 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
>
> A partial reinstall? ;-)
More like endless multiply reinstalls...
> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:05:37 +0200, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
>
> Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
'fixmbr' does much the same, and is available in the recovery console.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:05:37 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/129
>>
>> A partial reinstall? ;-)
>
> More like endless multiply reinstalls...
Ah, I see. :-)
>> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
>
> Yes. You need to possess fdisk to do that though. :-P
Doesn't XP include it any more? No matter, though, OpenDOS is still
available. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When I first had Geiss, I remember my mum's poor old Pentium I 233 MHz
> thing with 16 MB RAM *dying* trying to run it. The poor thing would
> stutter along at roughly 12 FPS with 320x240 at 30% letterbox. Last night,
> I tried it on my current PC. Even at the highest settings I could use, it
> was still exceeding 75 FPS. Seriously, the screen was just a blur. It was
> *way* too fast.
>
> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm also
> confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200. (Mine
> won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to why you
> would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
If you assume roughly linear "processing time" based on the number of
pixels, then 75 fps at 1280x1024 equals 42 fps at 1920x1200.
I guess your monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, I have 3 display devices
here that are 1600x1200 (desktop), 1920x1200 (laptop) and 1920x1080 (TV).
25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG. I wish I still had
the demo that split the screen into 4 and ran each quarter at 15,30,60 and
120 fps. This was on my CRT that would do 120 HZ refresh. You could easily
tell the difference between each of them, the 120 Hz looking so silky
smooth. Nowadays with LCD we're kinda stuck with 60. IIRC some research
report I read said that the eye can process information up to about 70-80
Hz...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> (fdisk /mbr should get rid of Grub from the MBR, BTW)
People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
Well, *that* would lead to widespread adoption, wouldn't it?
> Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
> to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
> someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
People who don't know the security holes in Linux shouldn't forget their
root password? >8)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > People who don't know how to use linux shouldn't use it, IMO.
> Well, *that* would lead to widespread adoption, wouldn't it?
I remember reading somewhere a list of common misconceptions about linux.
IIRC one of them went something like "linux developers and advocates are
trying very hard to get linux into mainstream, to make it widely adopted".
Yes, while *some* really have that mentality, it's still a misconception.
Linux developers and advocates couldn't care less if someone else uses
linux. They are making linux for *themselves*, not for everybody. They are
not competing for market share. They just want to make a good alternative
to commercial OSes. One which they like to use (not one which appeals to
the masses).
I tend to agree with that.
> > Just a couple of days ago someone in irc commented that he needed
> > to reinstall linux because he had forgotten the root password. Well,
> > someone who knew better saved him some hours of useless work.
> People who don't know the security holes in Linux shouldn't forget their
> root password? >8)
Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
computer. It doesn't matter which OS you are using. Heck, you can take
a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I'm very puzzled as to why anyone would want more than 25 FPS. I'm
>> also confused as to how on earth you managed to put it into 1920x1200.
>> (Mine won't let me go above 1280x1024.) And finally, I'm puzzled as to
>> why you would consider any of this "slow". But there we are...
>
> If you assume roughly linear "processing time" based on the number of
> pixels, then 75 fps at 1280x1024 equals 42 fps at 1920x1200.
OK. Well 42 FPS is still faster than you need.
> I guess your monitor only goes up to 1280x1024, I have 3 display devices
> here that are 1600x1200 (desktop), 1920x1200 (laptop) and 1920x1080 (TV).
Well, it's a 21 inch CRT. I'm not sure why it would stop at 1280x1024,
but it is of course possible...
> 25 fps looks very jerky compared to 30 or 60 fps for CG.
Really? I observed virtually no visible difference at all (except the
speed of the motion).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
> It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
Possibly, depending on how you think about it. It certainly makes for
insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for
example.
> There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
> computer.
Sure there is. Otherwise, why would anyone build encrypting disk
drivers, mandatory access control, etc?
> It doesn't matter which OS you are using.
This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
> Heck, you can take
> a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
... counts as "insecure."
> The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
I think you're overgeneralizing. I think it's because security isn't a
binary property of a system.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Resetting the root password from local console is not a security hole.
> > It's regular maintenance. It's by design.
> Possibly, depending on how you think about it. It certainly makes for
> insecure personal desktop computers in a corporate environment, for
> example.
I was mainly talking from the point of view of the owner of the
computer, which is naturally also its administrator.
There are certain things you just *must* be able to do to the computer
as an administrator. The most typical example would be booting it (which,
if it was possible to do remotely by anyone without permission, would be
considered a huge security hole).
It would, quite naturally, not make too much sense that if you forgot
the root password, you would be completely stuck and the computer would
become completely unmaintainable. There must, of course, be some way of
resetting the root password (given that you have direct physical access
to the computer). It's just common sense.
You could, of course, make a computer somewhat "secure" by disabling
a bunch of things (such as being able to boot in single user mode and
booting from a CD) and setting a bios password. However, it wouldn't make
too much sense to do this to your own computer because if you ever forget
that root password, it would be quite bothersome to get your computer back.
> > There's no such a thing as security if you have physical access to the
> > computer.
> Sure there is. Otherwise, why would anyone build encrypting disk
> drivers, mandatory access control, etc?
Security of the data is not the same as security of the system.
If someone can hack into your computer and delete all your encrypted
files (or worse, replace them with something else without you noticing
for a long time, perhaps messing up your backups), I wouldn't call that
security.
Accounts, access control, etc. are only good for remote access.
If someone has direct access to your computer, they serve only as a
deterrent for the novice and a slowdown for the expert. There's little
stopping the user from eg. booting from a linux installation disk and
wiping out the contents of the HDs.
(That doesn't mean that accounts couldn't be handy even if the computer
is used by more than one person. They can be very handy eg. for a computer
used by the entire family, with each member having their own accounts. It
makes maintenance easier and accidents less catastrophical.)
> > It doesn't matter which OS you are using.
> This would be factually incorrect also, unless you believe ...
You mean some OS can stop someone from booting from a CD and wiping
the HDs, for example?
> > Heck, you can take
> > a sledgehammer and bring down the system with it.
> ... counts as "insecure."
Well, it is. I count a system which can be brought down by anyone
without permission as being insecure. You can only try to stop that
being done remotely, but if someone has physical access to your
computer, no such luck.
> > The point in security is whether the system can be hacked remotely.
> I think you're overgeneralizing. I think it's because security isn't a
> binary property of a system.
I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration:
If someone has direct physical access to the computer, it is insecure.
Remote access can be made much more secure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
