Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - GNUstep Kickstarter Campaign Launched (kickstarter.com)

borgheron writes: The maintainer of GNUstep has launched a kickstarter campaign to get the time to make GNUstep more complete and get it's APIs up to at least a Mac OS 10.6 level of compatibility. This will allow applications for Mac OS X to run on Linux with a simple recompile using new tools developed by the GNUstep team to directly build from xcodeproj project files. If the kickstarter project is funded beyond it's $50,000 goal, it's possible that WebKit and Darling might also be completed allowing applications built on Mac OS X to run without the need for a recompile... think WINE-like functionality for Mac OS X applications on other platforms... including Windows, Linux, BSD, etc.

Comment Re: Extensions needed! (Score 1) 399

The difference is, the person hosting the encrypted mail and the person providing the code are usually different in non-Web cases. If a mail client is regularly making connections to something other than your web server, that's something an IDS is likely to spot. It's even something a corporate firewall may spot, if it isn't doing HTTP requests that can go via a corporate proxy. If your web page is making more requests than strictly necessary to the originating web server, that's a lot harder to spot.

Comment Re:Extensions needed! (Score 1) 399

The existence of asynchronous HTTP requests from JavaScript makes that a somewhat meaningless level of protection. The server can't decrypt the message, but you can only decrypt the message by running code that you get from the server, which runs in a context where it is allowed to send arbitrary messages back to the server. Unless you're running a JavaScript debugger and ensuring that the decryption code isn't sending the decrypted version (optionally re-encrypted with the server's key) back to the server, you aren't getting any more security than having the server decrypt it.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 122

TorrentFreak (which, as a Virgin Media customer, I can apparently still access without jumping through hoops) appears to be more of a blog / news site these days. From the front page, it's not even obvious that they link to illegal torrents (do they?). They do list this in their about page:

TorrentFreak was featured on mainstream news outlets such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times the BBC, the Guardian and the LA Times.

  • 150,000+ RSS subscribers
  • Top 50 Techmeme leaderboard
  • Top 100 blogs on Technorati

Which makes it seem like they are not a sensible thing to block. I've not visited the site for a great many years, but if you only object to the sites that you use being blocked then it's very easy for censors to creep in.

Comment Re:Really? Political correctness? (Score 1) 772

Not necessarily. We know that, at some point in the future, the TARDIS becomes The Doctor's grave marker, but we don't know that it was placed there when he died. His body may have remained in The TARDIS for some hundreds of years of subjective time first. Having him preserved in his near-death state in The TARDIS with the ability to provide advice to Susan occasionally might also work nicely as a plot device.

Comment Re:cognitive science (Score 5, Insightful) 418

the pilots about 20mins out from landing saying, we can't talk to you anymore until after we land.

And they almost certainly could have landed the plane fine if you'd kept chatting. In almost every case, it would be completely fine. But very occasionally, they'd miss checking a dial or mishear ATC instructions and end up with a plane full of dead passengers, and they don't want to take that risk because, unlike many other people in this thread, they were behaving like responsible adults.

Comment Re:"13th regeneration" (Score 1) 772

In The Five Doctors, The Master is offered another cycle of regenerations in exchange for his help. It's not clear whether he's given them, but the fact that he accepts indicates that he at least believes that this is within the High Council's power to grant. It's also implied in The Brain of Morbius that the limit on regenerations is arbitrary and imposed so that Time Lord society won't suffer the same kind of stagnation as the Sisterhood of Karn.

Comment Re:"13th regeneration" (Score 1) 772

John Hurt is The Valeyard, who was 'between the 12th and final' incarnations, so a future one not a past one. The Time Lords in Trial of a Time Lord did say 'final' and not 13th though, but it's entirely possible that the Great Time War messed up The Doctor's timeline such that the 13th was not actually his last, or that The Matrix was simply unaware of the later ones as they were unauthorised.

Comment Re:Ever notice (Score 3, Insightful) 772

Sarah Jane Smith was very much a strong female role model, and solved several mysteries on her own. Most of the time The Doctor solved things before her during her era, it was because it either required some esoteric knowledge that you don't get from growing up on Earth, or because it required some technology from the TARDIS.

Comment Re:Really? Political correctness? (Score 2) 772

We never saw Susan die on-screen. I'd have thought that an obvious way of handing it over would be for the TARDIS to take the dying Doctor to find her, and for him to hand over the TARDIS to her. Then you'd get a female lead character, without changing any of the mythology. You'd need some reason why Susan was off Galifrey, but the last time we saw her she was on Earth in 2150 (and while we didn't see her use the Chameleon Arch on screen, there's no reason why she couldn't have done, or constructed something similar from all of the post-invasion Dalek technology left lying around), so that's probably not too hard...

Comment Re:RAM cache? (Score 3, Insightful) 373

RAM cache is useless for speeding up writes. A significant (although workload-dependent) part of the performance problem with spinning disks is that if you issue a write and then need to block until it's on disk (which you need for consistency), it can easily take 5-10ms (or more) and that severely limits the performance. Often, non-server workloads include doing a lot of small synchronous writes and then no writes for a while. An SSD as a write-through cache works well here because it can reorder a lot of writes to turn (some of) them into sequential writes and it can trickle out a lot of writes while the disk is idle. This is also pretty much the best case for flash longevity: you don't need wear levelling, because you just treat the entire flash as a ring buffer and write to one end and write to the disk from the other end. You can keep the translation layer in RAM, and if there's a power failure you just replay the entire flash journal onto the disk.

The 'only reads 8GB' of unique data per day number is meaningless as an indication of how often each thing is used, however. If each day you always access the same 8GB, then an 8GB cache will be perfect for you. If you always access 8GB a day and you only access 7.5GB of it once, then a 512MB cache will be fine and you'll get no benefit from more, but you will get a big benefit from having a faster underlying storage device.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up reasons for it afterwards." -- Soren F. Petersen

Working...