 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's a significant difference between "I couldn't find the
> documentation" and "it doesn't appear to be documented". ;-)
Not as much as you might think you're implying. "The documentation
hasn't appeared before me" and "I couldn't find the documentation" are
pretty darn close. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
Graphics and sound cards and CPUs,
> Oh, my. ;)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I was talking specifically about scripting. ;-) [The whole "batch files
> were everything" trip mentioned further up.]
Fair enough.
> The API for manipulating processes and RAM and GUI resources and such is
> NOTHING LIKE any kind of Unix I'm aware of.
Yes, that's what I meant.
>> I mean, really, CP/M had "more" and "type" and such.
> I have no idea what CP/M is.
Think of it as PC-DOS 1.0 for 8-bit computers. ;-)
Basically, if you know PC-DOS 1.0 system calls, you know CP/M.
(I forget, did PC-DOS ever have PIP?)
>> That would be where the symlinks come into it. :-)
> Doesn't that just mean you have two filesystems instead of one?
No. You just have two separate trees of files with the same files
"duplicated" in both.
> Damn, THAT was "interesting"... o_O
Ooops. Got the 50-1000 error again.
Type E-E-Bell!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, AD works completely differently to the SAM - even down to using a
>> different hash function IIRC. Good luck with that!
>
> I think it still uses MD4 for NTLM authentication (seems to me that's
> what it was), but you can disable that and it uses something a bit more
> advanced.
I am almost 100% certain that no product before Windows 2000 actually
uses a hash function devised by cryptographers. AFAIK, right up until
Windows NT4, M$ were using their own custom-designed [and horribly weak]
hash functions for passwords. The only reason Windows 2000 and later
don't is that [finally!] they use an industry standard - Kerberos.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, so I go to the Apple website, click on the Mac Pro, and it
>
>> The machine I'm using right now, the one that was built using the best
>> a bloody big difference! ;-)
>
> Yeah, and the specs are certainly the same.
Well no - the Apple is brand new and my PC is now quite old. You'd
hardly expect them to have the same specs.
My point is that when I built it, it was a pretty powerful computer. If
you go to Apple and ask for "a pretty powerful computer", you get
something astronomically expensive.
>> My *point* is that "other Linux users" are Linux experts. I'm not.
>
> Some people are born with the necessary experience to use linux?-)
LOL! Weirder things have happened... ;-)
Nah, I guess they just know other people who know how to work Linux. As
you might have noticed, I don't know many other humans...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> [Did you see what I did there?]
>
> LOL, good one. :-)
Heh, I know! I said how cool it is, *and* made a pun. Yay for me!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Quantity discount. My DSL line is provided by Covad, even though the
> telco to the house is Qwest. My DSL service is actually cheaper than
> Qwest's DSL service.
>
> Makes perfect sense to shop around.
Now, see, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
That's like those telephone providers where you dail a special prefix
and then the number you actually want to call. They direct your call
from the UK, across the Atlantic to the USA, route the call, and direct
it back to the UK, and *this* works out cheaper than BT? WTF?!? o_O
Similarly, when I looked into this, several places online could sell me
an Apple Mac. It turns out the most expensive place to buy one is...
from Apple. WHAT?? It's more expensive to buy it from the manufacturer
than from some middle-man who has a whole bunch of extra costs and
overheads to cover?
Reality doesn't make sense to me...
Anyway, you get your DSL cheaper, but what if it breaks? If it's
actually a Qwest DSL line, presumably only Qwest can actually fix it if
it breaks. And that means that if it breaks, you have to spend 3 hours
on the phone to Covad to convince them that it's broken, and then they
have to spend 3 hours on the phone to Qwest, and then *maybe* somebody
will fix it?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I am almost 100% certain that no product before Windows 2000 actually
> uses a hash function devised by cryptographers. AFAIK, right up until
> Windows NT4, M$ were using their own custom-designed [and horribly weak]
> hash functions for passwords. The only reason Windows 2000 and later
> don't is that [finally!] they use an industry standard - Kerberos.
Microsoft has been notoriously late for basically everything, and
security is not an exception.
During the entirety of the 80's and 90's Microsoft's policy about security
was basically "it's not our fault, it's the fault of all those criminal
hackers, they are the ones who should be dealt with". And I'm seriously
not making this up. It's almost exactly their official statement on the
subject.
It was not until the 2000's that Microsoft finally understood the
importance of security. Of course since they are new in the security
business they are still making babysteps (for example when they finally
added a firewall to their OS, it wasn't very lauded for its quality),
but I suppose they are getting there slowly.
With Vista they tried to make things even better, even at the cost of
hampering backwards compatibility with software. It's to be seen if this
will work out or if it will backfire on them. (Not to talk that all the
other problems with Vista only aggravate the situation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well that's not really a "file". That's a magic filename.
>
> Wellll... You can argue about it. I assume you know how it worked
> inside. But yeah, I get what you're saying. There wasn't a directory
> entry for the device drivers as such. Which, when you think about it,
> makes sense.
>
> You could iterate over device drivers. They just weren't on the disk, so
> it used different APIs.
>
>> Instead, there are lots of roots like "FOO:", "BAR:", etc. This is
>> more like MS-DOS pathname syntax.
>
> I'll grant you that one.
>
>> Now, the way it *works* is of course more like Unix...
>
> No, the way it works isn't like either. :-) It's closer to a microkernel
> than anything.
>
The way it worked is that any program could send messages to any other
program. If a program answered to a specific set of messages it would be
recognized by the OS as a device. That meant that any user could write
his own device and indeed I have seen quite a lot useful and slightly
silly ones. It was a very powerful concept, e,g, if it was still alive
today we could easily implement a POV: device such that copying a file
into that device would render that file. Filepath syntax could be
exploited to set various options. "copy benchmark.pov
POV:/640/480/AA0.3/png" That is of course not more readable than current
syntax, but you could also do that with drag and drop. Hmm, okay, not so
much of an earth shattering improvement either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> It was a very powerful concept, e,g, if it was still alive
> today we could easily implement a POV: device such that copying a file
> into that device would render that file.
AFAIK in the current MacOS X you can create folder-specific scripts
which are automatically run on files which are copied to that folder
(and maybe on some other events as well). For example some people use
the feature to automatically create thumbnail versions of images when
those images are copied to a certain folder. I assume you could easily
achieve that povray-rendering feature as well, if you wanted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
