I think I like:
Google Public DNS
Introduction to Google Public DNS
Using Google Public DNS
Printable View
Yes, I love free Google services!
Woot! I have to use OpenDNS cause Ubuntu 9.1 broke my router's firmware or something xD
1 != 10Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
After I got my ATI drivers working on fedora, I decided to go ahead and try ubuntu anyway, since I had already installed it in case the drivers didn't work on fedora.
After I activated the drivers on ubuntu, the card would no longer permit 1680x1050 on either platform, no matter what. So now I am stuck with 1440x900.
Best of all: when I selected "install partitions side by side" on a half empty drive, the ubuntu installer automatically resized (for absolutely no reason) ALL partions like this:
1) it shrunk sda1 by 30%
2) it shrunk sda2 by 50% -- but it did not move the starting block!
3) then it allocated itself more space than sda1+sda2 in order to take up like 60% of a 500 GB drive.
Ie, there was a huge chunk of "unusable free space" left between the first two partitions. Contemplate the work involved in fixing that little mistake.
GREAT JOB UBUNTU!
I have a feeling that Ubuntu is turning more and more like Windows. Not a good thing.
Now we can't even select what packages to install using the graphical installer (just like Windows).
I always used custom partitioning. My partition setup is so complex that even I have trouble making sense of it some time, so I don't even let the program try :).
Hey, at least my sound works this version around (Ubuntu).
If they come out with 9.14 or something, I'll change it. 9.1 (the number) doesn't necessarily mean it's rounded. 9.1 = 9.10 = 9.100 = 9.1000 = 9.10000.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
My big big problem with this one is that resizing should be a custom/advanced option. Any other installer I have seen, resizing is not done by default -- it is available if you choose "custom".Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Gotta admit tho, ubuntu has got me back into gnome. Now my new video card has eliminated the possibility of virtual sized desktops*, and I am doing all this coding and scripting anyway, etc, the appeal of fvwm2 (world's most configurable window manager!) is starting to thin. Maybe :p
Wrong -- I learned this when seetxt went into distribution, because the packager complained I was numbering my releases like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
0.5
0.51
0.52
0.6
If you pay closer attention, you will notice that is not how *nix software works. It should be
0.5
0.5.1
0.6
That means x.10 is after x.9. Everything follows this convention, including Ubuntu releases. So 9.1 != 9.10 != 9.100
*I imagine video cards are the reason that trend is dying out, because it is really really functional, where it works. Hardware manufacturers probably never gave it serious consideration because it was never done in Windows, so there was no need to support it, unix hardware is it's own realm, and by the time anyone at MS might have thought of implementing it, there was too much "high end" PC hardware that wouldn't.
Okay, but the way Ubuntu uses the convention it doesn't make any difference when talking about it. They generally have a zero release, and a ten release, for each version unit. They don't use extra decimal places, if they did, then it would matter. Since they don't, you can't say 9.1 != 9.10 because without versioning with extra decimals 9.10 could be 9.1.0. Or 9.100 could be 9.10.0. We don't know, because they simply don't use them, because they don't need them the way they do it. Learn something new every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Okay, I thought you were being "tongue in cheek funny". Trust me on this one. Honest. Maybe they are being tongue in cheek about it, but I'm telling you from experience: the debian packagers insist on that method of sequencing, and one of their concerns is that the packages end up downstream, in freeBSD and Ubuntu, and this is the method all their maintainers have agreed upon, I believe that is important if you consider that sometimes automation may be involved keeping things organized, so x.14 must always be considered a later version than x.8. And no one needs some fool getting clever with the distro staffers. That's linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
It is nine point ten, not nine point one. You could say "one oh" and "oh four".
In case you haven't noticed yet (took me quite a while), "10" means October, "04" means April.
The Swiss would do that, they are very precise with distinctions and rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberfish
Heheh, but cyberfish's explanation is correct. If Ubuntu 9.1 existed, it would have been released in January 2009, and would certainly not be the same as Ubuntu 9.10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
Did not know that, lol. In that case what you said makes sense. I noticed they release every six months, and 10 - 4 = 6, and figured those were associated but didn't clue into the months (I barely ever know what day it is :D).
Oh yeah, coincidence, sometimes my Ubuntu clock on the bar freezes so I think it's 3am when it's really going on 6 :D
The 10-4 thing is the reason why I moved on to better things, like ArchLinux, as soon as it became possible for me to do. Let's face it, it's stupid to enforce on yourself a fixed release date. Not only you'll fail eventually, but also it makes the whole thing look time-based instead of feature-based.
If Ubuntu was a paying OS, I wouldn't notice the difference.
edit: BTW, I know it's totally OT and i'm hijacking the thread, but did you guys know google launched a free public DNS service? How about that for yet another way for them to map our web usage? Do no evil, or do it with all the best of intentions?
No way, really? Where'd you hear that. ^_^Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Exactly my thoughts as I visited some pr0nographic world wide websites earlier. Ha ha! Yet another way for Google to track me. It must be hilarious watching that screen they got at their lounge showing all the latest searches. Now they can watch all the latest website visits (well, they've been doing that since Google Toolbar and Google Chrome and all that other ........ I'm sure).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
They're public DNS is 8.8.8.8. I don't know if that's showing off or what, lol. OpenDNS is.. 208.67.222.222. Show offs shoulda used 6.6.6.0 or 6.9.6.9 or 1.1.1.1 or 1.0.0.0 unless it's reserved. :D
Is this really evil? I mean, the telemarketers who bug me during the day are the net result of this kind of information gathering (and the fact that you must pay the phone company to unlist your number), and I don't appreciate them (what they have is never of interest to me, it seems*) but that's no more or less evil than ANY form of capitalism. The guy who owns a flower store, exploits people through wage labour, encourages agro-monoculture, excessive use of pesticides and herbicides, then unnecessary traffic for trucking his product, contributes to the commercialization/consumerization of urban landscapes, etc. etc., is "doing evil with the best of all intentions" too. ALL capitalist enterprise has this form BECAUSE of the incentive and the state of the competition. I would not single google out -- in fact they are probably way more harmless than most large corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Also, they may be doing a lot of people a favour. I just registered a domain name, and my vps provider, which is a small outfit, said, "Well, we don't normally provide DNS resolution for the unmanaged VPS accounts -- but I'll do it for you today." Evidently they have determined that is a hassle for them, so as google says this will "Help reduce the load on ISPs' DNS servers."
It's an efficiency thing.
* like, some people are just baffled you don't want a daily paper delivered to your door for free, for a limited time! no obligation! These people have not lived on the west coast of Canada and seen the moonscapes there that are the real expense of free daily trash delivery...I'm happy newspapers are going down, ALL of them. The sooner the better.
People are too paranoid.
We should not care if we're being monitored. It's our business, and they have nothing to do with it, right?
So long as it doesn't interfere with us in some way, than I am all for monitoring.
It would be great if google picked up my habits and started providing me with interesting and relative ads instead of boring, intrusive ads. Win-win situation.
The whole point of monitoring anything is to eventually interfere.
That said, I don't find DNS to be a personal process at all. I'm not the type of person that visits ultra-obscure web sites where no one can know my terrible secret. In fact, even if Google figures out I read shoujo manga and have an ad for that, I'll never see it because I just block them.
Use GMail? They base their ads on your drafts/send mail/received mail. Funny watching them change based on what I last wrote (games, then programming, then servers, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
I don't think ads are ever win, but that's just me. I've never clicked an ad in my life (besides a mis-click).
Which is one of the reasons why I can't stand Chrome. I got so accustomed to a quiet eye pleasing experience in the net, that opening any webpage on Chrome or IE becomes an instant headache with all the eye-throbbing and visually offensive ad content. It's like getting hit by a flashlight while I'm enjoying a nice romantic candle-light dinner with my browser.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
It should be interesting how will Chrome position itself with add-on content when it becomes fully supported. Both in terms of performance (the usual meaningless which-is-the-faster-engine nonsense), but also how happy will Google be to learn that the vast majority of their users will be hiding google-analytics and googlesyndication. As for the DNS thing, I plan to use it on my laptop because I do have a few problems with my wireless provider DNS servers and other public DNSs haven't been satisfactory. But, this is funny:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq.html#sla
Of course, but interfere with whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
Thieves, burglars, law breakers or just plain old vanilla people who has done nothing wrong? If the former, it's okay, if it's the later, it's not okay.
Yup, I use it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
Never said the ads were perfect. Just that it would be nice if I could get commercial about stuff I like instead of blocking all of them. It's a win for the company who sends out the commercial, too.
I never click on ads either* and I sometimes feel guilty about it. Remember, this board would not exist without advertising, and they only get paid when someone clicks on the banner -- you get nothing for just displaying it.
Also, if you'd prefer certain kinds of things, DO click on those -- that'll for sure affect your profile.**
*my one exception is microsoft, even tho I have no interest in their products, this means they have to dish out 5 cents to help pay for the net, which is good, and they can afford it obviously.
**I see nothing but MS ads all day sometimes. In my google profile, I am a total windows aficionado. I probably cost them at least $50 in click thrus this year.
I don't want to start an argument, exactly. If they do monitor DNS resolutions, they're most likely getting random IP's, but people who use Chrome with everything on probably are a different group of people who are identifiable, and Google can use that to serve up better ads or whatever. I'm not accusing Google. Doing this responsibly depends on a couple things: in the first place, how the information is collected can cross legal boundaries. It's also naive to expect that companies will always do "good things" with what they collect, and negligent to let them do whatever they want with some kinds of information as a "trade secret" or the like. People you called paranoid are just paying attention more than most people. Protecting the privacy of the citizen is important but it only works after people complain. No one will care about it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
IMO the opposite is true: if you make an issue of civil liberties, etc, the reactionary/conservative right is more likely to take a stand against it in support of whatever totalitarian principle (eg, "corporate rights") they can find.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
You can now have your internet connection cut in Britain without trial, purely based on accusation. In fact, a pub supplying free wifi to it's customers was just fined £8000 because someone there "unlawfully downloaded copyrighted material".
Pub 'fined £8k' for Wi-Fi copyright infringement - ZDNet.co.uk
Now, this may seem like a different issue, but if push came to shove, the government and corporations will play the same line on statistics gathering: not that your privacy needs protection, but that their right to gather information needs protection.
So keep your mouth shut. At least now it is ambiguous, and you could sue under certain circumstances, etc. But if there is enough hoopla, that possibility will be squashed and so will your potential "right to privacy".
I made a post on the internet, get real.Quote:
So keep your mouth shut. At least now it is ambiguous, and you could sue under certain circumstances, etc. But if there is enough hoopla, that possibility will be squashed and so will your potential "right to privacy".
But here's the thing. We go out in the world every day. We do our work. We do our studies. We do our fun. Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
We don't think about what we do or who is watching or what people is thinking. We think about what we must or want to do. That's all.
Later, when tourists have taken photos of the lands around us and we have somehow gotten a place in it or some other group of friends start talking about us in some way, we don't care.
Someone sees you as a pretty boy/girl and glances a few times in your direction while walking by. You don't care.
Or some people are watching that you don't do anything stupid. Or there is some equipment that records how many bypassers there are on that area every day.
We go about our everyday lives, caring only about what we do, and not about what others think of what we're doing.
So no privacy there.
The same thing is now happening on the internet. And there is nothing wrong with it. Those who do think this kind of thing is wrong is paranoid.
Now, this can have drawbacks, of course. When people start stalking you, it has gone too far. The same can happen on the net, but who says it doesn't happen IRL too?
Surveillance can help reduce crime, as well, so I say we should embrace it.
What I do, is no one other's business.
Right?
Not in versioning it doesn't. 9.10 != 9.1Quote:
Originally Posted by Dae
9.10 is the version after 9.9, i.e. it's nine point ten
Traditionally there are 3 numbers denoting versioning, but the third is the build number, which many applications simply leave off to avoid confusing lusers that wouldn't know the difference.
Whatever man, that's barely meaningful at all. Billboards and commercials of the TV or radio variety don't intrude on my habits and personal life to make more meaningful ads. If other people are worried about that happening on the internet, let them be worried and don't call them crazy, that's all I'm saying. Frankly the internet works just fine without ALL MARKETING ALL THE TIME.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Well, so how about your Hamlet quote then ("There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.")?Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
Of course, Shakespeare is being facetious here -- Hamlet often seems superficially thoughtful, but in fact, his judgement is not very sound and he has some glaring moral flaws to his character. Which a person like that would want to believe something like this.
So let's presume something might be bad (for you, for life the universe and everything), even if you don't think anything of it. I kind of agree about the net BUT, having spent a certain amount of time on web-dev forums, having a few friends in the industry, and doing a little bit of work in it myself (in fact, I got invited to the big Web 2.0 conference in Manhattan here a few weeks ago), I would say the peculiar ideals of many web developers is a far bigger "threat" to the state of the net than advertising actually is.
In reality, web advertising is much less intrusive than it is in most other media. Generally, it's flash, and there's lots of ways to disable and block it if you choose. For that reason, advertisers are (generally) NOT going to simply pay to advertise the way they will just pay for a TV commercial, tho there is a chance everyone will just ignore the commercial. They want evidence, and efficiency, and collecting stats is part of that.
Now, I dunno if the mods here are paid, but in any case, cboard incurs some expense, for someone, somewhere. I am sure we could all kick in a monthly fee or something instead, but that system will be worse -- how many different forums do you go to for advice? Would you pay for all of them? How 'bout one central paid forum for everything, like "experts-exchange"?
Or, you could just have a general account, linked to paypal or something, that takes 25 cents an hour on paid forums or something. Do you think that will lead to less information gathering? :p And now you will have a tiered net, restricting access to people with bank accounts/credit cards and perhaps only in certain countries? Say goodbye to library terminals, they'll be useless. Great!
Do you think your bank and credit card company, etc, aren't doing this already, no questions asked? Google may seem greedy, but I think they may well have MITIGATED the force of unrestrained capitalism on the net. For example, the banner advertising system prevented the rise of monolithic "TV network" style enterprises that would be funded by advertising "exclusively on our sites". It could easily have ended up much, much worse.
Or increase it depending on your definition of crime and to some extent regardless of that definition. I'll do without a heaping helping of big brother even if it means little sister steals my pokemon cards and gets away with it thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Let's see if you get it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
This is about whether or not I am willing to allow a web service to log my web activity for marketing purposes. And I don't like it and I will avoid it to the best of my abilities.
Q: Why will I want to do that?
A: I won't tell you.
Q: Why I won't tell you?
A: Since when do I have to justify a Right?
I don't care if you don't mind being used as a marketing target. All I care is I do mind. And that's about it.
...
As for the issue of Privacy, read all of the above again. It applies in its entirety. And don't even once try to argue that someone that wishes to protect their privacy is trying to hide something. Yes, I am! My privacy.
Privacy is my Right. I have the right to privacy. I do not need to discuss this right. I like this right. It is mine. My right. A right I have. A constitutional right. The Privacy Right.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "Right" in a democratic country, or is it that you are still confused? Hope it's clear now.
I don't think it's that the meaning is unclear, it's just that despite all the rhetoric, individual rights are seldom if ever the highest priority of either the governments of democratic countries or the corporations which rule them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.