I should add that while the possibility of becoming a supernode is a real
possibility for Larry and machines that are connected all the time, for most
boaters it is not really a problem.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news
Skype is very insidious. Intentionally so to prevent it being blocked.
Cable and Worthless BVI has successfully blocked vonnage because the
source IP is easy to detect but have not found a way to block Skype. As I
understand it, if Skype runs into a block it will try connecting through a
series of different "supernodes" until it finds one that can sneak around
the block.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:35:54 -0400, Larry wrote:

"mr.b" wrote in news
1. If Don is on a cable, Skype software may identify his connection as
a supernode, thus Don's $50/mnth bandwidth is used to route calls for
Skype, not that they let Don know that that's what could happen nor
does
Skype reimburse Don for the use of a service that Don is paying for.

Not true.

actually Larry what I wrote is true

Skype uses your connection to route your connection data
through and passes those connected through you their contact list and
who's online. It does NOT, route any calls, whatsoever through your
system.

actually Larry, the software does use your connection to route calls and
if you are unlucky enough to be tagged as a supernode, the system will
use
your bandwidth -the bandwidth _you_ pay for, to route _many_ calls. This
seems simple to me.

Mine's been on it for a long time. It's bandwidth usage is
undetectable, even on limited bandwidth DSL. I'm on a 7Mbps cable
connection through a wired/wifi router, sometimes with 3 Skype devices
running at once.

Perhaps reading more carefully might assist. Your connection -fast as it
is- probably has not been co-opted as a supernode -without your knowledge
or informed consent- which is the way Skype works.

It has made NO difference in my constant usenet
downloading or it would have been gone long ago.

well then, perhaps you've been lucky

2. Proprietary software/encryption/protocols that
according to the head-honcho at Skype "will not pass OpenSource
auditing
for security".


AS I don't send state secrets over Skype's connection, I doubt anyone
will
become enthralled with my Skype conversations with Skip aboard Flying
Pig
about...snip

that isn't the point is it, but then it seems that while you resent
"state-snooping", other forms of snooping -or the potential for it- are
alright with you. Seems a contradiction to me. Whatever makes you
happy.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:08:35 -0500, Glenn Ashmore wrote:

I should add that while the possibility of becoming a supernode is a real
possibility for Larry and machines that are connected all the time, for most
boaters it is not really a problem.

I'm sure it takes more bandwidth to become a supernode than is available
to most boaters.

Even if you're getting full wifi bandwidth both ways, it's likely your
wifi connection is hooked to a cable, DSL, or ISDN line with no more
than 128k upstream, if that.

Even with 256k upstream on a cable connection, I never went "super."

I wouldn't worry about it.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:
I'd prefer Mac or Linux too, but boats usually need a Windows system
aboard to run navigation software.

I do wish there was a good nav package for Linux.


Matt,

Check out http://www.vmware.com

They have an alternative OS solution, but it costs money - not a lot,
but enough to warn you about. They make a Virtual Machine simulator
that runs as an application on most of the common operating systems,
including Linux.

The advantage here is that you can run Linux (for free) as your host OS,
then have one or more "virtual machines" running as applications that
could run a full Windows2000, Windows98, WindowsXP, MAC, etc., each
independent of the other and unaware that they aren't the primary OS.

VMware also allows the virtual machines to have (at your choice) network
connects (via the host OS) to the outside world - or not. So, if you
want to use MicroSloth products (because your favorite apps don't
support Linux yet) but you don't want to expose yourself to the
vulnerabilities of such a buggy and unsafe OS, you can install them
without network availability, run your favorite application, and
eliminate the security risks that networked Windoze systems impose, all
the while using Linux connected to the outside world.

Amusingly, when one of these virtual OS's decides to crash, your
computer (and its native OS and any other VMs) keep working along
merrily. So, although you may be used to the blue screen of death from
Mr. Gates, all that happens when your VM version crashes is that you
"reboot" that particular "application".

Another huge advantage is that each VM can be assigned a fixed amount of
disk space (I tend to make these separate partitions on the native OS
but you don't have to) and you can "back up" the entire VM (as one
single file - think of it as a full disk copy of a traditional system.

The only down sides I can think of are 1) you need to buy VMware, 2)
that VMware tends to need a lot of memory, so you pretty much want to
max out your RAM (which is nowadays very cheap), and 3) that you need a
stand alone install disk for any "client" OS's you want to install.

The last bit is true independent of VMware. It was a dirty trick MS
started using when they realized that folks might want to "reuse" their
software on other machines. What most folks didn't realize is that
when that bought that laptop or desktop "bundled" with Windoze, the OS
that came with it is "hacked" to only run on that specific machine. If
your laptop or desktop died, that OS disk that came with it can not be
used to install Windows on another machine.

So, get a decent laptop or desktop, max out the RAM, install a 40gig (or
more) disk, install Linux as the native OS, purchase VMware, create one
or more Virtual Machines (allocate 3 gigs of disk space to each) onto
which you then install one or more versions of Windows or MAC OS.

This approach, BTW, is also very useful for being able to maintain
applications that are no longer supported on newer versions of your OS.
Just run both OS as VMs, and when you need to use an older
application, switch to that virtual machine.

Cheers,

Robb

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:14:02 GMT, AMPowers
wrote:

This approach, BTW, is also very useful for being able to maintain
applications that are no longer supported on newer versions of your OS.
Just run both OS as VMs, and when you need to use an older
application, switch to that virtual machine.

Cheers,

Robb
================================

Robb, as a point of interest, could you make an image copy of your
present MS OS hard disk, and then boot that up under VM?

Well, I don't wish to make absolute claims here, but I very much doubt
it. One reason being that MS (unless installed from a stand alone
version) is hardwired to run on the specific hardware it came bundled
with, but MS restrictions not withstanding (I also don't believe) there
is any utility that currently does this within VMware.

A better approach might be to copy everything of interest off to an
external drive, then attach that drive to the new Virtual Machine and
copy everything from it onto the local drive. This would work fine for
data files and such, but MicroSloth goes out of its way to make the
applications (unlike Linux) difficult to install. My guess would be
that you need to rerun the installer programs - and some of the new
application installers might object to being installed on a machine
(virtual or otherwise) that wasn't connected to the network.

Of course, the best approach is to avoid using such a blatantly inferior
OS in the first place, and there are free utilities such as "wine" that
supposedly can run Windoze binaries directly from within Linux, but I
personally do not have any experience with them. I would suggest
asking one of the Linux support groups about that.

If you do go with Linux as your base OS, I think you should make sure to
download the Mozilla "FireFox" browser and "Thunderbird" emailer apps,
as well as the free "Open Office" suite of tools (an editor that can
handle almost any standard file type including the various MS Word
files, a spread sheet that can handle Excel as well as other file types,
Drawing programs, photoshop like programs, etc. All for free. Oh,
BTW, there are MS based version of all these tools as well. Check out
http://www.mozilla.org and http://www.openoffice.org (be sure to use
the .org ending)

Also, as for particular versions of Linux, I would recommend the Redhat
Fedora Core4 version. If you decide to go that route, I suggest you
download the DVD install disk (instead of the 4 CD ROMs). I found this
to be far easier when installing the system. Check out
http://www.fedora.redhat.com/download/

One warning. If you start using a UNIX based operating system for any
length of time you will find yourself wondering why it isn't crashing
periodically. Do not be alarmed, there is also an MS crash simulator
that you can install which will randomly put of a simulated blue screen
of death allowing you to feel more at home. Over time you can ween
yourself off of the need to see this pacifier.

In a world without fences, who needs Gates?

Cheers,

Robb


Wayne.B wrote:

Robb, as a point of interest, could you make an image copy of your
present MS OS hard disk, and then boot that up under VM?

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:02:42 GMT, AMPowers
wrote:

One warning. If you start using a UNIX based operating system for any
length of time you will find yourself wondering why it isn't crashing
periodically. Do not be alarmed, there is also an MS crash simulator
that you can install which will randomly put of a simulated blue screen
of death allowing you to feel more at home.

Thanks for the reply. Fortunately, stability is not a big issue for
me using a fully updated and protected Win 2K. I can't remember the
last time I got a "blue screen". Just lucky I guess.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:14:02 +0000, AMPowers wrote:

Matt O'Toole wrote:

I'd prefer Mac or Linux too, but boats usually need a Windows system
aboard to run navigation software.

I do wish there was a good nav package for Linux.


Matt,

Check out http://www.vmware.com

They have an alternative OS solution, but it costs money - not a lot,
but enough to warn you about. They make a Virtual Machine simulator
that runs as an application on most of the common operating systems,
including Linux.

The advantage here is that you can run Linux (for free) as your host OS,
then have one or more "virtual machines" running as applications that
could run a full Windows2000, Windows98, WindowsXP, MAC, etc., each
independent of the other and unaware that they aren't the primary OS.

VMware also allows the virtual machines to have (at your choice) network
connects (via the host OS) to the outside world - or not. So, if you
want to use MicroSloth products (because your favorite apps don't
support Linux yet) but you don't want to expose yourself to the
vulnerabilities of such a buggy and unsafe OS, you can install them
without network availability, run your favorite application, and
eliminate the security risks that networked Windoze systems impose, all
the while using Linux connected to the outside world.

Amusingly, when one of these virtual OS's decides to crash, your
computer (and its native OS and any other VMs) keep working along
merrily. So, although you may be used to the blue screen of death from
Mr. Gates, all that happens when your VM version crashes is that you
"reboot" that particular "application".

Another huge advantage is that each VM can be assigned a fixed amount of
disk space (I tend to make these separate partitions on the native OS
but you don't have to) and you can "back up" the entire VM (as one
single file - think of it as a full disk copy of a traditional system.

The only down sides I can think of are 1) you need to buy VMware, 2)
that VMware tends to need a lot of memory, so you pretty much want to
max out your RAM (which is nowadays very cheap), and 3) that you need a
stand alone install disk for any "client" OS's you want to install.

The last bit is true independent of VMware. It was a dirty trick MS
started using when they realized that folks might want to "reuse" their
software on other machines. What most folks didn't realize is that
when that bought that laptop or desktop "bundled" with Windoze, the OS
that came with it is "hacked" to only run on that specific machine. If
your laptop or desktop died, that OS disk that came with it can not be
used to install Windows on another machine.

So, get a decent laptop or desktop, max out the RAM, install a 40gig (or
more) disk, install Linux as the native OS, purchase VMware, create one
or more Virtual Machines (allocate 3 gigs of disk space to each) onto
which you then install one or more versions of Windows or MAC OS.

This approach, BTW, is also very useful for being able to maintain
applications that are no longer supported on newer versions of your OS.
Just run both OS as VMs, and when you need to use an older
application, switch to that virtual machine.

Robb,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I'm well aware of VMware, having used it since pre-1.0 beta for testing
web platforms. It works great, and is the basis for most web hosting
companies offering VM hosting.

It's overkill for personal use though. By the time you buy a VMware
license plus a Windows license for your Linux laptop, you could almost
have bought a new laptop which comes with Windows anyway. A desktop might
actually be cheaper. Even under VMware, Windows still has to restart when
it crashes. Maybe it does a little quicker but not much. And you're
still stuck with Windows' cluttered interface when running your Windows
programs. So you don't gain a damned thing by doing this.

Engineering issues aside, I much prefer the interface of Mac OS or Linux
desktops to Windows. Also, if nav software were developed for these
platforms it's likely we'd get better designers and smarter programmers
than the ones working in the Windows realm. I'm convinced Maptech's
current developers do not even operate boats.

Matt O.

I have tried downloading Linux off the net but every time the download fails
how can I go about getting linux for free? I've seen where you can purchase
the disk for it and install it off the disk but that's not fre.
"AMPowers" wrote in message
...
Matt O'Toole wrote:
I'd prefer Mac or Linux too, but boats usually need a Windows system
aboard to run navigation software.

I do wish there was a good nav package for Linux.


Matt,

Check out http://www.vmware.com

They have an alternative OS solution, but it costs money - not a lot, but
enough to warn you about. They make a Virtual Machine simulator that
runs as an application on most of the common operating systems, including
Linux.

The advantage here is that you can run Linux (for free) as your host OS,
then have one or more "virtual machines" running as applications that
could run a full Windows2000, Windows98, WindowsXP, MAC, etc., each
independent of the other and unaware that they aren't the primary OS.

VMware also allows the virtual machines to have (at your choice) network
connects (via the host OS) to the outside world - or not. So, if you
want to use MicroSloth products (because your favorite apps don't support
Linux yet) but you don't want to expose yourself to the vulnerabilities of
such a buggy and unsafe OS, you can install them without network
availability, run your favorite application, and eliminate the security
risks that networked Windoze systems impose, all the while using Linux
connected to the outside world.

Amusingly, when one of these virtual OS's decides to crash, your computer
(and its native OS and any other VMs) keep working along merrily. So,
although you may be used to the blue screen of death from Mr. Gates, all
that happens when your VM version crashes is that you "reboot" that
particular "application".

Another huge advantage is that each VM can be assigned a fixed amount of
disk space (I tend to make these separate partitions on the native OS but
you don't have to) and you can "back up" the entire VM (as one single
file - think of it as a full disk copy of a traditional system.

The only down sides I can think of are 1) you need to buy VMware, 2) that
VMware tends to need a lot of memory, so you pretty much want to max out
your RAM (which is nowadays very cheap), and 3) that you need a stand
alone install disk for any "client" OS's you want to install.

The last bit is true independent of VMware. It was a dirty trick MS
started using when they realized that folks might want to "reuse" their
software on other machines. What most folks didn't realize is that when
that bought that laptop or desktop "bundled" with Windoze, the OS that
came with it is "hacked" to only run on that specific machine. If your
laptop or desktop died, that OS disk that came with it can not be used to
install Windows on another machine.

So, get a decent laptop or desktop, max out the RAM, install a 40gig (or
more) disk, install Linux as the native OS, purchase VMware, create one or
more Virtual Machines (allocate 3 gigs of disk space to each) onto which
you then install one or more versions of Windows or MAC OS.

This approach, BTW, is also very useful for being able to maintain
applications that are no longer supported on newer versions of your OS.
Just run both OS as VMs, and when you need to use an older application,
switch to that virtual machine.

Cheers,

Robb

since when is linux free? I have tried downloading the free linux out there
but never have been successful the download always fails for some reason

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:23:13 +0000, Don White wrote:

Ah ha! I'm still running Windows 98. No Skype until I upgrade.

for clarity Don, XP would not necessarily constitute an "upgrade". If you
are going to use Skype, you might want to investigate some more robust,
secure operating systems. Investigate OS X on Mac -if money is no object-
or Linux which is free. Both will run Skype software and neither will
leave you feeling like you're walking around with your pants down around
your ankles every time you log on.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:34:32 +0000, Chi Chi wrote:

since when is linux free? I have tried downloading the free linux out
there but never have been successful the download always fails for some
reason

chi chi,

start reading here, it's been a personal flavourite for about 8 years now

http://www.slackware.com

and if you can't it get from one of the mirrors listed on this page

http://dev.slackware.it/getslack/mirrors.php

then to paraphrase HAL, this kind of problem has always been the result of
human error