 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 21:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's fair. You wrote your reply to a message I wrote, so clearly I
>> thought you were responding to what I said.
>
> I still never specified servers at all, and I only mentioned desktops in
> a disclaimer. :-)
"And I'd argue that if you have a server whose *only* job is being a web
server, then restarting the web server after an upgrade is essentially
the same as a reboot, except faster."
That seems to be the source of the misunderstanding, because you did talk
about servers there.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/17/2011 10:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2011 21:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> That's fair. You wrote your reply to a message I wrote, so clearly I
>>> thought you were responding to what I said.
>>
>> I still never specified servers at all, and I only mentioned desktops in
>> a disclaimer. :-)
>
> "And I'd argue that if you have a server whose *only* job is being a web
> server, then restarting the web server after an upgrade is essentially
> the same as a reboot, except faster."
>
> That seems to be the source of the misunderstanding, because you did talk
> about servers there.
Fair enough. Plus that statement applies to any OS, not just Linux. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/17/2011 10:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> that I "hate" KDE or GNOME or LXDE or whatever - then I'm obviously not
> using the computer as a tool to get actual work done.
Heh heh heh. I'm definitely going to steal that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:14:28 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/17/2011 10:32, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2011 21:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> That's fair. You wrote your reply to a message I wrote, so clearly I
>>>> thought you were responding to what I said.
>>>
>>> I still never specified servers at all, and I only mentioned desktops
>>> in a disclaimer. :-)
>>
>> "And I'd argue that if you have a server whose *only* job is being a
>> web server, then restarting the web server after an upgrade is
>> essentially the same as a reboot, except faster."
>>
>> That seems to be the source of the misunderstanding, because you did
>> talk about servers there.
>
> Fair enough. Plus that statement applies to any OS, not just Linux. :-)
That's certainly true.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:15:21 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/17/2011 10:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> that I "hate" KDE or GNOME or LXDE or whatever - then I'm obviously not
>> using the computer as a tool to get actual work done.
>
> Heh heh heh. I'm definitely going to steal that.
Feel free. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> VNC wasn't really designed for efficiency.
>>
>> The fail!
>
> Nope. It was just designed to be easy to implement instead of being
> efficient.
If you're designing a system to control other systems remotely, the
efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number
one priority. If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care
how easy it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works*
well.
> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.
Why would you want to do that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now imagine if there were a standard, widely-implemented system for
>> letting the customer make those configuration changes themselves...
>> Let's face it, the ISP's routers are almost certainly remote-manageable
>> anyway. If the unwanted packets can be blocked at the entrance to the
>> ISP's network, they can save themselves the bother of having to route a
>> bunch of traffic. (Although the amount of data you can fire at one
>> customer is probably peanuts compared to the ISP network capacity.)
>>
>> Ah well, dream on...
>
> Then it would take 2.5 nanoseconds for a hacker to steal your
> credentials and make those changes for you. BLAM! total denial of service.
...or you could, you know, make it so the command interface is only
accessible from the customer's side of the firewall? Then they have to
actually hack the customer's system first.
> Some IDS/IPS vendors have programmed routines in their systems that can
> automatically change firewall rules in the event that they detect an
> attack, yet the majority of installations leave this feature turned off
> because people are afraid of false alerts blocking valid traffic, and
> having HAL in control of the pod bay doors.
>
> I'm sure ISPs feel the same way about having their customers be able to
> play with their firewall configs.
Well, yeah, you wouldn't want to give clueless users direct access to
the actual firewall configuration. You'd want some higher-level way of
allowing people to select "features" they want or don't want, and then
have some software manage translating that into actual IP configuration
changes. (For starters, there are going to be rules that the ISP don't
want users to be able to turn off...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-09-19 04:16, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> VNC wasn't really designed for efficiency.
>>>
>>> The fail!
>>
>> Nope. It was just designed to be easy to implement instead of being
>> efficient.
>
> If you're designing a system to control other systems remotely, the
> efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number
> one priority. If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care
> how easy it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works*
> well.
>
>> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.
>
> Why would you want to do that?
Because it would be fully buzzword compliant.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/19/2011 1:16, Invisible wrote:
> efficiency of that system over a low network link ought to be the number one
> priority.
Uh, no. VNC was *specifically* designed to be trivial to implement at both
ends.
> If I'm remote-controlling a system, I don't really care how easy
> it is to implement the wire protocol; I care whether it *works* well.
Except you aren't the person who designed VNC. You're the person who should
be using RDP or maybe X-Windows, or NeWS, or any of the other dozens of
remote graphics solutions.
>> Show me X-Windows ported to a javascript client.
> Why would you want to do that?
Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/09/2011 06:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. VNC was *specifically* designed to be trivial to implement at
> both ends.
And here I was thinking it was designed to, you know, allow you to
remote control things. Because there aren't any other cross-platform
solutions for doing that.
> Except you aren't the person who designed VNC. You're the person who
> should be using RDP or maybe X-Windows, or NeWS, or any of the other
> dozens of remote graphics solutions.
It's news to me that "dozens of remote graphics solutions" exist. It's
certainly news to me that any of them work on more than one platform.
> Ask the guys who wrote VNC, which runs in a web browser too, you know.
In what universe is that useful?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
