Re: Muppets
“Nuth said”? THAIL!
Posts by Quirkafleeg
282 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Dec 2007
Level 3 wilts in London sunshine (again)
Kelway buys Repton
Mozilla invites all comers on post-tab future
Saturday 16th May 2009 20:09 GMT 
Whoops…
“… [tabs] meant that rather than having to keep opening new versions of your browser”
Really? Could be quite a wait between opening new windows, then…
“for each site you wanted to view, killing the machine's performance and exposing yourself to crashes,”
One browser instance == no exposure to crashes? Pull the other one. Bugs don't magically go away like that.
Also, "each site"? Sites can contain two or even three pages.
“you could work within one browser.”
I do that anyway, whether using multiple tabs or (and here's the tricky bit) _multiple_ _windows_.
Microsoft IIS6 bug exposes sensitive files sans password
Asus to slash retail Eee PC line-up
Next Ubuntu alpha reveals video change
Google suffers international outages, slowdowns
Win 7 RC fails to thwart well-known hacker risk
Thursday 7th May 2009 08:53 GMT 
Re: @ michael
“[Linux] keeps track of the file type by the associated flag that the FS assigns to it when it is created. The file type is NOT in the header (text files have no 'header' for example) yet the OS knows what it is by keeping track of the app that created it or the permissions that are assigned to it by the user.”
No. Neither permissions nor the creating app have anything to do with this: you can use cat to create a shell script or sed to modify a text file. Or you could use, say, emacs or joe or nano.
“For example: a shell script is just a text file but if I've marked it executable it will run in the shell. But only for ME, It WON'T execute on another login unless it [is] root.”
Wrong again. There's that bit of identification stored in at the start of the file: that "#! /bin/sh" line. Also, you've not said that it isn't readable by others; if it is, that's enough to allow a shell run by any of them to interpret it ("sh ~foo/bar.sh"). Execute permission would allow them to do this implicitly, with the kernel running the executable named in the #! line ("~foo/bar.sh").
File type information is determined by content and/or the extension part of the filename. Content takes precendece.
Botnet hijacking reveals 70GB of stolen data
Meet Phorm's PR genius
Sockets, cores and threads, oh my
IDC: Linux to benefit from recession
Microsoft cries netbook victory against Linux
Fighting Thermageddon just got £1 trillion cheaper
Subsidized netbook model could sweep away 20 years of PC history
Police ad urges: 'Trust no one'
BBC zombie caper slammed by security pros
Monday 16th March 2009 11:00 GMT 
Re: I did notice one thing…
Well, yes, they would all be Windows boxes. It is, after all, the most populous (and crackable) desktop OS out there.
I noticed that they also neglected to mention the more important numbers about their DDoS attack: the number of bots alone doesn't say much. You need to know the bandwidth available to them and how much of it was being used, though I can imagine that that would confuse the clicktards :-)
I won't pretend that Linux is 100% secure. It can't be. No kernel can. Same goes for the OS built on top of it, but at least there's enough variety out there to make it harder for the (shall we say) miscreants; and the size of the user base tends to make it Not Worth The Crackers' Time. (There'll always be a few who do it “because they can”, though. And I'm not considering network infrastructure.)
(Watched it at 00:30. Curiously, immediately after I heard the words "we will never be able to talk to these computers again", the screen blanker cut in. I couldn't have timed it better if I'd tried…!)
Hitachi cops to Dell LCD pricing conspiracy
Social networking and blogs more popular than email
Israelis develop 'safe' plutonium: good for power, bad for weapons
Diebold e-voting software includes delete audit logs button
Microsoft talks open-source love amid TomTom Linux 'war'
Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again)
Dell introduces 10in netbook
Monday 23rd February 2009 20:27 GMT 
GMA500? Ouch.
Normally, I have no problems with using Intel graphics hardware, given the state of the open-source drivers. But this one… no, it's well into ‘don't touch’ territorty. (Which may have something to do with them not making these available with Linux just yet.)
Also, that's a 10" display. Too large.
Storage breakthrough could bust density record
Minister trashes ex-spook chief's liberty warning
Boffins ponder Geordies' lack of winter clothing
Debian 'Lenny' arrives: bigger, longer, searchable
Monday 16th February 2009 21:13 GMT
Re: Diffucult? Pah!
If the -dev packages are merged into the corresponding ‘main’ packages, that would make installation of libfoo1 and libfoo2 slightly tricky without diversions; and what if you need libfoo1's dev files for one thing and libfoo2's for another… no, leave it as it is. It's not broken.
Unix world braces for geekgasm
Monday 16th February 2009 04:47 GMT
It's all one to me and means naught
01110000 01100101 01110010 01101100 00100000 00101101 01100101 00100000 00100111 00100100 01100001 00111101 00111100 00111110 00111011 00100000 00100100 01100010 00100000 00111101 00100000 01110101 01101110 01110000 01100001 01100011 01101011 00100000 00101000 00100010 01000010 00101010 00100010 00101100 00100000 00100100 01100001 00101001 00111011 00100000 00100100 01100010 00100000 00111101 01111110 00100000 01110011 00101111 00101110 01111011 00111000 01111101 00101111 00100100 00100110 00100000 00101111 01100111 00111011 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101001 01101110 01110100 00100000 00100100 01100010 00100111
(Life? Don't talk to me about life…)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
