Recent Posts
Will we ever see another new OS in the next 25 years?Nope, and this is a pretty good reason to bash linux... we could have had a decent alternative to Windows if all those man-hours had been used on something proper, rather than what began as a minix offspring >_<-zridling (June 08, 2010, 03:31 PM)
- maybe version 8.0 was called ME-DOS ???It might have been included in WinMe - I never used that Windows version much... funny that the sidebar on the MS-DOS wiki article says latest version is 8.0, whereas the "History" in the article doesn't mention later than 7-Curt (June 07, 2010, 11:32 AM)
They talked about using MS-DOS for OS/2, after Me on MS-DOS, but gave it up for 2000 on NT.Actually DOS was shot down much earlier than Win2000 - afaik it has never been part of NT at all; I don't have personal experience with NT versions older than 4.0, though. Win2k=NT5.0, XP=NT5.1, Vista=NT6.0, Win7=NT6.1.-Curt (June 07, 2010, 11:32 AM)
For DKK500, you could get a pretty darn decent dinner, or very good dinner for twoJust out of curiosity, is DKK 500 very much money - or are we talking something like a nice lunch in Aarhus?about US$80, according to google. btw, aren't they supposed to be using the Euro?-40hz (June 07, 2010, 09:05 AM)
(see attachment in previous post)-lanux128 (June 07, 2010, 09:12 AM)
With a recovery price of DKK 500, it's most definitely a quick-format, which is trivial to reconstruct.all you need is a regular Windows format - be sure to do a full format (ie, not ticking the "quick format" checkbox).Note: The Danish company PAD-DATASERVICE claims in their case summaries that they successfully have recovered ALL files from a re-formatted hard-drive. They don't say if it was a 'quick-format' - one will just have to assume and HOPE!-f0dder (June 01, 2010, 05:59 PM)-Curt (June 06, 2010, 06:30 PM)
The last MS-DOS was version 8, produced in year 2000.I thought MS-DOS 7 was the last version? And that 6.22 was the last real version with all the utilities (including qbasic), whereas 7 was a stripped-down version included with some Win9x variant?-Curt (June 04, 2010, 11:45 AM)
Of course NT is build upon MS-DOS, but that doesn't make it MS-DOS, it is still NT.NT has nothing whatsoever to do with MS-DOS. Win9x included DOS and was pretty much a "dos extender on steroids", NT is a truly standalone OS that doesn't depend on DOS.-Curt (June 04, 2010, 11:45 AM)
That research sounds pretty cool, hopefully this will help people with phobias in the future. Tough i wonder if you could pay to erase specific memories in the future would you do it? I dunno.Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind-gexecuter (June 05, 2010, 12:05 PM)
But the Chinese hacks were a different breed altogether, they weren't directed at Windows OS, they were directed at Goggle the company. The only way to protect yourself from such a thing is the use the most secure OS, switching to any other is little more than security through obscurity.As soon as über-targeted social exploits are being performed, "the most secure OS" doesn't really help you that much. Most have at least local privilege escalation exploits, and considering that (afaik) IE6-specific vulnerabilities were used, one would have to assume the attackers had a pretty darn good idea about the target systems...-Eóin (June 01, 2010, 10:07 AM)
OR, i may just put a 64 version on now and treat it as a bit of a trial run - just an experiment. i'll be dual booting back into vista so it's not like i need everything to work perfectly on day one.Good idea giving it a test run to see what your app suite behaves like. Can't recommend dual-booting though, you'll probably end up spending most of the time in the old and well-configured OS.-nudone (June 02, 2010, 04:38 AM)
. And yes, if it's the only harddrive in the system, you'll need to boot either DBAN, the windows installer disc, a linux installer, or whatever.
Otherwise there is emacs and vi(m) of course. These are editors only to those who don't know how to use them. IDEs to those who do.Editors on speed & steroids, yes - IDEs, no. Emacs probably does come close, and I know you can integrate CTAGS with VIM... but full-blown debugging, project building (built-in, not depending on makefiles), refactoring, proper codebase browsing, proper (project-wide) intellisense, ...?-tinjaw (May 31, 2010, 07:21 AM)
IMHO, the best feature of the book is what it leaves out. Overland doesn't get into GUI programming, templates, or the STL. His feeling is those topics add a layer of complexity that goes beyond the scope of a basic introduction to C++ and deserve their own separate books and treatments.GUI programming doesn't belong in any language book, but I hope the guy doesn't entirely avoid STL... going in-depth is not the best approach to an introductory book, but using new/delete instead of std::vector or char* instead of std::string should be rewarded with capital punishment.-40hz (May 29, 2010, 11:26 AM)
I prefer, Electric Cattle-prod decryption...I think the rubber hose method is better - you don't want to risk the neurological damage & amnesia that electric shock can introduce-AMWORLD (May 29, 2010, 06:35 AM)
Is tere any chance to put twofish cipher into fSekrit 1.40 ? AES256 is not that strong than it justu be.Nope, it's outside the scope of fSekrit, which is to stay LEAN_AND_MEAN. I really, really really wouldn't worry about AES-256 not being strong enough... not now, and not in the next umphteen years. If you're in a position where you could be compromised by anybody even remotely likely to be capable of breaking AES-256, I'd worry much more about Rubber-hose cryptanalysis.-kamil929 (May 19, 2010, 01:34 PM)