topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday November 11, 2025, 4:00 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26next
401
Can't speak for all but I've noticed a recent tendency on my machines for flv to lockup or misload in Firefox (under Linux) when watching YouTube vids - sometimes to the point where the only alternative was to download the vid and watch it with VLC. 

But I suspect thats likely more a YT or FF issue.

Other than that, Flash videos seem to work just fine.


I think in my case I'm noticing it most of the time with ESPN and youtube.

ESPN is definitely one of the worst Flash offenders IME. As much video as they serve it's actually all the other Flash crap (from ooyala and akamai IIRC) that probably causes the problems. The content itself doesn't account for most of the Flash being used as far as I can tell. Go to ESPN.com with a fresh, untrained NoScript install and you can spend all day tweaking settings without ever seeing more than a frame of any given video.

And of course YouTube is Google + video. Nuff said.
402
but in today's world it's a solution in need of a problem.

Actually, I think that's backwards.

but in today's world it's a solution problem in need of a problem solution.

There... much better.  ;D

That's a fair point. It's certainly evolved into that. :)

Of course the real point is Flash was developed to fill in gaps in web standards that simply don't exist any more. In fact I imagine part of the reason it seems more kludgy as it continues to mature (ie decay) is trying to cram the current standards into Flash.

There's no need for Flash Video. Flash already has (substandard) H.264 support. If there was a need it would be on YouTube but they're owned by Google who also bought On2, the company that actually created FLV. The predominant use for Flash nowadays is more resistant (and persistent) tracking cookies.

In fact now that I think about it the closest parallel would probably be the Ask Toolbar. It used to be a product with some consumer purpose but now it's a nuisance at best.
403
Well I definitely can't speak for FF 24 since I almost always wait at least a week or 2 before updating to a new version. Too many plugins that could potentially stop working.
404
Does that help at all?

I'll have to look closer when I have some time but at first glance it appears to be exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks!
405
Flash was a useful technology for a good long time (in computer years anyway) but in today's world it's a solution in need of a problem. If not for the legacy install base on the server side it would have disappeared already.

As to superboyac's problem, it sounds like there's some kind of system issue involved and not just Flash itself. I haven't noticed it crashing any more than usual over the last few months - sometimes more often when a bad update comes out but nothing I'm not used to seeing from time to time. The fact that it happens on Chrome and Firefox both is suspicious because (unless you manually change it) Chrome uses its own Flash install which I believe is customized somewhat for Chrome.

It's possible there's some kind of video driver issue involved so the first thing I'd do is check for updates and maybe even uninstall/reinstall if you have the most current driver. If it's an ATI card I'd recommend using their Driver Autodetect utility and also the Uninstall program to thoroughly clean out the old driver before installing a new (or the same) one.

I'm less familiar (as in not really at all anymore) with Nvidia's drivers. If nothing else I imagine they at least have some type of autodetect option on their website if not a downloadable client like ATI. Hopefully they have an uninstaller too - or barring that hopefully you're using uninstall software that monitors installer activity and can do the cleaning for you.
406
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 16, 2013, 04:50 AM »
Hmmm...one minor complication...I need a Windows Server flavored OS to create a domain.  So I need to make a new machine?  Or run one on a VM?

Yes and no. The Hyper-V host machine should never be a member of the domain it's hosting. This is because it should be a dedicated (to Hyper-V hosting) box (e.g. no AD), and therefore it can't login and authenticate to a domain controller that isn't running yet. So you either run the Hyper-V server(s) in a workgroup, or (if you need to use high-end stuff like Live Migration) in a separate domain.

I currently have 3 physical servers in the rack at the office. The two Hyper-V servers are in a completely separate domain from the production systems, and authenticate to a DC that runs as a VM on the third server which is basically an orphan. The production systems consist of 20 virtual servers for load balancing and redundancy and are spread across the two physical servers.

Having the DC start first is easy enough if the usual trifecta (AD, DNS, DHCP) is the only thing running on the VM, and the other systems are set to wait a minute or two before booting.

Your desire for ultra flexible drive usage may complicate this a bit as added/removed drives would need to sort out which system (physical/virtual/both) they were going to be accessible to.

Or run two DCs, one physical on cheapo hardware to allow the main host system (and guests) to boot cleanly, and one virtual to keep the domain intact in case the budget physical box decides to grenade some day down the road.

Warning: Virtualization is highly addictive!!

I highly recommend the 2 DC setup whenever possible. If a Windows workstation can't reach it's domain controller at the wrong time it can cause all kinds of headaches.

Also I'll second the addictiveness of VMs. As long as you have the horsepower to run them they can simplify so many things. The more functions you're serving from a single server box, the more they simplify your life - but only after all the time you spend experimenting with them.
407
Since mouser wasn't sure about this when I asked him earlier I'll add it to this thread instead.

Does anyone know if it's possible to call functions from a fscript plugin script via a html document rendered in FARR? My immediate inclination is to think it's not but that's not really even an educated guess. I honestly don't understand enough about how fscript works to really wrap my brain around the question.
408
Living Room / Re: Core Internet Institutions Abandon US Government
« Last post by Vurbal on October 16, 2013, 01:59 AM »
I think you're being a little too easy on them but I'm not sure you could be harsh enough without sucking the Internet into the resulting singularity of anger and malice.  ;)

What can I say? I'm just a big softie~! 8) ;D

I don't know about softie but I knew you would appreciate the headline on that article. Sadly that's the sort of thing that doesn't attract the general public like it should but thankfully it gives me an excuse to let my snark flag fly.
409
Living Room / Re: Core Internet Institutions Abandon US Government
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 10:19 PM »
hating the ITU

What you should be asking is whether it's time to put the ITU out to pasture.

Yes. Unceremoniously. Bullet to the back of the head. Or in the face. Or maybe bludgeoned with a shovel so as to not waste ammunition. In the back fields. Where the stench of the rotting carcass won't bother anyone. And the wildlife can have a free meal. Don't use the shovel to dig a hole - there are hungry animals to be fed. See? It's charity! ;D :P 8)

I think you're being a little too easy on them but I'm not sure you could be harsh enough without sucking the Internet into the resulting singularity of anger and malice.  ;)
410
Living Room / Re: Core Internet Institutions Abandon US Government
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 09:59 PM »
The Tech Dirt article has one mention of the ITU in passing. THOSE are some of the people that have no businesses whatsoever being anywhere near any of this. They are dangerous. No good can come from them having ANY involvement. Even for them to be spectators is too much. Did I mention I loathe the ITU? ;)

You'd be hard pressed to find anything to generate more consensus than hating the ITU. Last year they managed to get basically every politician in the nominally free world holding hands and singing Kumbayah. When the Democrat in the White House is in complete agreement with the Republicans in Congress who are marching in lock step with pretty much every elected official in every country that's even marginally our ally you know the people who brought them together are some world class scumbags.
411
Activation/License/Language Help / Re: Universal License Key
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 09:51 PM »
Yahoo sometimes decides not to deliver our emails for reasons that only yahoo knows.. 

That's a very generous interpretation on your part. If there's one thing Yahoo is still the leader in it's not knowing whatever they obviously should.  :P
412
Leopards changing their spots? I'm not so easily swayed.

I don't really see it as changing his spots. More like adjusting his aim for more grandiose goals. You can be the most brilliant business man of a generation, Thomas Watson Sr. for example, and 5 years after you've left your corporate leadership position you're barely even a footnote.

I'm sure Gates realizes his former glory at MS is no more significant than the company is at any given point in time. But build a foundation that lasts for a century or 2 and you're Somebody. You don't take the path or make it as far as he has if that isn't important to you.

And yeah, everything has a price but that's true whether you're getting it from Bill Gates or Ghandi. That's just called Tuesday.
413
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 09:23 PM »
Hmmm...one minor complication...I need a Windows Server flavored OS to create a domain.  So I need to make a new machine?  Or run one on a VM?

Well it you're just testing a VM is never (okay rarely) a bad idea.

Something else worth thinking about, assuming you're not planning to run any software or services that plugin to Active Directory anyway, is skipping the Windows domain and going with some type of Linux server and OpenLDAP. Active Directory is (mostly) just the Microsoft implementation of LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) although it is admittedly the simplest in terms of just plugging things in (users, computers, email software, etc,...) and just having them work with little or no effort.

If you really wanted to you could even setup an OpenLDAP server on Windows though there aren't many situations where that makes a lot of sense if you're installing it to a machine running Windows Server. Regardless of how much I badmouth MS and Windows, if not for some particulars of my network like the antique server (dual PIII 900MHz) and a home version of Windows on my primary desktop I'd use my copy of Server 2003 SBS to setup an AD domain without any hesitation.
414
Here in the US we have a rich tradition of robber barons who decide at some point in their life to become someone important in a historical sense and that the best way to do that is public service on a scale only they can accomplish.

Take Andrew Carnegie for example. His steel business was perhaps an order of magnitude worse than Microsoft ever was when it comes to underhanded dealings with everyone from the public to his own employees. But the impact of that pales in comparison to his generous donations to build more than 2,000 public libraries, improve colleges, and even today in funding public television programming. Whatever evil he may have perpetrated during his business career are nothing compared to that.

Based on Gates' philanthropic undertakings over the last few years I think it's clear that's his goal and I say good for him.
415
Living Room / Re: Pirates Jump on “The Walking Dead” Despite Legal Options
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 06:04 PM »
So why not just use the delivery system people seem to rather obviously prefer instead of trying to handle the traffic spicks and bandwidth hits themselves?

Exactly. "Legal options" is more than a little misleading. My legal option is to subscribe to a pay TV service which isn't going to happen. Not that I care about The Walking Dead but I'm a huge NFL fan and I won't subscribe even knowing it's guaranteed I'll miss out on at least 1 Chicago Bears game - usually more like 2-3.

Personally I've taken the attitude that if you refuse to provide your programming in a manner consistent with what I'm willing to do to consume it you didn't want me to see it anyway.
416
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 03:42 PM »
While not related to permissions per se, that makes it a real PITA to add a network location to a library. That may even be the point although that would be stupid. Especially since you can get around it by creating a regular folder, adding it to a library, then deleting the folder and creating a symlink with the same name. Now the target of the symlink, network location or not, is in the library and can be accessed accordingly.

It's the indexing that queers the deal there. If you make the folder available offline, it adds to a library just fine because the system will then be able to index locally via the CSC.

Just distracted mostly. I can only focus on one thing at a time and that's rounding up.  :o
417
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 15, 2013, 01:00 PM »
Replacing a DC is no problem really, just build a fresh server and run dcpromo to make the new one and then dcpromo the old one to remove it.  Just make sure to have DNS installed on the new box before promotion and point it to the old one for DNS, then when the new DC is happy (always seems to take an extra reboot for me) point everything to it for DNS instead before decommissioning the old one.  

So now you've got to understand DNS, too, including how to properly configure your own domain, and how this interrelates with ActiveDirectory -- it's not as easy as just pointing to your ISP's DNS. And this is the part that I was never able to get to work properly (this may have been complicated by the fact that I own my own domain name as well, I use that for my email address, so I needed to be able to get name resolution to hosting provider's mail server that has my domain name).

I actually thought NT4 domains were simpler. Back then, you had a PDC and some set of BDCs, and it was perfectly clear which was which. So to replace an old PDC, you'd just bring up a new BDC, get him acquainted with the old PDC, and then promote him.

I was clearly too tired when I wrote that - however when you're accessing via a share the 2 permissions aren't entirely separate - it's the most restrictive of the 2 that applies - more like a logical AND. The least restrictive part is when you have 2 sets of either Sharing or NTFS permissions like from your user and group or multiple groups.

The inheritance part is definitely where it can get particularly tricky, at least WRT non-system folders. That's one area where I find Posix ACLs vastly superior since you can change the inheritance mask (inherited acl) for a single user or group without blocking inheritance altogether.

Since my wife and kids use my computer from time to time I always start with extremely restrictive NTFS permissions on the root of my second hard drive and have a User folder where each of them has their own folder with full access. Then another folder off the root they all have most permissions (not Delete or Change Permissions) and a Temp folder off the root where everyone gets full control of the contents but not the folder itself.

The other oddball that can throw a monkey wrench into the works is using reparse points. Junction points and symlinks have separate permissions from the original file or folder and inheritance is based on where the junction or link is, not the file system object it references. So, for example, you can grant Write access to a folder under Program Files without changing the permissions or inheritance of the original. Just create a symlink to the folder somewhere else and it inherits from the path where the junction or symlink is located.

But not always. Depending on the Windows API call used a reparse point may be dereferenced and the context of the target object used instead. To make matters even more complicated junction points can get treated differently than symlinks in those cases. The easiest way to see that in action is to put them into Libraries. If you put a symlink in a Windows Library it gets dereferenced and the original location is actually added. If you put a junction point it gets added like any other folder.

While not related to permissions per se, that makes it a real PITA to add a network location to a library. That may even be the point although that would be stupid. Especially since you can get around it by creating a regular folder, adding it to a library, then deleting the folder and creating a symlink with the same name. Now the target of the symlink, network location or not, is in the library and can be accessed accordingly.
418
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 14, 2013, 08:41 PM »
The top one is the New version of (XP's) Simple File Sharing. So it's trying to combine file and share permissions into one thing.

So that's what "simple file sharing" is doing? I have to admit that I always found it confusing -- NOT simple -- and so have avoided it since it came out.

When the Microsoft terminology says simple you should read that as simpleton. As in the point is making it so even a simpleton (ie someone whose entire qualification to be a sysadmin is Microsoft's Dick and Jane certification manuals) can do it. To be honest the primary point is to make it seem like you don't need an experienced administrator because experience costs a lot more money than any server.

Whether you're running Windows or anything else that's simply not the case. The more you know, the more you are likely to deviate in various ways from the Microsoft roadmap (with NT 4 that included the sage advice to put your SQL Server in your DMZ because it didn't play well with IIS) and do things just as seriously and professionally as with any other system.

The fundamentals haven't really changed since before anyone here got into the profession. Once you figure out the right questions the answers become pretty easy to come by.

Domains are easier IMHO.

They're not hard to set up per se. Hit the option to use a domain during the server setup and it's done. Windows server sets up the domain controller (plus baseline security) and handles all the heavy lifting for you.

After that you just have to understand what a domain is (and follow a few commonsense guidelines when you create groups and assign permissions) and you're set to go. You can get as complicated, or keep it as simple, as you like/need to. A good book plus a few quality weeks of playing with, screwing up, and reinstalling will teach you enough to successfully use one in a home or soho setting. Enterprise use is another matter as CUW mentions above. But for small simple networks with one DC, Windows Server is about as easy as it gets. 

FWIW, a lot of what seems fussy or arbitrary in the Windows desktop suddenly makes a great deal of sense once wedded to a Windows server. In many respects you don't realize the full power of Microsoft's desktop until you link it to one of their servers.



I can't disagree with any of that, once again with the stipulation that the key is understanding the concepts and fundamentals going in. Once you've got that down all the tools are there for relatively straight forward implementation.
419
General Software Discussion / Re: Windows Networking, help me understand.
« Last post by Vurbal on October 14, 2013, 06:07 PM »
The "simple" (and not entirely functional) version goes like this. You have 2 sets of permissions:

1. NTFS (file system) permissions which are the more granular of the 2.

2. Share permissions which are cruder.

When you connect to a share in theory the 2 sets of permissions are combined (sort of a logical OR) and you get whichever rights are greatest. The exception is No Access which trumps everything. However since you have Read permission we can safely rule that out.

In addition to that sometimes Windows will prevent you from doing anything but reading a file (or listing a directory) if you are not the owner - even if you definitely have all the requisite permissions. Assuming you're talking about data folders. This applies even when you're just dealing with local (NTFS) permissions.

Oh yeah, and if you're dealing with a domain setup instead that potentially opens up a whole other can of WTF was Microsoft thinking?
Finally if UAC is turned off (all the way off as opposed to the lowest standard level) on the computer you're accessing the share from you will be limited to read access. If you want to execute a file you will have to copy it to a local drive. I've had that just happen all of a sudden when rebooting after installing a Windows update.
420
LaunchBar Commander / Re: Show us your LaunchBar Commander Screenshots
« Last post by Vurbal on October 09, 2013, 06:44 PM »
I'm glad to hear others are getting some use out of my months of research. And I intend to do some specific videos and probably articles as well talking about the various tools I've found and adopted or seriously considered. I think of it as the upgrade Windows never gets in place of the shiny coat of paint that passes for an upgrade at Microsoft.
421
LaunchBar Commander / Re: Show us your LaunchBar Commander Screenshots
« Last post by Vurbal on October 09, 2013, 03:59 AM »
These 2 videos should give you a better idea of that launchbar's internal workings and how it's integrated into Windows. I've intentionally made them unlisted and disabled embedding. I'm perfectly happy with anybody who sees them here watching but they'll be coming down once I get something more professional up on AfterDawn's YouTube channel. Even if for some reason you find them interesting enough to tell your friends (or perhaps your enemies) please hold off until the new videos are done.

In case you haven't been exposed to my particular brand of long windedness I'll warn you now that they total about 21 minutes between them. They're actually a single video I split at about the halfway point to avoid dealing with Google's verification process for uploading anything longer than 15 minutes.

Part 1:

http://youtu.be/g9f0bOd7fvg


Part 2:

http://youtu.be/a6VKX1E1jqY
422
LaunchBar Commander / Re: Show us your LaunchBar Commander Screenshots
« Last post by Vurbal on October 09, 2013, 03:50 AM »
I promised mouser I would get some screenshots uploaded so it's time to make good on my threat promise. I've basically made LBC the lynchpin of an entire UI makeover for Windows 7 I've been working on for several months now. It's hard to see what's going on from the screenshots so I actually threw together a video describing it in more detail and showing how some of the bits on the bar were created / are used.

As with nearly everything I abused my tools until they gave me the results I wanted. Also, I left the screenshots at full resolution (1920x1080) so if you want a good look you'll probably have to download them.

Launchbar.png

CommandMenu.png

InterfaceMenu.png

SystemMenu.png

FileMenu.png

ProgramsMenu.png

NetworkMenu.png

ImagesMenu.png

AudioMenu.png

HelpMenu.png

[attachthumb=]

423
Living Room / Re: Am I the only person bothered by the differences in Free?
« Last post by Vurbal on October 09, 2013, 01:10 AM »
Richard Stallman deserves a lot of credit for what he's done, particularly PR-wise, WRT the development landscape. I actually disagree somewhat with the use of the word free in this case, but that's pure pedantry. Not at all coincidentally that's why people use the word freedom when they're actually referring to liberty which is similar and related but not the same thing. In fact it's completely sensible that the word free would be used to describe open even if it's technically incorrect.

On a side note a friend of mine told me a great story about his first contact with Richard Stallman - maybe his only contact. The friend was a brilliant developer I grew up with named Michael Graff. Back in the 90s he was responsible for what was probably the first really modern (worldwide, Internet-based) distributed cracking project which led to the factoring of RSA-129. It wasn't actually a big deal to be able to do it by that time but because the standard dated back to the 70s there was a nice little award ceremony for his team in New York City. A few days before the ceremony he got a call from Stallman basically demanding that he use the event as a bully pulpit to make a strong statement about free software.

Now Mike has nothing against free software. At that time he was already a key developer for NetBSD (as in commit access level) and not long afterward he designed, implemented, and administered the first PGP keyserver. However he also understood the opportunity this award presented for launching his career when he got out of college shortly afterward. When he explained that Stallman apparently threatened to organize some sort of demonstration to coincide with the award - probably an empty threat he hoped would scare a college kid.

I don't remember where the ceremony was held, but I do remember Mike said it was a very tall building and that he told Stallman if he saw him that day he would throw him off the roof.

As to the question of releasing source code, I look at it like this. Software development is essentially not all that different from any other creative endeavor. At the end of the day it's every bit as personal and every bit as much a part of you as a painting, book, song, or whatever is to its creator. You are under no obligation to share any part of that process you aren't inclined to share with the rest of the world for whatever reason.

I love that people do share. I love the philosophy of open [fill in the blank]. I follow it personally and have no intention of stopping. But it's asinine to hold it against somebody that they choose not to go that route. It's a personal choice and frankly none of anybody else's damn business.
424
General Software Discussion / Re: self-hosted, high quality video podcast. How?
« Last post by Vurbal on October 08, 2013, 10:10 PM »
Here's a question:
For that video content delivery service, the maximum video bitrate in the pricing calculator is 3072 kbps.  Now, from what I understand, 1080p streaming requires at least 10Mbps.  I'm just going strictly by the bytes per second of video for that resolution.  SO I'm not understanding something about compression as it relates to streaming.  How can a company deliver 1080p with just 3Mbps?  But ultimately, I want to know how the kbps that I am paying for ends up looking like.  So...

How many kbps do I need to pay for to get:
480p?
720p?
1080p?

because obviously it's not the same as the kbps calculated for a normal 1080p file, which is a lot more than most isp's even provide residentially, yet all these people are able to stream 720p and 1080p.

I don't have time to answer with anything approaching the level of detail this discussion deserves ATM so for the moment I'll be shockingly brief.  :o

As long as there isn't a lot of motion to encode and you don't have to meet a standard like Blu-ray with severe restrictions on GOP length you can actually encode extremely high quality 1080p H.264 at extremely low bitrates. Screen captures from normal computer activity, typically the lowest complexity video you'll run across, can actually end up with a lower bitrate than CD Audio. Presumably you're talking about regular live video (talking heads or the like) which would be less compressible but if you use a good camera still not horrible.

The really tricky part is the streaming bit because it's a lot trickier than encoding for physical media. Essentially it comes down mostly to buffer calculations and understanding the streams and server technology involved. I recommend a trip over to the Doom9 forums where you can pick the brains of some of the best minds in digital video.

http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77
425
Living Room / Re: When will the trademark madness ceace
« Last post by Vurbal on October 02, 2013, 10:09 AM »
If they're smart, they'll let Techdirt know about this nonsense.

And/or Popehat.
Pages: prev1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 26next