Recent Posts
Good news, everyone! Futurama icons that look like disembodied figuring heads!-Deozaan (February 06, 2013, 12:48 PM)
I knew about that - my point was more along the lines of if you're not getting the full support package directly from the vendor, how much value do you get from CentOS vs. "something else"? Most people I've heard running RHEL isn't so much because of RHEL itself, but forDoes having "enterprise" in the name make it any better, though?It does when it's a 'free' rebuild of RHEL.-f0dder (February 06, 2013, 07:47 AM)
And commercial support for CentOS has been available for some time.-40hz (February 06, 2013, 07:55 AM)
Of course if you really had a big pair, you could also do a complete custom solution based on Arch. That would muy Macho and good for serious bragging rights come next Friday over pizza with the geeks!...and a "thanks for your time, you can go find a new job now" notice if you did it in an enterprise-40hz (February 06, 2013, 07:55 AM)
).I'd be more inclined to stick with CentOS or something similar. Not exactly lightweight. But it was designed for things you want to do. All the security and stability issues were taken into consideration when they built it. It is a server distro. And it is intended for enterprise.Does having "enterprise" in the name make it any better, though? Considering that it's community-driven and doesn't have commercial support?-40hz (February 06, 2013, 07:36 AM)
So the question remains, what would be the best/most ideal light weight flavor of Linux/Unix to try labing this with? I want to be sure I can get it to work before suggesting anything.Debian? There's probably more light-weight distros around, but Debian is known for being stability nuts... that also does mean you won't get bleeding edge updated versions of software in the repositories, but do you want to run corporate infrastructure on bleeding-edge?-Stoic Joker (February 06, 2013, 06:59 AM)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I had assumed that since UEFI was a replacement for BIOS, it was a similar implementation, and I saw NOTHING in all myBIOS is software as wellrandom web surfingresearch that suggested anything else.-Edvard (February 05, 2013, 07:58 PM)
But while we're on the subject, if UEFI is a software thing, can it be replaced with something less nefarious? My mention of TianoCore/Coreboot was the only things I could find that was insinuated as any sort of a replacement.Theoretically, yes - problem is that motherboard vendors only ship a full package with the CPU+chipset initialization, config menu and BIOS/UEFI booting, they don't ship just initialization + config menu. This means that any alternative project needs to implement every from scratch, and goot luck getting your hands on detailed chipset specifications.-Edvard (February 05, 2013, 07:58 PM)
Well, it works both ways in Trout, for me. I am a little behind on the updates (1.0.4 build 93), if that makes any difference.Could you try the most recent version? If that still works, could you try using a hex editor (HxD is pretty nice if you don't have on lying around) to overwrite the "WAVE" header string with something else, and see if it still works? Also, is this a freshly re-downloaded version of Define.wav, or have you had it open in any other application after changing extension to .mp3?-app103 (February 05, 2013, 11:56 PM)
I had no troubles getting Trout to play it as MP3.Doesn't work for me, neither with .wav nor .mp3 extension (trout v1.0.6). With .mp3 extension, it does seem to try to parse it as mp3 rather than wav (given that bitrate, sample, channels and length are all wrong), the specs for the .wav version look sane - but can obviously not be played since I don't have the codec installed.-app103 (February 05, 2013, 04:36 PM)
@f0dder -thx for the link. I knew about that one. But AFAIK Microsoft nothing to do with it. And it is a very inelegant hack at best.It's signed by Microsoft. The $99 mentioned in that reply doesn't go to Microsoft (it's for the code signing certificate, and it's my understanding that cash goes to Verisign, not MS).-40hz (February 05, 2013, 04:00 PM)
What most of us were hoping was that any computer owner could elect to permanently disable UEFI/SecureBoot and still have Windows 8 function the same way it does on a non-UEFI machine. That would allow users who wish to dual-boot (or simply not use WIndows at all) to sidestep this entire issue and continue working as they did before.Dunno if there's anything in Win8 that (currently!) doesn't work if Secure Boot is disabled - one could expect potential DRM nastyness. But as long as UEFI implementations allow you to do your own key management, and there's alternate solutions like the Shim loader, there's no need to panic.-40hz (February 05, 2013, 04:00 PM)
Well, I haven't dug into the issue, but the H-Online article says "[...]it appears to be caused by a kernel driver for Samsung laptops." - I take it that "kernel" means "Linux kernel", otherwise it should've been "firmware driver" or "UEFI driver". Also, firmware isn't exactly userlandOr blame the linux kernel driver developer?Nope. Cardinal rule of the kernal team is: you do not ever break userland. The changes that resulted in the bricking were not made by them. I put the responsibility squarely on the manufacturer's shoulders.-f0dder (February 05, 2013, 10:16 AM)-40hz (February 05, 2013, 02:48 PM)
Sure, here you goMicrosoft already signed the Shim that will allow you to boot anything-f0dder (February 05, 2013, 10:16 AM)
News to me. Hadn't seen that they had. If so, I'm a much happier camper. Could you post a link?-40hz (February 05, 2013, 02:48 PM)
But by the same token, Microsoft has a long and documented track record of breaking agreements and engaging in exceedingly aggressive and willfully deceptive business practices. Whenever they think they can get away with something, more often than not, they'll try to do so.A mix of all three, I'd say - hence why I think we should be on the watch, and remain skeptic. But it helps noone to spread FUD, which some people are doing (not pointing fingers here at DoCo, but there's craploads of incorrect (dis)information out there on the interwebs).
Is knowing that about them being paranoid, cynical - or simply realistic?-40hz (February 05, 2013, 02:48 PM)
Note: in this case, they did use a much larger sensor - disadvantage there being that the phone is a lot thicker because the lens has to be further from a larger sensor.Those results aren't really comparable, then-tomos (February 05, 2013, 02:34 PM)
The main advantage of more MP's with final image @5mp is the zoom capability.Ho humm - digital zooming. I've honestly never really seen good results from that - and if one of the marketing pitches is "we use the insane mpix to resize down to acceptable quality and doing noise filtering stuff", doesn't that imply your image will get noisier and noisier the more you zoom?-tomos (February 05, 2013, 02:34 PM)
My Netgear CG3000 gateway doesn't tell how much is coming or going.Hm, you have no way to logon to the router? (Wouldn't be surprised if TDC or one of their subcompanies locked down the router... they definitely do it for business lines, and tend to insist on DKK800 to make adjustments-Curt (February 05, 2013, 10:47 AM)
).All those MPs are used to increase the quality of a lower resolution image (artifacts and noise can apparently be reduced a lot via averaging).Wouldn't it be better to go for a lower mpix input and get a lot less noise to begin with? I'm not much into the tech behind, but I had the impression that the more mpix you try to squeeze out of a (physically too small) CCD, the more noise you get?-tomos (February 04, 2013, 10:07 AM)
It's been soooooo long ago. I encoded these years ago, back in the W95 days. The reason I'm thinking it was already a codec in Windows is because I used sndrec.exe to encode, which is the original default .wav sound player.That must've been because you installed the fraunhofer (aka l3enc) codec - and a commercial version, at that? Can't remember which Windows version introduced MP3 codec support, but iirc it was decode-only. For some reason, I don't have sndrec32 on any of my Windows VMs, so I can't check out if it let you specify codec on save.-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 04:50 PM)
I renamed the file to .mp3 and Windows Media Player won't play it, so I don't know what you did.It has a WAVE header - some programs would try to interpret that and ignore the file extension (and then fail when you don't have the specified codec installed). Other will interpret as mp3, but will expect the file to start with an MP3 frame (or an ID3 tag).-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 04:50 PM)
During the period, this codec would make much smaller files than the normal .mp3, even at the same bitrate.Given the same bitrate and method (which was Constant Bit Rate back in those days), that's simply impossible. Back in the early days (after the very early days, when it was the only codec around), the Fraunhofer codec had better quality than competing codecs, at least at lower bitrates. But constant bitrate means constant bitrate - same size, but possibly difference in quality, depending on psychoacoustics.-Tinman57 (February 03, 2013, 04:50 PM)
A VOIP phone from a cable provider may also count toward your data total (find out from your provider), but since it connects through a separate modem, will not be counted by your router, or any device inserted between it and the modem.And what about streaming TV? I wonder if YouSee includes that in their monthly stats... considering they're a daughter company of the extremely greedy monopolistic TDC, I wouldn't be surprised.-xtabber (February 05, 2013, 08:37 AM)
POST POST POST~!OK, then - nothing tooooo bad, but you can remove it if you feel it's embarassing, Stephen-Renegade (February 03, 2013, 10:36 AM)
I've got some funny irc logsI don't remember posting this lmao! Was rather....drunk...last night
-Stephen66515 (February 03, 2013, 09:16 AM)
I am usually very satisfied with my Internet Supplier; the company is handling my land-line Telephone, my Televison, my Internet, my music file collection, and (for a while) my online backup.TDC, eh?-Curt (February 03, 2013, 06:56 AM)
is the online router scan enough if you're using a stand-alone machine?Seems like they do a server-side check to your WAN IP - so you'll get to see whether your router is exploitable from the intarwebs (which is what really matters), but you won't get notified about other devices on your LAN.
http://upnp-check.rapid7.com/-tomos (February 03, 2013, 07:26 AM)
You missed Opera so you actualy get the worst of the 3 xDMeh.-Stephen66515 (February 02, 2013, 10:16 PM)
