IT jobs don't have feelings.

Give the Pardus 2011 live-dvd a spin. It should have video drivers, wifi, video codecs etc all work out of the box. At least I've had it work for every machine bar one so far without any config, and that one just needed a wifi driver blacklisted (yes, beyond a newbie, but I've tried Pardus, plus a whole lot more distros, on a bunch of machines - and Pardus had the highest success rate). Good luck.

Hi Shaka, That's kind of my point. They're pissed right now, but a high enough percentage don't have the sticking power to boycott Sony products for enough time to have a financial impact significant enough to change Sony's attitude towards customers. Three months after things are operational, bar a few straggling lawsuits, Sony will be acting as arrogant and entitled as ever.

It took years after the rootkit fiasco before I decided to extend some trust to Sony and spend money on their products. Then came the removal of otheros, and I ceased spending any money with them. Then their bully tactics when the console got hacked, and I was glad I'd not spent any further money with them. Now, I find even after not doing any business with them for such a period I'm still not free of their incompetence and poor management. What will happen to Sony as a result of this? Nothing. All the muppets out there will continue to do business with this incompetent, morally bankrupt, behemoth. Will I be dumb enough to become one of those muppets again? I hope not.

You could consider implementing port knocking. It will be somewhat of an inconvenience for your clients, but it will almost eliminate your ssh authentication failures.

Depending on your needs you may find RSP's Earth to be a viable solution. http://open.rsp.com.au/projects/earth/ It's cross-platform and has a web interface (though you could build a desktop one easily enough if you wanted to). Cheers, Alan.

That's a good point, but it didn't bother the ISO when approving OOXML. Though the W3C haven't scrapped the video tag and Microsoft has made no commitment there. Apple are a smaller player than Mozilla in the browser market. So either way we're looking at inconsistent behaviour. On the other hand if people feel the standard provides benefits then they'll use the products which support it. So this puts the balance back towards providing a solid spec in the interests of end users. If there aren't benefits the standard will fail if there are benefits then the products which refuse to support it will fail.

That refuses to set a standard because people who should be implement it say they won't? Simply choose the most appropriate technology, detail the requirements fully in your standard. It's then a matter for the vendors to decide if they wish to make a standards compliant product or not. The point of a standards body is to put the interests of the general public first. Failure to do this is failure to fulfil their purpose. Doing so because of what are effectively bullying tactics is even worse as you've just decided to put corporate interests ahead of people's. First ISO corrupts itself into virtual irrelevance now we're seeing W3C fail. Are there any standards bodies left with the tenacity to get their job done?

Android had a nice half-way option for this. When you type a password in the last character you typed appears and the rest are bullets. It can be turned off so it's all bullets. This way you have feedback on what you typed without completely losing security. Some of the dialogs also have a show password option. So if you really want to you can let other steal your password more easily...

I'd be curious to know what exactly the contracts they had with them stipulate. My guess is it's something along the longs of we own your information once you pass it to us. Ooopppss - guess you really should read those things before signing. Anyone actually seen it?

They even made a movie about it http://ur1.ca/3oog

and tell Doc Brown they don't need to wait for the clock tower.

Organize to have you and these vendors each bring along a system and a hacker. Their hacker tries to compromise your Free Software system, your hacker tries to compromise their windows system. That should settle it rather efficiently. Just to put a little doubt into anything the "I"SVs may say make sure your client reads this first http://www.linux.com/feature/131059

This is why I said valid claim, not claim :D

What the author misses entirely is while he feels it is less likely to happen less likely is still more likely than utterly impossible. There are other technologies available, such as Qt, where microsoft has no potential for a valid claim over the language. Why, as a developer, would I choose to put my code in a position where this concerns exist instead of taking a path that avoids it entirely?