Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Safari? No. Try the default Android browser. (Score 2) 306 306

He didn't say the Android Browser, he said the default Android browser.
In newer versions of Android, you don't get the old Android stock browser. It was the default in the past, but hasn't been so for a long time now, and isn't even available unless you run hacks to install it and its dependencies.

Comment: Re:Already covered over at Hacker News (Score 2) 306 306

You and I must have read a different Hacker News thread because the opinions seemed pretty divided in both directions.

That is consistent with trying to balance a needle on its tip.

But Betteridge's Law of Headlines has already answered the question.
The problem is in the very premise. Safari never had anything remotely similar to IEs marketshare. Nor the corporate glue. It's silly to even try to compare what happes with the two over time.
IE was a major enabler and roadblock. Safari was never significant enough to even stub your toe on.

Safari

Is Safari the New Internet Explorer? 306 306

An anonymous reader writes: Software developer Nolan Lawson says Apple's Safari has taken the place of Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the major browser that lags behind all the others. This comes shortly after the Edge Conference, where major players in web technologies got together to discuss the state of the industry and what's ahead. Lawson says Mozilla, Google, Opera, and Microsoft were all in attendance and willing to talk — but not Apple.

"It's hard to get insight into why Apple is behaving this way. They never send anyone to web conferences, their Surfin' Safari blog is a shadow of its former self, and nobody knows what the next version of Safari will contain until that year's WWDC. In a sense, Apple is like Santa Claus, descending yearly to give us some much-anticipated presents, with no forewarning about which of our wishes he'll grant this year. And frankly, the presents have been getting smaller and smaller lately."

He argues, "At this point, we in the web community need to come to terms with the fact that Safari has become the new IE. Microsoft is repentant these days, Google is pushing the web as far as it can go, and Mozilla is still being Mozilla. Apple is really the one singer in that barbershop quartet hitting all the sour notes, and it's time we start talking about it openly instead of tiptoeing around it like we're going to hurt somebody's feelings."

Comment: Re:What plan? (Score 1) 88 88

Rosetta (the craft carrying Philae) took ten years to get there, and required a flyby of Mars and Lutetia to get its vectors and speed right.

And is so small that it's like a fly landing on a townhouse. What's the fly supposed to do? Ask the townhouse to move over?

Comment: Re:What plan? (Score 2) 88 88

Something meant to put men on Mars MIGHT be suitable. Or not, depending on the orbit of the particular NEO that turns out to be a threat.

I'd think it likely wouldn't be enough, because a NEO won't have the mass of Mars which we'd use to brake the craft once there. Unless we were sending an impact missile, it might take a lot of time and planning to get there. Rosetta took 10 years and a flyby of Mars in order to match up with a comet.

Comment: Re:What plan? (Score 1) 88 88

I meant all the various giant members of what's commonly/historically known as reptilia, including (but not limited to) archosaurs like dinosaurs, pterosaurs and many of the larger/landbound members of crocodilia and aves (birds).

If you're huge, at least somewhat ectothermic, and can't easily migrate, climate change won't be your friend, and evolution will eventually tally the score as "extinct".
Hm... I wonder whether that applies to Americans too...

Comment: Re:Roads (Score 1) 88 88

I would be much happier if we could sustain concern over our infrastructure like roads and bridges and forget about something that will probably never happen in our lifetimes or our great grand children's lifetimes.

Your great-grandchildren probably won't care about your roads and bridges either, other than the cost of repairing them. These days, they're not built like Roman roads and bridges, and don't last for generations.

Comment: Re:What plan? (Score 4, Insightful) 88 88

A plan to save us from NEOs would require some ability to actually reach an NEO before it hit.

Not necessarily. We could find a way to jump some of us aside, or heat up one side of it with lasers from afar, or burrow until the crisis is over, or have congress declare it a non-problem, or have religious people pray for a miracle.

I think the simplest solution is the better one. Let them hit. Evolution will take care of the aftermath. It already has weeded out large landbound reptiles that can't take the heat (or the cold) due to meteor strikes. If the Yucatan big boy hadn't hit, there might have been scaly beings in charge now. Other than lawyers, I mean.

Comment: Re:The fascination (Score 2) 81 81

I don't think you're aware of just how power frugal the PIII is. The TDP is 27.9W, which is far less than most laptop CPUs burn these days. And given that the average load is in the 0.01 range, it uses far less. It has run fanless since 2003. Energy is not the issue here.

But a point is the reliability of larger die fabs. Can a Raspberry Pi be reasonably expected to run for 10+ years?
Also, the Pi comes with a single 10/100 Ethernet port, running on a CPU-bottlenecked USB 2.0 bus. Just dealing with a normal amount of packets puts a considerable load on the SoC CPU. And no running backups or NFS mounts at GbE speeds.

Don't get me wrong, the Pi was a fabulous little board, but it was never designed for 24/7 network related operations.
And it's certainly not a replacement for a system that doesn't need replacement.

Comment: Re:The fascination (Score 1) 81 81

I dunno either, but my main home server is a PIII, running primary dns, dhcp, smtp and a few other services, and average load in the 0.01 range. It's been running pretty much non-stop since 2003.

There's really no need to upgrade just to upgrade, if the box can do its job without breaking a sweat and can be kept patched up to date.

If PIII machines were available and could run the software, why not?

Comment: Re:Because titan has ice, pluto isn't even a plane (Score 1) 98 98

Pluto is a planet. In fact it is more of a planet than Mercury or Venus are, because unlike them it has its own satellite that orbits it (Sharon).

Your language betrays you, Galilee.
It's Charon, which is pronounced with a hard k. The alternative spelling for the ferryman of Hades is Kharon.

Comment: Re:No support for dynamic address assignment?!? (Score 1) 287 287

*sigh* No it doesn't. A unicast reply needs a destination MAC, either the end client or a relay agent. A broadcast reply, however, DOES. NOT.

*sigh* This is wrong on so many levels.

1: The DHCP protocol mandates that every packet contains the hardware address (for ethernet, the MAC address) in the chaddr field.

2: It's the client's call to DHCP servers that discloses the client's MAC address. What replies do is irrelevant.

3: Even if that weren't the case, all packets including replies still contains the client's hardware address in the chaddr field. Without it, bootp dhcp relays would not work, as they do not parse the data segment of the dhcp packages and would not know what the client identifier key is set to.

4: Even if that weren't the case, the DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK and DHCPNAK packets from the server to the client are almost always unicast. No dhcp client in use today will set the broadcast flag on its DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST messages - the RFC is pretty clear that only clients that cannot receive unicast replies should set the broadcast bit, all others should clear it. You may find an old Sun box from the 1990s with a bootp client that needs to use broadcasts exclusively before its network stack comes up, but that corner case is so small that it can be ignored for this purpose. And even then, the client must fill in the chaddr field, and the server leave it as is in replies.

But to sum it up, yes, you tell the DHCP server your MAC address.

And modern DHCP servers use that information too, not just the client uid. For one thing, combined with turning off broadcast replies, it allows for restrictions on how many IP addresses can be given to any client (a fairly common attack back when was to keep on requesting and accepting addresses, exhausting the pool).

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Working...