Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Great. A new excuse for providers to raise pri (Score 2, Insightful) 77

by corychristison (#47535641) Attached to: Compromise Struck On Cellphone Unlocking Bill

Unbundling phones and contracts would be a win. People would see the actual cost of their devices. Unfortunately, the carriers would keep the monthly rates the same, or even raise them.

Up here in Canada, we finally got rid of 3-year contract terms. The carriers raised prices almost the next day. Luckily my contract was only 2 years anyway, and it was worded such that plan/rate will stay the same for the forseeable future, provided I don't get a phone through the carrier (not that I planned to).

It simply boils down to greed at this point. These companies are raking in billions and prices seem to keep going up, with no increase in service or quality. :-/

Comment: Re: Why? (Score 1) 90

by corychristison (#47534709) Attached to: New SSL Server Rules Go Into Effect Nov. 1

Agree with this completely.

Even if the application is only accessible within the private network, there is nothing stopping them from using their external DNS (eg. someapp.bigcorp.tld) and point it at an internal IP, then properly set up an SSL Certificate. But if it is only accessible within the private network, do you really need it wrapped up in SSL at all?

Using poorly configured hostnames only accessible within the network is plain stupid. At the /very least/ set it up on a domain within the network, so it has a suffix identifiable to your network.

Self signed certs are ONLY useful for development environments across networks.

CA signed certs are cheap, typically around $10 for one without the bells and whistles. I personally set up a wildcard certificate for one of my own projects a few months ago. I paid about $75.

Comment: Linux Cgroups (Score 3, Informative) 161

by corychristison (#47492711) Attached to: Linux Needs Resource Management For Complex Workloads

Is this not what Linux Cgroups is for?

From wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cgroups):
cgroups (abbreviated from control groups) is a Linux kernel feature to limit, account, and isolate resource usage (CPU, memory, disk I/O, etc.) of process groups.

From what I understand, LXC is built on top of Cgroups.

I understand the article is talking about "mainframe" or "cloud" like build-outs but for the most part, what he is talking about is already coming together with Cgroups.

Comment: Custom URL (Score 1) 238

by corychristison (#47462665) Attached to: Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+

Google+ allows a custom URL.

When I registered my business for Google Places (now part of Google My Business) it had an "easy" way to get on Google+, so I set it up as part of my profile.

Then a few weeks later, they sent me an email saying I was preapproved for a custom G+ URL. It was not editable, and included the city of my business in it. So it ended up being around 40-45 characters long.

I tried to change it, but it seems it is not possible. The one I want appears to be available. Its 11 characters long, and the same as my business' twitter handle, and FB URL.

Why can't we change the custom URL!?

Comment: Re: Gnome 3 (Score 1) 50

by corychristison (#47415933) Attached to: Plasma 5 Release Candidate Announced

Just want to point out Thunar (the XFCE file manager) also has easily added context menu actions.

I understand the desire for configurability, though. I use Gentoo/Funtoo personally. I have found XFCE to strike a great balance between configurable, stable, and lightweight. I'm not one for flashy, animated windows and effects though. That is in XFCE to a degree.

The last time I used KDE was 3.5(I think), so maybe I should revisit it when 5.0 is out.

Comment: Re: javascriptards (Score 1) 91

by corychristison (#47381217) Attached to: WebODF: JavaScript Open Document Format Editor Deemed Stable

I own a company that builds custom web-based applications for businesses. Certainly not fortunte 100 companies, but businesses with a dozen or more users doing their job with the system 9-5, Mon-Fri.

Personally I don't use Windows at all. Not sure what the snarky comment about Windows Server was all about. I'm not the IT person for these companies, I am simply familiar with the features offered by it and have seen it in place at most of the businesses we deal with.

For the past two years, targeting IE9 has worked well for us. I've convinced some businesses to use Firefox or Chrome instead, as they were still on WinXP.

We don't use any Plugins, and stick to standards as best we can. We also avoid flashy, animated crap. Its business, not TV.

We also build general public stuff. We dropped support for IE7 over a year ago, its made things a lot easier. We're still discussing when to drop support for IE8 in these projects.

Comment: Re: javascriptards (Score 1) 91

by corychristison (#47371395) Attached to: WebODF: JavaScript Open Document Format Editor Deemed Stable

This is no longer the trend.

This is why Mozilla and friends have been pushing for web standards the last 12 years or so.

Today we can develop scalable, web-based applications and only require a modern browser. IE9 made great strides and IE10 is even better from what I hear.

Today I can develop something in Firefox, test it across the board (Opera, Safari, Chrome/Chromium, IE, mobile browsers) and they usually just work. No plugins, no bullshit.

Also, any business with more than 25 computers should be using Windows Server on a Domain to enforce upgrade policies. As in, test the updates on a dev box, and push updates if there are no issues.

TL:DR, your point is moot in todays modern web.

Comment: Re: In other news (Score 2) 358

by corychristison (#47306521) Attached to: Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones

Every heard of hands free devices? Usually its implemented via Bluetooth.

I'm my car I can press a button on the wheel, say "Call Wife Mobile" and it will call my wifes mobile phone. Never seeing or touching my phone.

I live in Saskatchewan, Canada. We ridiculously harsh penalties when it comes to "distracted driving" (their words). I haven't heard of any province or state that has banned using your phone through a hands free device.

The claim that using a cellphone while driving is dangerous stems completely from the action of taking your hand(s) off the wheel, and eyes off the road. This is exactly what bluetooth hands free systems are designed for, and exactly why they are including it in more and more vehicles.

If you're curious, I drive a 2012 Kia Sorento EX V6 AWD Luxury Edition... Bought it last July for about $22K (Canadian) with less than 50,000km on it.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...