Just some 3-state drivers and octal latches plus the odd 74LS139 usually did the job much better!
I've met editors that put four spaces for the first indent, then a tab for the second (removing the previous four spaces in the process).
That is the correct behaviour when the indent level is set to 4 and the tabstops are set at 8-position intervals (which is the standard). vi works the same way when you use Ctrl-T to indent. I think it is good.
it caused a nightmare when we ported the system to Windows
But that is only because editors and other textprocessing tools in Windows are so lacking. Any decent editor would be able to handle those files, and a simple filtering tool (like "pr") would have removed all tabs and converted them to spaces. But not on Windows.
What I wonder about is why the default situation isn't simply the correct, working situation. I.e. all settings stored in the "Application Data" subdirectory of the current user's profile, skipping the random directory name and taking that single profile when starting the program.
Right now, you have to jump through hoops to achieve this. The "profile selector" is attempting to be helpful, but it really is superfuous under Windows. Windows already has a profile selector. You just want to use that until the user indicates otherwise.
Furthermore, Firefox should, under Windows, again by default, not use a prefs.js file. The info in there is easily stored in the registry. The mechanisms in the registry (settings per machine, per user, per profile, and by policy) are more powerful than what Firefox offers via prefs.js, user.js and a forced configuration. Use it.
Again, I understand why those decisions were made. Firefox runs on more platforms than Windows, and those often lack these mechanisms or did so when it was developed.
However, this results in limited functionality on Windows, especially in the roaming and central management area. This is wat often holds back Firefox (and more even, Thunderbird) in company settings.
Well I should say I have more experience with Mozilla than with Firefox, but my experience is that it is difficult to install the software in such a way that every user sees a single profile (so gets no profile selector) which is completely stored in his own Windows roaming profile (Documents and Settings directory), under the same name for every user. A way I have found to work around this is to "SUBST" a driveletter to the profile directory of the logged in user (in the loginscript) and force things like the profile location to be relative to this driveletter in the default profile. I don't think it is a very good solution. Do you think it can be done in another way?
All users can work on all workstations. We use roaming profiles. We want every user to find his/her own profile when launching the program, without having to select it from a list, and we want it to roam with the user profile just like all other settings. (i.e. not using some separate roaming profile server) In fact, what we like to see is that it works just like MSIE or any other wellbehaved Windows program.
Of course one of the problems is that it isn't a wellbehaved Windows program. It uses its own preferences storage that it needs to be portable across platforms. But this is a nuisance when trying to administer it within a Windows environment.
Yes, this indeed is a problem. Unfortunately RunAs is not a very good program. It is like "su" where it should have been more like "sudo". (of course, the accound you will use for this should not be a domain administrator or some such, but only have the necessary extra rights to install software on the local workstation. this means the determined person would also be able to install software, but it is quite easy to track that and go after him via the usual mechanisms in place in a company setting)
I think most FF advocates are unaware of the existence of a centrally managed Windows platform. This is quite apparent when reading comments made about Windows from those circles.
The MSI file is not your biggest problem. What you really need is a good solution for parameter storage inside Firefox (use the registry instead of prefs.js, obey the standards for policies). It requires quite some trickery to install Firefox on a locked down system where users get all their settings in their roaming profile and don't need to select a profile at every start. It is possible to get it working, but probably not when using only GPO.
BTW, it is possible to install applications via loginscripts even for locked down users, but you need to use some tricks with "runas".
[at work] I have a Dell PC, which came with a Windows XP license and a CD. Of course I installed Linux, and VMware Server. Everything legal until now.
Now I cannot run Windows XP under VMware because "this CD can only be installed on a Dell PC". This is unfortunate, because I would have liked to check some websites with IE7.
Is it illegal what I want to do? Would it be legal to install some bootleg version and use the original license? If not, why not?
That sure is a problem, but in a playing field as we have now it is the only solution. Of course we can all dream about open hardware available at your store around the corner, developing just as quickly as closed spec videocards, but for now that just isn't happening. I prefer an affordable and fast videocard with today's interface connectors over a dream about some unrealistic device that may never appear.
At least NVIDIA releases new drivers when new hardware or new Linux versions appear. There are already more than enough companies that "support Linux" by delivering some driver for an ancient RedHat release and never update it.
I will not pay the government, the record label, the artist, or anyone else for a copy of content that I already am entitled to have
So will most people. That is why they have introduced this levy, instead of a voluntary payment when you make a copy.
Of course it is unreasonable. But there are many "rights" payments that I find unreasonable, but the entertainment industry, the government, and the judges do find reasonable. What can I do about it? Nothing, except for being amazed that this industry is getting away with all this.
Famous example: when you receive TV from public transmitters, you have paid all rights and you are covered. When a cable company puts this same signal on cable and distributes it, suddenly extra rights have to be paid. Why? Beats me... cable is just a technical solution to avoid having an antenna on each roof, not a copying or redistribution of material. But the judge has ruled otherwise, and we pay extra money for rights on material received via cable. Ridiculous, but there is no way around it.
That may be true for the "usual" XF86/X.org driver, but the kernel module for accelerated NVIDIA cards is not a small module just to interface with the hardware. Else I find it hard to explain that it is over 4MB in size... (the typical driver module is typically a few tens of KB in size, up to a few hundred for very complex drivers)
It probably (just like here in the Netherlands) covers only making a copy for private use. Here it is legal to buy a CD, and make a few copies to use around the house, in your car, in your second house, etc. To cover this copying, this tax is added to the media. So you are welcome to copy, as long as you have the rights to the original and do not give away the copies to someone who hasn't.
How the music industry got the goverment to pass laws to allow this tax (it isn't actually a tax, more like an import levy) is beyond me. It is not usual that an industry with an existing business model that gets in trouble because of technical innovation gets protection via laws and taxes, at least not for very long.
Exactly. Here in the Netherlands we not only have a tax on blank media (cd-rom, dvd, and even audio cassettes) but there is a tax on the posession of a copier as well. You pay for the estimated number of copies made for the type of user you are. (some special bureau estimates how many copies the average store, generic office, lawyers office, garage, or whatever makes and how much of that is copyrighted, and you are taxed on the blind assumption that you do the same)
Re:Hard Problems and Large Corporations
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 1
I can understand that a large corporation cannot wait many years for a development to be finished (although the development of Vista is underway for many years already), but I find it very hard to believe that Microsoft would not be able to set aside a budget for a research department that far exceeds the budget of Namesys.
Re:I find this a real disapointment myself
on
WinFS Gets the Axe
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Being able to tag files would rock with (ideally?) unlimited tags or specifying our own tags for the database of files.
NTFS can already do that. Almost nobody uses this feature. This shows well that the feature is not wanted.
Incoming calls don't cost me money, but when I am not careful and send a text message to a 4-digit number I could subscribe myself to continuous incoming text messages that cost me money.
In fact, some people already had the problem of sudden paid text messages without knowingly subscribing to such a service, and without information on how to unsubscribe.
The providers, who very well know how to invoice these services, suddenly hide behind bullshit "we do not know" and "we cannot tell" arguments when you try to find out who is behind such scams.
It also does not mention that the "Information Technology Security Officer" or his employees clearly are incompetent. Even with the nonmentioned prevalent OS it is a snap to configure an office workstation in such a way that ordinary employees are not able to download, install and execute programs (including trojans) from the web.
It starts by not giving the user an Adminstrator account.
Second, much of my "spam" (50%?) is actually bounces where my domain was used as the From: header in the email.
Now *that* is a problem I recognize. I have this on one domain as well. It (probably) originates from complaints about spam ending up in the hands of the spammer, and your domain being put on a "joe job" list.
Indeed, in *this case*, random addresses at your domain will be used, and you may consider the bounces to be a dictionary spam attack. However, they aren't. The destination address is still an address that existed before, it just has ceased to exist. And the software handling mail for the domain is seriously broken (usually it is Exchange with some virusscanning frontend) and sends "bounce" messages after it has initially accepted the mail.
I don't get much spam to addresses that are made up. Apparently your mileage may vary, maybe it depends on how you leaked your base address.
I run several mailservers myself and I don't agree with you. I don't see more "random" mail addresses that would look like a dictionary attack than I see misspellings of existing mail addresses by legitimate senders. There are far less of those two than there are attempts by spammers to deliver mail to addresses that exist or have existed. When dictionary attacks were real (and were a real problem), there should be far MORE attempts to deliver to nonexisting addresses, as it would take many attempts to "guess" an existing address, and any "dictionary attacker" would know that.
Welcome to the world of the spam victims. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, particular in the events that you report.
Spammers operate via hacked Windows PCs (zombies) distributed all over the world. So many that blocking them is not going to help you. Spammers repeatedly send the same or similar thing, over time.
That is just the way they work. Try SpamAssassin, it does quite a good job without having to do so much useless and manual work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so putting some words like "Falun" in the SMTP server welcome message is going to stop all the spam via bulletproof Chinese hosting, right?
I am going to try that!
If you don't know the internal bugs and quirks of the 8255
I always found the 8255 had too few features, too many problems, and too large a footprint.
Just some 3-state drivers and octal latches plus the odd 74LS139 usually did the job much better!
I've met editors that put four spaces for the first indent, then a tab for the second (removing the previous four spaces in the process).
That is the correct behaviour when the indent level is set to 4 and the tabstops are set at 8-position intervals (which is the standard).
vi works the same way when you use Ctrl-T to indent. I think it is good.
it caused a nightmare when we ported the system to Windows
But that is only because editors and other textprocessing tools in Windows are so lacking. Any decent editor would be able to handle those files, and a simple filtering tool (like "pr") would have removed all tabs and converted them to spaces.
But not on Windows.
What I wonder about is why the default situation isn't simply the correct, working situation.
I.e. all settings stored in the "Application Data" subdirectory of the current user's profile, skipping the random directory name and taking that single profile when starting the program.
Right now, you have to jump through hoops to achieve this. The "profile selector" is attempting to be helpful, but it really is superfuous under Windows. Windows already has a profile selector. You just want to use that until the user indicates otherwise.
Furthermore, Firefox should, under Windows, again by default, not use a prefs.js file. The info in there is easily stored in the registry.
The mechanisms in the registry (settings per machine, per user, per profile, and by policy) are more powerful than what Firefox offers via prefs.js, user.js and a forced configuration. Use it.
Again, I understand why those decisions were made. Firefox runs on more platforms than Windows, and those often lack these mechanisms or did so when it was developed.
However, this results in limited functionality on Windows, especially in the roaming and central management area.
This is wat often holds back Firefox (and more even, Thunderbird) in company settings.
Why do you neglect all the dozens of CSS fixes made in IE 7?
Probably because there are still at least one hundred left...
Well I should say I have more experience with Mozilla than with Firefox, but my experience is that it is difficult to install the software in such a way that every user sees a single profile (so gets no profile selector) which is completely stored in his own Windows roaming profile (Documents and Settings directory), under the same name for every user.
A way I have found to work around this is to "SUBST" a driveletter to the profile directory of the logged in user (in the loginscript) and force things like the profile location to be relative to this driveletter in the default profile.
I don't think it is a very good solution. Do you think it can be done in another way?
All users can work on all workstations. We use roaming profiles. We want every user to find his/her own profile when launching the program, without having to select it from a list, and we want it to roam with the user profile just like all other settings. (i.e. not using some separate roaming profile server)
In fact, what we like to see is that it works just like MSIE or any other wellbehaved Windows program.
Of course one of the problems is that it isn't a wellbehaved Windows program. It uses its own preferences storage that it needs to be portable across platforms. But this is a nuisance when trying to administer it within a Windows environment.
Yes, this indeed is a problem. Unfortunately RunAs is not a very good program. It is like "su" where it should have been more like "sudo".
(of course, the accound you will use for this should not be a domain administrator or some such, but only have the necessary extra rights to install software on the local workstation. this means the determined person would also be able to install software, but it is quite easy to track that and go after him via the usual mechanisms in place in a company setting)
I think most FF advocates are unaware of the existence of a centrally managed Windows platform.
This is quite apparent when reading comments made about Windows from those circles.
The MSI file is not your biggest problem. What you really need is a good solution for parameter storage inside Firefox (use the registry instead of prefs.js, obey the standards for policies).
It requires quite some trickery to install Firefox on a locked down system where users get all their settings in their roaming profile and don't need to select a profile at every start.
It is possible to get it working, but probably not when using only GPO.
BTW, it is possible to install applications via loginscripts even for locked down users, but you need to use some tricks with "runas".
[at work] I have a Dell PC, which came with a Windows XP license and a CD.
Of course I installed Linux, and VMware Server. Everything legal until now.
Now I cannot run Windows XP under VMware because "this CD can only be installed on a Dell PC".
This is unfortunate, because I would have liked to check some websites with IE7.
Is it illegal what I want to do? Would it be legal to install some bootleg version and use the original license?
If not, why not?
That sure is a problem, but in a playing field as we have now it is the only solution.
Of course we can all dream about open hardware available at your store around the corner, developing just as quickly as closed spec videocards, but for now that just isn't happening.
I prefer an affordable and fast videocard with today's interface connectors over a dream about some unrealistic device that may never appear.
At least NVIDIA releases new drivers when new hardware or new Linux versions appear.
There are already more than enough companies that "support Linux" by delivering some driver for an ancient RedHat release and never update it.
I will not pay the government, the record label, the artist, or anyone else for a copy of content that I already am entitled to have
So will most people. That is why they have introduced this levy, instead of a voluntary payment when you make a copy.
Of course it is unreasonable. But there are many "rights" payments that I find unreasonable, but the entertainment industry, the government, and the judges do find reasonable. What can I do about it? Nothing, except for being amazed that this industry is getting away with all this.
Famous example: when you receive TV from public transmitters, you have paid all rights and you are covered.
When a cable company puts this same signal on cable and distributes it, suddenly extra rights have to be paid.
Why? Beats me... cable is just a technical solution to avoid having an antenna on each roof, not a copying or redistribution of material.
But the judge has ruled otherwise, and we pay extra money for rights on material received via cable.
Ridiculous, but there is no way around it.
That may be true for the "usual" XF86/X.org driver, but the kernel module for accelerated NVIDIA cards is not a small module just to interface with the hardware.
Else I find it hard to explain that it is over 4MB in size...
(the typical driver module is typically a few tens of KB in size, up to a few hundred for very complex drivers)
It probably (just like here in the Netherlands) covers only making a copy for private use.
Here it is legal to buy a CD, and make a few copies to use around the house, in your car, in your second house, etc.
To cover this copying, this tax is added to the media.
So you are welcome to copy, as long as you have the rights to the original and do not give away the copies to someone who hasn't.
How the music industry got the goverment to pass laws to allow this tax (it isn't actually a tax, more like an import levy) is beyond me.
It is not usual that an industry with an existing business model that gets in trouble because of technical innovation gets protection via laws and taxes, at least not for very long.
Exactly. Here in the Netherlands we not only have a tax on blank media (cd-rom, dvd, and even audio cassettes) but there is a tax on the posession of a copier as well.
You pay for the estimated number of copies made for the type of user you are.
(some special bureau estimates how many copies the average store, generic office, lawyers office, garage, or whatever makes and how much of that is copyrighted, and you are taxed on the blind assumption that you do the same)
I can understand that a large corporation cannot wait many years for a development to be finished (although the development of Vista is underway for many years already), but I find it very hard to believe that Microsoft would not be able to set aside a budget for a research department that far exceeds the budget of Namesys.
Being able to tag files would rock with (ideally?) unlimited tags or specifying our own tags for the database of files.
NTFS can already do that. Almost nobody uses this feature. This shows well that the feature is not wanted.
In this case that won't help because those ads are click-throughs to the search result. When you block them, you will block your search result.
Earlier today I searched on Google Groups and when clicking on a link in the result list I got an ad-page that crashed Seamonkey.
It seems to be commonplace these days...
Incoming calls don't cost me money, but when I am not careful and send a text message to a 4-digit number I could subscribe myself to continuous incoming text messages that cost me money.
In fact, some people already had the problem of sudden paid text messages without knowingly subscribing to such a service, and without information on how to unsubscribe.
The providers, who very well know how to invoice these services, suddenly hide behind bullshit "we do not know" and "we cannot tell" arguments when you try to find out who is behind such scams.
What makes you think that disabled persons must be poor, helpless and stupid? And why wouldn't that be the case for an average person?
It also does not mention that the "Information Technology Security Officer" or his employees clearly are incompetent.
Even with the nonmentioned prevalent OS it is a snap to configure an office workstation in such a way that ordinary employees are not able to download, install and execute programs (including trojans) from the web.
It starts by not giving the user an Adminstrator account.
Second, much of my "spam" (50%?) is actually bounces where my domain was used as the From: header in the email.
Now *that* is a problem I recognize. I have this on one domain as well. It (probably) originates from complaints about spam ending up in the hands of the spammer, and your domain being put on a "joe job" list.
Indeed, in *this case*, random addresses at your domain will be used, and you may consider the bounces to be a dictionary spam attack.
However, they aren't. The destination address is still an address that existed before, it just has ceased to exist. And the software handling mail for the domain is seriously broken (usually it is Exchange with some virusscanning frontend) and sends "bounce" messages after it has initially accepted the mail.
I don't get much spam to addresses that are made up. Apparently your mileage may vary, maybe it depends on how you leaked your base address.
I run several mailservers myself and I don't agree with you.
I don't see more "random" mail addresses that would look like a dictionary attack than I see misspellings of existing mail addresses by legitimate senders.
There are far less of those two than there are attempts by spammers to deliver mail to addresses that exist or have existed.
When dictionary attacks were real (and were a real problem), there should be far MORE attempts to deliver to nonexisting addresses, as it would take many attempts to "guess" an existing address, and any "dictionary attacker" would know that.
Welcome to the world of the spam victims. There is nothing, I repeat nothing, particular in the events that you report.
Spammers operate via hacked Windows PCs (zombies) distributed all over the world. So many that blocking them is not going to help you.
Spammers repeatedly send the same or similar thing, over time.
That is just the way they work.
Try SpamAssassin, it does quite a good job without having to do so much useless and manual work.