I know nothing about this project, but this appears to be using a docker image from here "https://github.com/dockur/windows/pkgs/container/windows".
Which says "Any product keys found in the code are just generic placeholders provided by Microsoft for trial purposes."
This app appears to be using windows with trial keys which goes against their intended usage and would have questionable legality. I would think if you do use this you would need to have a licensed version of windows and alter the docker settings to use your purchased key instead of the included trial keys.
Ideally this project would have this detail in big bold letters in it's README.
I have Intel Atom netbooks that currently run Ubuntu wonderfully. But they are low RAM and the 32bit version runs better than the 64bit (if they can even run 64bit). I am worried I will have to drop Ubuntu and switch to plain Debian because of this.
Same. It's funny actually, last time I installed something on there I just assumed it was x86_64 and was thoroughly confused for a good few moments when the USB stick would not boot. But yeah, I, for one, still run Linux on i386 hardware. My netbook isn't obsolete. In fact, I don't think I can buy anything like it any more.
Oh don't be silly. The "produced" part is obviously only applied to consumable items. Something is not obsolete because it is no longer manufactured. It might be obsolete if consumable parts for it are no longer manufactured. Nobody would use obsolete to refer to a tool that still performs its intended function but is no longer manufactured.
There's a crop of light, cheap Chinese laptops based on Atoms (well, they call them "Apollo Lake") which are the closes you can get to a modern day netbook. Google N3450 (the most popular CPU), or brands like Chuwi, Jumper or Onda.
Largely for the shadowbanned reply to this: For Linux tinkerers, there are tons of cheap Chromebooks with Apollo Lake that can be reflashed and/or put in dev mode and happily run regular Linux.
Do you plan on keeping those Atom machines for longer than 2021? Because otherwise it should not be an issue, as you can still use 16.04 with the latest patches until 2021.
I still use my old second-hand Samsung N220 Plus occasionally when I'm travelling, as it's lighter than my main laptop and I can't afford a light + performant one.
I'd never actually considered whether to run 32-bit or 64-bit OS on it, and just installed the 64-bit by habit.
Hop on the final i686 LTS-type release of either Ubuntu or CentOS, and you'll be fine for a long time. RHEL4 was updated for like a decade after it first launched.
This person is just crazy.
The whole point of a "currency" is to use it for a consistent trade of goods.
Sure, you may say the US dollar or the Euro is not "consistent". But those change over a timespan of years. $100 today is $100 tomorrow. Yes, the dollar may go up 0.01% one day, and there is inflation which may be up to 3% per year.
Bitcoin has no such sonsistency now, and may never have it. 0.01% a day? 3% a year? Ha! I have seen the value of bitcoin jump +/- 300% in ONE DAY.
It's just not rational to think you could live a "normal" life when ALL of your finances are jumping around in the extremes that bitcoin experiences.
Sorry, but this sounds like just another silicon valley startup, living in their own little bubble, thinking that their special code can "change the world".
Imagine a log of transactions (a blockchain) confirming that Clinton got 1.5 million popular votes. That has ZERO effect on the Electoral College selecting Trump. So why even bring the election up? This guy might as well say that "a blockchain could stop the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps". No, it couldnt.
Real political change happens through laws, constitutional ammendments, and court decisions. No amount of electronic blockchains will change that fact.
I'm not saying it would affect the electoral college or electing some politician that I do or do not like. Some problems are entirely due to human nature, have been with us for a long time and will likely stay with us for a long time regarless of technology.
However It would certainly be nice to vote online yet anonymously, confident that I can see in a public secure ledger that my voted was counted as a intended and that no cheating or voting manipulation (on the ledger level) took place.
Consider that vision from the perspective of historical voter coercion attacks: how would that not provide the perfect way for an employer, church, union, controlling spouse, etc. to demand to see how you voted?
This is the same problem with Bitcoin privacy advocacy: it's a brittle design and the failure mode is complete, undeniable loss of privacy.
The voting would using a cryptographic system to ensure confidentiality.
The coercion attack is an interesting problem but something that is already illegal but cannot be fully prevented. IMO it outweights the disadvantages of a centralized voting database that can be easily changed by a sys admin.
How would that magic crypto work? Remember, it needs to stop both willful vote selling and coerced checking.
Your second paragraph ignores the fact that the current system of anonymous ballots prevents the problem quite well, as evidenced by fraud rates measured in single-digit-per-billion levels, and paper ballots allow recounts without any use of computers and have the nice effect of making tapering a physically-diverse hard problem requiring a conspiracy involving far more people.
See zk-snarks, zcash, homomorphic encryption, etc..
Let's not make this an accidental strawman.. My second paragraph is referring to electronic and internet voting solutions vs decentralized/blockchain solutions and NOT traditional in person voting with independent observers, etc..
> See zk-snarks, zcash, homomorphic encryption, etc..
Can you specify precisely how those work to prevent this problem? Remember, this is harder than trying to prevent a third-party from identifying users because the system has to survive collusion by the user.
As in vote selling and coerced checking? probably can't, but then again, neither can centralized internet voting solutions. Even in normal voting, you can take a photo of the ballot to then prove who you voted for and get paid for it (and/or not get beaten).
Again this is not about perfect pie in the sky solution to all problems, just better digital voting solutions. As I said in the original comment, I don't think it will solve problems that have always been with us, but "It would certainly be nice to vote online yet anonymously, confident that I can see in a public secure ledger that my voted was counted as a intended and that no cheating or voting manipulation (==> ON THE LEDGER LEVEL <==) took place."
> As in vote selling and coerced checking? probably can't, but then again, neither can centralized internet voting solutions.
This is one of the reasons why we don't have internet voting: it's inferior to the status quo in critical areas. “blockchain” is not magic pixie dust which fixes that problem and the people backing it don't seem to have studied the problem very deeply, as evidenced by your repeated assertions that “the voting would using a cryptographic system to ensure confidentiality” before finally admitting that nobody has proposed a system resistant to a key class of attacks.
> Even in normal voting, you can take a photo of the ballot to then prove who you voted for and get paid for it (and/or not get beaten).
The difference is that it's harder to do that – or even illegal, see http://bigstory.ap.org/article/709338e5557a49e7ad5c68109ffec... – and it's not foolproof since you could take a picture of a ballot but void it and cast a different one, both of which make widespread coercion or selling unreliable.
> As I said in the original comment, I don't think it will solve problems that have always been with us
Simply asserting that it's always been with us doesn't change the fact that this is a problem which the current status quo was actively designed to prevent and that the proposed system makes that problem far worse.
The whole discussion was NOT about the status quo traditional voting vs blockchain, It was about Internet voting in regards to centralized solutions vs decentralized/blockchain solutions.
They both share SOME similar problems, but the blockchain is a improvement in many regards albeit not a perfect one. There is still a lot of open problems in regards to this. For the moment though, in person voting it's still better.
The day might come though that internet voting will be widespread. When that day comes I rather have a decentralized solution solution than a centralized one that can be easily manipulated.
Sure but what your are really saying is it'd be awesome if the election results were cryptographically and anonymously verifiable by the voters. Of which the block chain is merely one solution.
How do you get valid voting credentials to nontechnical voters such that they can anonymously vote and verify?
Indeed. I'm not claiming the blockchain is the only solution, but currently it's a pretty good one. I would hope for a centralized solution actually if that would help adoption and prevent voting fraud.
> How do you get valid voting credentials to nontechnical voters such that they can anonymously vote and verify?
That has to do with identity systems (see uPort, onename) and is an interesting & open problem.
To understand, you only need to read the recent posts about how systemd is effecting how commonly used userland applications work like: screen, tmux, nohup.
The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out.
This will fundamentally changes the way you administer and maintain a linux computer.
When told that this change is a bad idea, the systemd supporters said they knew better than you, and they are doing this to make the desktop UI better.
This is one small example why they invoke "hate".
They make a decisions like that every day that dramatically effect the entire linux platform.
If I can't run "nohup" or "screen" or "sh &" to do my job anymore, then that forces me to use some other OS/distro that does not have systemd installed as the default.
> The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out.
Really? That is your takeaway from the recent changes?
What actually happened was that systemd developers changed the default setting (from off to on) for an optional feature in logind that has existed for 5 years.
This setting was promptly reverted back to off by default in Debian, and probably most distributions that are shipping a bleeding edge version of systemd.
No one is taking away anything from anyone, which unfortunately includes your ability to spread FUD about things that you don't understand.
My takeaway from that change was that (1) the systemd team was perfectly willing to break userspace (existing programs, scripts, and even habits), and (2) that they wanted to put the onus of dealing with their decisions on third parties (e.g., the Github issue for tmux).
"The systemd supporters are soon going to take away the ability to run pretty much all background processes (including using "&" in a shell) by killing those processes when your X session logs out."
WUT?
(goes and downloads FreeBSD...)
I've been a Linux user since 1993 and SystemV init was something definitely in need of replacement. But this was not even close to the most pressing problem in the Linux ecosystem. The most pressing problems were and are things like the clunkiness of package management, the inadequacy of the root/userland permission model, and general user experience and UI issues. Systemd is not addressing any of that and may actually be making some of those problems worse.
After using systemd a bit, I've become a hater too. It's a clean slate reboot of init and yet it's somehow managed to be more arcane and confusing than sysV-init. That's an accomplishment, but not an admirable one. It tries to do way too many things at once in one vertically integrated system, has an arcane confusing non-intuitive syntax and configuration scheme, and just generally feels "enterprise" in the "over-engineered mess" pejorative sense of the term. Whenever I use it I find myself thinking "why would you do it like that?" and "who wanted that?" over and over again. It feels like the sort of system that's deliberately engineered for obtuseness so high priced consultants can be paid to operate it. Maybe it is.
Unfortunately FreeBSD's init system seems at first glance to be even more primitive than Linux's old sysV-init. Checking out the docs it looks like a trip back to the 1970s.
Is service management with a simple graph of dependencies really that hard? Come on. Good programmers solve these kinds of problems all the time on a much larger scale. We've got OSS hackers building distributed systems, fault tolerant databases, cryptocurrency, and 'permanent decentralized web' protocols and we can't solve init?
> Checking out the docs it looks like a trip back to the 1970s.
The BSD world never adopted System 5 init, and can indeed trace its mechanism back to Version 7. Ironically, however, that init has outlived both System 5 init and its van Smoorenburg clone.
I upgraded my laptop, and the display looked horrible in low resolution afterwards. There was an accelerated video driver for my video card in windows7, but not for windows10, so it falls back to vga. So i had to revert back.
My desktop is often used to watch live TV from my cable-card device in WindowsMediaCenter. There is no WindowsMediaCenter for windows10, so I guess that machine is staying on windows7 also.
Just because you could upgrade to windows 10, does not mean everyone can.
Every day i get a popup, telling me to upgrade. I say no thanks, i cant. Why does it keep asking me? That's what the fuss is about.
Is it common for people to have hardware issues with a new version of Windows? I can't see Microsoft ignoring a large issue with hardware compatibility and nonetheless nagging people to upgrade. I feel like an effort to convince people to stay on the latest software has good intentions overall, and for the most part, maybe people would benefit from it.
I have had really good luck with this open source, native windows, ssh server.
http://www.kpym.com/2/kpym/index.htm
I have no affiliation with the project, i just thought i'd mention that it is a nice alternative i found.
Blargh. Another OSS project that doesn't expose any kind of version control (7zip is the worst offender). I know, gift horse etc etc but it does make it hard to track the history / future of the project.
Also looks like it hasn't been updated since 2011.
Why does this support telnet? Just seems crazy to me. Is it on by default? That would be a violation of any sane security policy pretty much anywhere. Seems like a serious edge case requirement and odd to bundle with SSH. This is like buying a new car but then having the dealer give you a free horse with your purchase.
Telnet has the unique advantage of having an implementation for the opposite part on any TCP/IP compatible system without external libraries, crypto etc. and that you can recreate both a server and a client in literally an hour with nothing but a C compiler and an ordinary libc.
