The problem when you do this, it essentially treats you as if you are that user, not just their privileges. It's a pain in the neck when you do this to install a program, and it installs it only to that (Say, the Administrator account) users start menu.
Or if you want to save a document from a program that requires it, you save it to My Documents, right? Go to open it later, open up My Documents in Windows Explorer and wow! It's gone!
(disclaimer: maybe it doesn't work this way in XP, but it certainly did in Win2k when I did take the effort to run as non-privileged user. XP Home doesn't make it that easy, what with the crippled security optons)
The Debian source code is in a lot of other places than a single server, provided it was on that server at all.
They install it fresh from a known-clean source and all is well again. That is, aside from finding out what allowed the compromise and take precautions to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Does that strategy actually work? Internet Explorer 4-6 weren't substantially different, nor has Windows been since Windows 95.
Yes, I know, "under the hood" Windows 95 and Windows XP aren't much alike, with 95 having DOS roots, and XP having NT roots. I'm talking about interface here.
True, but it has happened to Myspace. You can't just go trivially blocking websites, unless you're overly anal about internet access, as I'm sure is the case in many High schools and lower. Of course, if this is the case, chances are it's blocked already.
I'm fairly certain Win2k/XP don't store the filenames natively in 8.3 format. I recall an option in Windows 2000 (which I can't seem to find in Windows XP Pro) to disable/enable 8.3 filenames at all. A help message said something along the lines of: "If you use any old MS-DOS or Windows 95 applications you should enable 8.3 filenames to prevent data loss."
Or more simply put: Once a folder is created as PROGRA~1, it stays PROGRA~1. It doesn't cycle.
The number is incremented in the order the folders are created, not alphabetically.
Though, I recall on at least one occasion some sort of massive registry failure, requiring that I reinstall Windows 95. From then on, my Program Files folder was known as PROGRA~2.
If that were true, it would more likely be the Mac's downfall. Why would developers (That is, developers who aren't already developing ON a Mac) port or support their applications for MacOS if Macs can run Windows software.
The application requirements will simply say "Requires MacOS 10.5 with Virtualization to Run"
Development won't stop, obviously there are already people programming for Macs. But, what about potential Mac software, say you like Program X, and would like it to integrate seemlessly with your other programs as most Mac apps do? Can't do.
What about when your company asks you to develop a new program, Program Y? Why spend the time and effort to test it on a Mac, just ship it out, it'll run with Virtualizaton!
Sorry, no. Building virtualization into Macs to run Windows programs would definitely not be a breakthrough.
I've heard it's not available in the UK either. Seems it's a US-only thing for now.
Hopefully that changes, but due to space constraints, I only plan to get a Mini in the near future anyway. With the help of a KVM switch, the Mini does more for me than this iMac will, the only iffy bit being the laptop hard drive in the thing.
Some of us College students don't need a gaming machine. We (at least, I) get by (with distinction) by focusing on school work, and working to pay the bills. When I need my gaming rush, there's my Game Boy, and my Gamecube, both of which were purchased before I started school.
Maybe, but if you take the quality into account, I'd say they're about par. Dell isn't exactly known for quality, most people I know who have Dells have them because they were the cheapest. The people I know have a Mac because they know Macs for the quality. And only one of the 3 or 4 people I know using Macs uses it for MacOS X.
If they had anything like that for Canada I'd probably go for it. But seeing as I could probably get at least that good a deal at my bank, I probably don't need it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
There's always a few people mention this.
The problem when you do this, it essentially treats you as if you are that user, not just their privileges. It's a pain in the neck when you do this to install a program, and it installs it only to that (Say, the Administrator account) users start menu.
Or if you want to save a document from a program that requires it, you save it to My Documents, right? Go to open it later, open up My Documents in Windows Explorer and wow! It's gone!
(disclaimer: maybe it doesn't work this way in XP, but it certainly did in Win2k when I did take the effort to run as non-privileged user. XP Home doesn't make it that easy, what with the crippled security optons)
"They got into our machine sir, but all they did was run apt-get update and apt-get upgrade. Phew, that was close!"
The Debian source code is in a lot of other places than a single server, provided it was on that server at all.
They install it fresh from a known-clean source and all is well again. That is, aside from finding out what allowed the compromise and take precautions to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Wow, that worked! Than~`*#%*&SS9 NO CARRIER
Because karma whoring is fun!
Why the hell is this NOT modded insightful?
What's it like?
Looks to me as that has 128MB ram, with around 53 used...
It's sad when all it takes is some excited fanboy posting a link to the FTP server and saying the Beta is released.
Not the first time this has happened, and it certainly won't be the last.
What would be the purpose of checking the spelling of web pages that the user (generally) has no control over?
I'd say it's probably safe to assume the spellchecker is for input fields and textareas, where it'd be useful.
Does that strategy actually work? Internet Explorer 4-6 weren't substantially different, nor has Windows been since Windows 95.
Yes, I know, "under the hood" Windows 95 and Windows XP aren't much alike, with 95 having DOS roots, and XP having NT roots. I'm talking about interface here.
Hell, even Slackware has done it.
True, but it has happened to Myspace. You can't just go trivially blocking websites, unless you're overly anal about internet access, as I'm sure is the case in many High schools and lower. Of course, if this is the case, chances are it's blocked already.
That's more fun too, but at least in this case, you have a reason for doing it :)
Tea is "essential?" Bah you British. :)
I'm fairly certain Win2k/XP don't store the filenames natively in 8.3 format. I recall an option in Windows 2000 (which I can't seem to find in Windows XP Pro) to disable/enable 8.3 filenames at all. A help message said something along the lines of: "If you use any old MS-DOS or Windows 95 applications you should enable 8.3 filenames to prevent data loss."
Assuming 1 per year, it'd be HENDE~12.DOC
2007 - ~4
2008 - ~5
2009 - ~6
2010 - ~7
2011 - ~8
2012 - ~9
2013 - ~10
2014 - ~11
2015 - ~12
Or more simply put: Once a folder is created as PROGRA~1, it stays PROGRA~1. It doesn't cycle.
The number is incremented in the order the folders are created, not alphabetically.
Though, I recall on at least one occasion some sort of massive registry failure, requiring that I reinstall Windows 95. From then on, my Program Files folder was known as PROGRA~2.
If you hit TAB again, it will cycle through possible completions.
If that were true, it would more likely be the Mac's downfall. Why would developers (That is, developers who aren't already developing ON a Mac) port or support their applications for MacOS if Macs can run Windows software.
The application requirements will simply say "Requires MacOS 10.5 with Virtualization to Run"
Development won't stop, obviously there are already people programming for Macs. But, what about potential Mac software, say you like Program X, and would like it to integrate seemlessly with your other programs as most Mac apps do? Can't do.
What about when your company asks you to develop a new program, Program Y? Why spend the time and effort to test it on a Mac, just ship it out, it'll run with Virtualizaton!
Sorry, no. Building virtualization into Macs to run Windows programs would definitely not be a breakthrough.
That is, unless you want a quality laptop with MacOS X.
But hey, you go ahead and get a remanufactured Dell.
I've heard it's not available in the UK either. Seems it's a US-only thing for now.
Hopefully that changes, but due to space constraints, I only plan to get a Mini in the near future anyway. With the help of a KVM switch, the Mini does more for me than this iMac will, the only iffy bit being the laptop hard drive in the thing.
Some of us College students don't need a gaming machine. We (at least, I) get by (with distinction) by focusing on school work, and working to pay the bills. When I need my gaming rush, there's my Game Boy, and my Gamecube, both of which were purchased before I started school.
Maybe, but if you take the quality into account, I'd say they're about par. Dell isn't exactly known for quality, most people I know who have Dells have them because they were the cheapest. The people I know have a Mac because they know Macs for the quality. And only one of the 3 or 4 people I know using Macs uses it for MacOS X.
If they had anything like that for Canada I'd probably go for it. But seeing as I could probably get at least that good a deal at my bank, I probably don't need it anyway.
The Mini and MacBook which both use the GMA graphics support the multi-screen setup. One could assume this does aswell.