Blimy. On my monitor, it's difficult to see the difference between the bright red and bright pink on the market-share charts. Never mind, neither look particularly important,
2175 posts • joined 15 Jun 2007
Blimy. On my monitor, it's difficult to see the difference between the bright red and bright pink on the market-share charts. Never mind, neither look particularly important,
A cable virus! Load it into the cable and it back-hacks the iDevice.
I believe that there was some concern about FireWire some time back, and some speculation that Lightening may be vulnerable in the same way through RDMA. Anybody remember whether these fears were proved groundless?
Mind you, as the software had to be loaded from the iDevice in the first place, you you would need to get it past Apples App. police.
Not sure whether you were commenting to me, but I have known users who worked entirely from inside Emacs.
Before the advent of WIMP, the multi-window, multi-buffer and electric modes for Emacs allowed users to run a shell (using Emacs as the command editor), read their mail and news groups (there were mail and news clients written in Lisp), compile and debug their code, and even run NetHack from inside an Emacs window on a serial terminal that had a termcap definition (you know, something like a VT100/220 compatible, I won't call it dumb because termcap defined a dumb terminal as one that could not do cursor addressing).
The extensibility of Emacs was legendary, something that has surely been forgotten over the years.
You young whipper-snappers just don't know how easy you have it grumble grumble....
Made me laugh out loud! Embarrassing when at work.
My goodness. At this rate with the keyboard shortcuts, we'll be able to pitch a comeback for Emacs!
This used to be a 'lost' Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy episode linking the first to the second radio series. It was only broadcast twice originally, and then disappeared from the airways as it was neither in series 1 nor series 2. I recorded it
It's since made it into the CD collections fortunately.
What I like is when Marvin is left to delay a Frogstar D. Can you guess with what weapons? Something pretty devestating surely? No, nothing.
IIRC, his last comment as the Hitch-Hikers offices collapse around him after being destroyed by a neutron-ram is "What a depressingly stupid robot"
The C4 signal from Wenvoe is quite bad, and C4 appears at a different position (FV channel 8 between BBC3 and BBC4?), and not all FV boxes allow you to manually re-number channels.
I'd spotted the rescan myself after I'd posted. I must admit that rescanning is getting depressingly frequent, especially on my older FV boxes that don't do it automatically.
The splitter boxes are intended for multi-occupancy buildings (which I suppose my house is at the moment) and are quite expensive. If it were really that simple, you would not be able to buy 8 port LNBs.
And even if I did become eligible for AT800, and they agreed to fund an intelligent splitter and/or install the wiring, the disruption of laying cables over the whole of the house would be horrible.
I'm just hoping that I will not be affected. Only time will tell.
And someone will pay to replace my multi-outlet TV amplifier in the loft that feeds all of the room in the house?
We need this because in West Somerset (in England), the closest transmitter is Wenvoe (in Wales), and I prefer not to get programs in a language I don't understand (I suppose that I could learn Welsh...), but that would still mean that I got S4C not Channel 4, and also that I would get Welsh news, weather etc. I had enough of that when I was working in Swansea.
So. I point my aerials at Mendip, and the signal strength even since switchover is marginal without an amplifier.
I do get fed up when people assume that you've only one TV in the house, and suggest a single solution like "buy Freesat or Sky" will only do that one TV. If I were to provide separate satellite boxes on every TV in the house (my kids are all grown up but living at home [unfortunately], and have their own TVs in their bedrooms), it would cost a fortune, and I would need at least an 8 port LNB, plus lots of point-to-point wiring.
I need Freeview to work, and as all of our channels are at the top end (we're still getting the multiplex with BBC1 on channel 61 at the moment, so will have to retune again at some point I guess), it is very likely we will be affected. And there is no cable installation.
You've already given them that right. It's in the Windows EULA.
For Windows, MS calculate hashs of information about a number of different components in a system (processor, memory, network card, display adapter, disk and controllers, BIOS signature and many others), and actually stores this on their systems as well as in hidden and protected files that not even an Admin user can change. When you change components, the checking process tries to work out how much of the system has changed, and either allows the change or deems it a different computer and asks for re-authentication. It's been like this since XP. It allows you to change processors, disks and display adaptors with relative impunity.
Unfortunately, now that PCs have heavily integrated motherboards, most of the components Windows check are actually on the mobo. This means that changing that is almost certainly going to trip the 'it's a new computer' check, and has done for much of the last decade. The Microsoft Licensing Centre have been fairly good about this in the past if you've cared to explain, and issued the new authentication strings if requested, but I suspect that is likely to change.
I suspect that Office will plug into that process, bearing in mind Windows already does in the Genuine Windows (dis-)Advantage tool, and non 365 Office only runs on Windows.
I'm nit-picking here, but if all you have to use is an MS file format, that does not prohibit you using OO or LO.
Of course, if they also want the file to be formatted the same, then you should really avoid MS file formats completely. (Did you notice? Changing the target printer often upsets the careful formatting even in the same version of Word!)
If you definitely want to make sure a documents looks correct, you really need to use a proper page description language.
Ah, but you probably can't use the Windows license that came with the computer in the VM. Microsoft were very careful about the time it changed the EULA for Vista to only allow the higher tier of Windows licences (did they call it ultimate or elite or something like that) in a VM.
If you bought any system pre-built and pre-installed, it is exceptionally unlikely that you had this type of Windows license with it.
As you can probably tell, I'm not a Windows user myself, although I did peruse the EULA for Win7 when I built my youngest kids PCs. There's a lot in the various MS EULA that I don't like (particularly about gathering and sharing information about you), but the kids wanted to be able to run mainstream games, so what choice did I have.
My favourite clause of ridicule in a MS EULA was in the XP Home one, which tried to limit the number of systems (unspecified what constituted a system) on a home network to 5 or less by prohibiting you from connecting to more than 4 other systems from a computer running XP Home, but then XP itself trawling the what it could see and trying to stick it's fingers into anything it found. Completely unenforceable clause. The one for the old Microsoft Intellitype keyboard (seriously, an EULA for a keyboard! - well strictly for the driver software although it was stuck to the back of the keyboard) was a hoot as well.
BTX - What a waste of time!
My brother brought me a Dell something-or-other that had stopped working and he wanted fixing. No problem says I, and open the case.
Hmm, something wrong here, everything's arse about face. Ahhh. BTX mobo.
Could I find anything either retail, eBay or other tat bizarre. No.
Could not even reuse the case. Stripped the reusable bits and scrapped what remained.
Don't get me wrong. I'm System V through-and-through, but you have to regrettably admit that it's pretty dead now.
OK, Solaris and AIX are still mainly System V versions of UNIX, but I can't see IBM doing an R-Pi port of AIX any time soon, and I think that the license for OpenSolaris would prohibit a port.
In case you hadn't noticed, UnixWare (the last linear descendent of the Bell/AT&T code) of pretty much died with SCO, and any chance for a reversion to Novell died when it got subsumed into Attachmate. That pretty much killed any chance of a new System V variant.
And there's an interesting point. I wonder who you would approach if you wanted to become a new System V source licensee? The OpenGroup?
Agree on Amarok. When I did a dist-upgrade of my Ubuntu desktop box from Hardy to Lucid it did the 1.4-to-2.something upgrade for me, and I was lost for weeks trying restore all of my music.
The bugs are mostly fixed now (at least the ones that were affecting me), but I still find it bloody annoying to maintain music on an external device. It was sooooooo much easier with 1.4.
I overlooked that one (and that is strange, because I had the exact same problem with TomTom myself). Ironically, I also have problems updating my Android Phone and Tablet because the installers both need Windows (although I think the tablet could be done using an update stored on the micro-sd card if I tried hard).
But I would also wonder whether the myTomTom (or whatever it is called) would suffer the same problem as S-OED that you mention.
So, how do we pressure these shortsighted vendors to provide native Linux apps? They'll have to something to cater for tablet filled PC free households at some point.
Tried any Windows install from Microsoft provided (i.e. not vendor supplied recovery) media recently? If so, did every bit of hardware work, especially on a laptop? What! You've never installed Windows yourself? Then you're not qualified to comment.
From experience, I absolutely know that Ubuntu or Mint will be able to use more hardware from generic install media that Windows without the vendors drivers disks.
What you are complaining about is that you can't get a system with Linux installed.
Did you check that your DVD drive worked and the disk was readable in it? This is the biggest problem I get when trying to use older systems. They may load the bootstrap, but get stuck further in on the disk. Does Mint have a 'Check Media' menu item on the boot strap?
I can only assume that you've never used a modern Linux.
All mainstream distros on mainstream hardware will do pretty much everything a home user would want to do out of the box, with the possible exception of patent restricted file formats, and there is no way in hell that you can blame the Linux community for that problem.
I have an working knowledge of an internal combustion engine as well, but I don't have greying hair in common. This is despite my being only about two months younger than Jeremy, and is neither because I am bald nor is it because I use dye.
I sympathise with my follicaly or pigmentaly challenged compatriots.
..... only there aren't any. List me a current laptop that has a 4x3 screen that fills the entire lid of the the laptop. I've tried to find one, and I can't.
It's funny that 7 years ago, my needs were quite mainstream. My requirements have evolved (faster processor, more memory, bigger disk, better graphics adapter), but the manufacturers have moved in a completely different direction (shiny, wide-screen aspect ratio, no optical media, bigger or smaller form-factor).
So in order to remain mainstream, I have to change, right?
I'll go back to my cave now, as it seems like I belong with the Dinosaurs.
If you look at my other posts, I've been a Thinkpad user for over 10 years.
What I would like would be something with the form factor of a T23, the 4x3, 1440x900 resolution of some of the T43 and T60 models, but a better processor than either of those.
I'll probably have to look for a second-hand T60 at some point, and see how long that will last me.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that I can see about this machine that would encourage me to buy one to replace my current laptop. It's -
- Too expensive.
- Too big.
- Not the screen format I want.
- Has a mirror instead of a screen.
- Encourages people to touch the screen and leave greasy finger marks.
- Probably more powerful than I need.
- Comes with an OS that I neither want nor need.
The problem is that almost every company making laptops is aiming to produce the same type of machine, meaning that there is nothing made by anybody that I would consider.
Am I really that much different from mainstream users now?
If I were AWE, I would want to invoke the 'distroy all data you hold for us' clause of the contract that they must have. Otherwise, who knows where it will turn up!
I always viewed it as Intel royally screwing HP in order to get access to some of the IP that they needed to speed up the Pentium processor.
PA-RISC was a fairly nice processor that HP had developed from discrete logic into multi and then single chip designs. For a preiod of time in 1990-1994, HP, Digital and IBM went head-to-head to try to produce the fastest chip/system. But rapid development of processors is an expensive operation, and HP did not commit to the same level of resource to keep the processor development going.
When Intel wanted to speed up their x86 processors, they needed to use technologies that they did not hold the rights to, mainly for the superscalar and deep pipeline techniques. They approached HP with an offer to take on the development of the EPIC processor which was to succeed the PA-RISC2 64 bit implementation in exchange for the rights to use some of the technologies that HP used in the PA-RISC family. This enabled Intel to produce faster and more competitive x86 cores (I think the first Intel processor to benefit was the P6 Pentium Pro), and in theory removed the cost of developing the next generation 64 bit processor from HP.
When it came to producing the processor that they promised to HP, Intel were a bit tardy. They produced the original Itanium which was something like 2 years late, was not as compatible with PA-RISC2 as it was supposed to have been, and was slower than promised. Compared to other contemporary processors, the Merced implementation of Itanium was considered very disappointing. So Intel benefited greatly with their own processors, and HP suffered.
This left HP with a gap in the late '90s that meant that they had to continue using the PA-8X00 processor family beyond it's natural lifetime. The fact that HP managed to get significant performance increases by iterative evolution was probably a testament to the design of the original processor and the people remaining in HPs processor development team.
Sounds like HP are still being screwed over. I wonder if there is anybody left in HP who regrets the decisions taken back in the mid '90s.
I quote from my original comment.
"and (importantly) that you control the process and the media."
I think you just made my point over again.
My response to "Dr Who" was actually about rogue administrators in an un-outsourced IT department being as big a risk as an outsourced operation going bad. But I tried to make it a little relevent to the original story as well.
That is why you have a reliable DR set of procedures that take periodic copies of the data out-of-easy reach, and (importantly) that you control the process and the media.
E2E may have the best DR procedures around, but if they 'own' the media that the backups sit on, they are just as unavailable to the end user as the servers that they back up. This is why it is more dangerous.
I wonder how many outsourcing contracts contain clauses that immediatly revert the ownership of the backup media and documentation for the backup process to the end customer in case of insolvency of the outsourcer. Sounds like a good clause to me.
In the case of trusting your administrators, you should spread the responsibility to more that one administrator to make sure that it is performing properly, but this will allow for the situation that if someone trashes all the data on your live systems, you just invoke DR.
Of course, if someone is really malicious, and is allowed to screw with the systems for more than your longest off-site backup is viable, then it is still possible to destroy all the data, but you hope that there is no conspiricy and that such behaviour would be spotted. But you could say the same about the financial director, the pruchasing officer, or even the caretaker. It's not just IT people who could be holding a grudge.
The records were unusual. They were 7" discs, but were played a 33 1/3 RPM. I'm fairly certain that my father still has the records somewhere.
When I was reading the stories to my children several decades ago, I found myself mimicking Johnny Morris' vocalisations. I guess that it must have had a profound effect on me.
IIRC, Rev. W Audry actually wrote 32 or 33 of the original books, before his son Christopher picked up the reigns. Each of the stories in the original books was said to have been inspired by real events on the railways, and I always though that made them much more believable. Once Britt-Alcroft started getting more stories written, it all went to pot, and the Rev. is probably spinning in his grave at the latest stories.
What I would like to know is whether the Chris Payne, who appears in the titles of the original TV series is the same Chris Payne who worked on computer controlled railways for his final year project at Durham University in 1980/81. If it is, then I knew him.
Listening to records of Johnny Morris reading the Railway Stories, and Ian Carmichael reading Winnie-the-Pooh, also on 33 1/3 7" discs are probably are some of my most enduring childhood memories.
BTW. There were also Century 21 Stingray, Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet stories on vinyl disc. You've got to remember that there were no home video players back in the 1960s. Records and reel-to-reel tape were all there were.
There are some very good insights into the production problems that Doctor Who had in the 30 minute-an-episode days contained in a book and audio-book by one-time Dr Who producer Barry Letts, called "Who and Me". It is serialised on BBC Radio 4 Extra on their rotation. It's a good read/listen.
There were so many scheduling, budget and logistical issues around this production format (like the sets had to be taken down every week during the episode filming - no wonder they were flimsy) that once you know, you wonder how the show was ever made!
My personal feeling is that the episodic story line was both a benefit and a curse, but I think that it was good training for handling long-running issues in life, and definitely made it more of an event in the week than the current self contained stories.
But to me it never had CGI wow.
Maybe I need to watch it again, but to me it looks to have been animated using the Max Steel or Action Man CGI rendering engine, which make movements look unrealistic. I know it was probably a different company doing it, but the Starship Troopers CGI series looked better.
Hopefully, they will use a better engine for the Thunderbirds remake.
I only watch the first DVDs worth (four episodes?) of the Captain Scarlet remake, and I was very disappointed. They messed with the format so much that only the fundamental details survived.
It appeared to be the case that they went completely down the action route, whereas the original series demanded that the kids follow the story. I wonder how much of 'kids have short attention spans' is reinforced by providing programs that need no degree of attention to watch. Possibly a self-fulfilling statement.
IIRC it was billed as "Gerry Anderson's New Captain Scarlet", so I wonder what Gerry actually thought of it. The reason why he hated the live-action movie so much was he had lost control of the franchise (he sold the complete rights to finance one of the later series), and so had no input at all. I agree that it was barely worth watching, apart from the cameo reverse-format puppet hand at the Thunderbird 1 controls, which was the sole amusing bit of the film.
"it applies to them no matter where they operate" - it depends on what they are doing.
This is the US interpretation of a US law. In actual fact, if Microsoft operate on European soil, they are probably doing it through a European subsidiary, which is subject to the laws in the region they are operating.
It has to be this way, otherwise all employees of US owned (I'm talking US holding companies owning the regional subsidiary) companies working on outsourced operations for, say, UK government agencies could be forced to divulge national secrets if asked by the US Department of Homeland Security.
It's different for business transacted over the Internet, because it's much more difficult to enforce national boundaries.
Where the issue is further clouded (pun intended) is if a non-US organisation stores data in a US owned storage cloud. I can envisage situations where US DHS could ask for the data to be migrated onto servers under US jurisdiction, and then they have the law behind them to get it disclosed!
I think that Office365 is probably run by Microsoft US, and the servers are probably on US soil, so the statement about that is probably true. A reason to consider carefully how you use SAAS and cloud based storage.
Bollocks. That shoud read "You're", not "Your".
And the cost of all of these physical things..... very little (probably a single electronics module, provisioned in bulk, which would probably be installed anyway even if they did offer a data only service). Anything that is shared or managed centrally (like call-set up, breakdown and billing) would not be any different.
Your argument goes back to old fasioned exchanges (pre System X) where things like ring and dialtone generators were seperate pieces of hardware shared between a small numer of telephone lines.
Normal ADSL services uses frequencies well above voice. As a result, I don't think that their service would have provided any enhanced bandwidth, other than there being no need to install microfilters which may make a slight difference to the signal strength.
Your not being billed for it seperately, so you are only paying an unquantifiable amount for it.
My assertion is that as BT provide it by using otherwise unused spare capacity at weekends, it costs them effectively nothing to include, and they are unlikely to ever offer a package at lower cost that does not have this particular feature. They may offer a data only package, but I bet it would work out the same.
You are assuming that if they did offer data-only lines, that they would use less equipment to justify a rebate.
The cost of provisioning the service from your home to the exchange would be the same, most if not all of the stuff at the exchange would be the same, and from the exchange to the rest of the network is all IP now for both voice and data anyway, so again would be the same. There would not be much of an equipment saving.
Bundling it all together is pretty much what they do. The line rental that I think you may be complaining about is not the cost of the voice service, it's the cost of connecting your house to the exchange. This is necessary whether you use voice, voice and data, or data only.
Why not just use their Unlimited Broadband package, and not plug in a phone? The only bit you would be 'saving' on by not using it would be the free weekend calls, and bearing in mind that voice traffic bandwidth was traditionally low over the weekend (so is low cost to BT), it is unlikely they would offer much of a rebate anyway, so how much do you think you would save?
Mine is a 4GB model, ordered in the first week they could be ordered, and now has Ubuntu 10.04 on it. I cannot see me putting 12.04, though (far too small and underpowered).
The big problem is that a mainstream distro leaves an uncomfortably small amount of space on a 4GB SSD. I have to aggressively manage cached packages, multiple kernels and other things to leave enough space for the system to work.
But otherwise, it is surprisingly usable.
Even as a relatively high paid IT consultant, £2500 would represents well over a weeks total income. Justifying it as a tax deductible expense would still make it a considerable purchase for a one person service company. Even claiming back the 20% VAT will not drop such a purchase to below 2 grand, and that is money that could be used for other things (such as paying me), and one of the primary things it would have to be able to do was track it's own depreciation!
Fortunately, I never had the need for that class of machine, as I have not needed to be away from power for more than my 2nd hand Thinkpad can provide.
I totally agree about the accounting package. A usable and supported payroll and accounting package with current HMRC tax tables was the only reason I kept a Windows partition on my Thinkpad. Since shutting down the company, Windows has never been started on it, and it's been Linux all the way.
But I don't think Bateau's visual overlays are provided by his cybernetic eyes. I think that they are directly injected through his cyberbrain. Otherwise Aramaki and Togusa would not get what they 'see' either.
In my experience, the various Ubuntu releases work on everything I've put it on with few or no problems.
In the last 8 years since I started using it, I've put it on lots of Thinkpads and other laptops, netbooks, and desktop systems, and while I won't say that I've never had problems, none of them have been show-stoppers.
OK, when I first used my eeePC 701, I had wireless problems until the slightly strange Atheros chipset gained a Linux driver. My Thinkpad T30 does not reset the sound correctly after suspend, and the Mobile Radeon graphics adapter is too old to work with Compiz well, and I came across a wireless card for which there was no Linux support on a Shuttle XPS (which, incidental, did not work in Windows very well either).
I suspect that your Vaio must have some very specific hardware in it, and only works on Windows because you have a system restore image prepared by Sony that contains the right drivers. I would be interested in seeing how well you managed to get it working with a retail windows install disk, and what would not work.
Windows users think that their systems 'just work', but this is mainly because the PC manufacturer has taken the necessary background steps of identifying the drivers and building a bundle of Windows and drivers specifically for their systems. If they went to the same lengths for Linux, it would be the same.
What is amazing in my view is that a single build (one CD, not even a DVD) of, say, Ubuntu will 'just work' on a huge number of different systems without all of the behind the scenes customisations that happen for Windows, because they are done for you.
One of the problems is that Windows drivers are specific to a particular instance of hardware, so a Atheros card from say Netgear would not work with the drivers supplied by Belkin for a card with the same chipset, and often not even with the driver for another card from the same supplier with the same chipset.
Linux is different here, because its drivers are largely manufacturer agnostic. It identifies something like an Atheros chipset, and it configures the driver regardless of the manufacturer (OK, I know Atheros is an old chipset not used much now, but it's the one that came to mind first).
Occasionally, you will come across some hardware for which the PCI or USB ID's are not in the database, so the module code cannot identify the required driver correctly, but this becomes less and less frequent as time goes by, and is usually fixed for what must be regarded as non-mainstream hardware (if it were mainstream, the ID's would be in the database) after a little Googling. Not everyone's forte, I accept, but you cant expect the distro maintainers to be omnipotent!
I'm not sure that I believe you that it is just a router. Most routers now claim to have statefull firewalls in them, and bearing in mind that they are the first line of defence in most peoples home networks, I think that you need to treat them as a firewall.
Indeed, some misguided PC world sales youth tried to persuade me to buy an (expensive) all-singing, all-dancing ADSL router to replace my ADSL modem/router, separate Smoothwall firewall and wireless router, as it would do everything I needed in one box. I don't normally lecture people while in PC world, but he was an exception. I had gone in to try and find a wireless range extender.
But you are right, I should have been more careful in my comment.
Back on topic, you can turn UPnP on if you want, but I am never going to allow a vendor device on my network permission to open up inbound connections without being bloody sure I trust it, and I will offer that advice to anybody who asks me. I believe that it is just asking for your network to get pwned. It only takes one mis-configured or deliberately malicious device or software service/piece of malware (PCs can use UPnP as well) to appear on your network to let in things you do not want. If you do not see the danger, then that is not my concern, apart from having to fend off a future botnet in which your machines are enrolled.
Steve Gibson's own Shields Up! on www.grc.com may be a good place to start.
I think that you've misunderstood what a firewall is for. It's there to protect you from devices and services that try to compromise your security regardless of their intent.
My view is that having a mechanism that can override your firewall without your knowledge can never be a good thing regardless of how much easier it may make running your environment. If you need remote access, configure it yourself, and learn in the process. Trying to justify anything else is just lax thinking.
"Anyway, after a few minutes all the old Unix skills come flooding back: typing backslashes in paths that demand forward slashes"
You think that mistyping slashes is a skill?
There was a time when bottom left to top right was called slash, and top left to bottom right was a backslash. Then DOS came along....
Since I posted the last two comments, TPM has corrected the article without adding a corrction note. Just saying to explain what I was commenting on.
The 755 is what Watson was created using, and is a cluster of slightly altered P7 750 nodes with Infiniband gluing it all together.
The Blue Waters machine would have been a P7 775 cluster, not a 795, which is the large commercial system.
Back in the day, you had a cabinet or two for the processor(s), at least one for the memory (especially if it were core), another for each disk string controller, and then more for the disks themselves, and then additional cabinets for front-end processors, tape drives and any other ancillary devices.
It was perfectly possible to add and remove memory, disk controllers and strings of disk without having to replace the computer as a whole. Or you could replace the processors, and leave the rest of the system untouched.
I remember on weekend in 1985 when I went home on a Friday night, after using NUMACs crusty old IBM 370/168 which was collapsing under the strain, and came back on Monday morning to the same system with an Amdahl 5860 that to the user was identical, just a lot faster.
Professor Harry Whitfield (director of the computing laboratory at Newcastle University at the time) wrote the following in his annual report for the year:
"The installation of the Amdahl 5860 in late September 1985 and its introduction into service in early October must be regarded as the major event of the year. The whole process went so smoothly (and unannounced) that users 'merely' noticed that the system had suddenly become much more responsive and five times faster."
I admit the analogy is not perfect, but there are serious similarities.