borfast

From Slashdot:

Congratulations, Aaron!

Thanks for the heads up, Paul!

Yep, one extra hour will be really appreciated, during these days of kung fu training 6 hours per day Thanks for the reminder, Thomas! Oh, by the way, welcome to the family, klibreck!

Mike, you can use the code from those sites I mentioned as the basis to start building what you want. They all work (if I remember correctly) well in Firefox, IE and Opera. You just need to adjust the widths to fit your liking and then apply colors, fonts, etc, etc.

Thanks for your feedback, Paul!

Exactly. Carbonize is right. If you put something that is not an URL (i.e., not in the form www.domain.com) into Firefox's address bar, it will take you to the first result of the result set you would get from searching Google with the words you entered in the address bar. Give it a try: write something in the address bar, press enter and see where it takes you. Then go to Google, search for the same words and see what's the first result. So basically, as nortk said, searching for the name of your domain without the ".com" part used to return your site in the first place but not anymore. If I search for "youneverknow", the first link takes me to "Joaquin Andujar Statistics - Baseball-Reference.com". Is that what you're getting? EDIT: yes, that's what you're getting, I just re-read your post

The three websites I used to have as a reference for making CSS-based layouts: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials...sson/boxes.html http://glish.com/css/ http://www.bluerobot.com/web/layouts/ Hope it helps As for using tables, using tables is fine as long as you use them for what they were made: to display tabular data. For instance, a train time-table is a set of data that should be displayed in a table. A whole webpage, using the tables as the means for laying out it's content on the screen, is not; for that, there's CSS. And that's basically it

Jim, I suggest you open a help desk ticket. That's probably something wrong with the database files. You can also try to go into phpMyAdmin and run a check on phpBB's tables.

OpenOffice.org 2.0 has just been released. If you need an office suite, try this one. Version 2.0 brings tons of enhancements, including a new database application, making OpenOffice a complete alternative to Microsoft Office.

If you're using "fopen('/config.php')", then you're telling your script to open a file that resides in the root of the filesystem, which is out of bounds forregular users. If you change it to "fopen('config.php')" or even "fopen('/home/yourusername/path/to/config.php')" the error should go away. Hope this helps.

Hi Dean. Bruce and I have been talking about this and we don't find any file named "awstats_more_tracker.js" anywhere, so I'm assuming it's an error in the instructions. What Bruce and I think is that you should try to remove all the references to "awstats_more_tracker.js" in awstats_misc_tracker.js (only two, right in the beginning of the file) and see if it helps. As I said to Bruce, if it works and does make the 404's go away, it'll leave me even more confused that I already am, because it doesn't make any sense... but then again, I've learned a long time ago that there are lots of things in AWStats that don't make that much sense, anyway Let us know what you find out.

Debian's files are actually ".deb" files and "dpkg" is the tool that manages them. APT is a tool that sits on top of it and simplifies the work of getting packages, because it uses internet repositories from which you can download mostly anything. As for YUM, I believe it stands for Yellowdog Updater, Modified. Yellow dog is a Linux distribution based on Red Hat but made specifically for PowerPC machines (like the Mac). Yellow dog's package updateing tool was easy to use and had repositories like APT, which was something many people thought to be lacking in RPM based distributions, so someone decided to grab Yellow dog's package updating tool and modify it for other distributions. Fedora Core now uses it as it's main way of updating packages but to be honest, they still have a loooooong way to go before getting as good as APT

Just as a note, Ubuntu 5.10, named Breezy Badger (don't ask, they like to name their releases in a strange way... ) should come out in a few days. It's scheduled to be released in October, so it shouldn't be long, now. I have upgraded to the beta a few weeks ago and, apart from a minor problem I fixed in a minute by visiting ubuntuforums.org, it's been running smoothly. That's one of the things that made me switch from RPM-based Linux (Fedora Core, specifically) to a Debian/APT-based one (Ubuntu) - the package manager is simply fantastic! You can upgrade your whole distribution with a one-line, three argument command - or a few mouse clicks, if you prefer the amazing Synaptic GUI frontend for APT. Actually, not having APT repositories available for Fedora Core 4 was even more significant in my choice of moving away from FC4. Fedora Core 2 and 3 and lots of repositories and there was a version of APT-GET made to work with RPM packages instead of DEBs but Fedora Core 4 had nothing like it. They did have YUM but APT is much better, IMO. Well, enought chit-chat, go download Ubuntu now! PS - No, I'm not affilliated with Ubuntu in any way...

Thanks, Bruce!

I've been using the version 2.0 betas for a while and I agree with Mike, it's really becoming a really great product. I also used 1.x but it had some problems which are being addressed in 2.0

Thomas, why don't you help out and work on the translation? After all, that's what Open Source / Free Software is all about Thanks for the news, Bruce

If you have some PHP knowledge, I seriously recommend Drupal. I've been using it a lot and I'm still amazed at how well thought out the whole thing is. At first, some things seem not to make sense but when you start using it, you see that's really the most logical way of doing those things. It's not the easiest or friendliest CMS to use but it sure is one of the most powerfull I've seen. As for websites with reviews, Bruce already pointed a good one. I'll suggest another one: cmsmatrix.org. I prefer this one because it lets you pick a few CMSs and it presents you with a table comparing the CMSs you picked. Pretty handy. Good luck!

You're both right. It is indeed very bad for Open Source software public image. In this case, I'd say it's more of a bad thing for Mozilla's public image. Somehow I have the impression people don't really make the connection between Mozilla and Open Source, I think people think Mozilla is a "different" thing... But yes, pretty bad nonetheless. Rob, exactly, like I said, we all knew it would start to happen, sooner or later. But the important thing is to see how the creators of the software will address these vulnerabilities. Will they provide patches in a timely fashion or will they make the users wait for weeks before providing a way to fix the security hole? I'm trying not to make a direct comparison with Microsoft here but this is obviously connected to all those comments we all see and hear about Open Source software being better than MS because MS takes ages to provide patches, while Open Source software delivers patches in a matter of days, sometimes hours after the vulnerabilities become known. It's not a matter of comparing MS to any other company or software group, it's just a matter of finally starting to get proof that Open Source is capable of delivering security updates faster than proprietary methods of developing software.

Yikes, looks like I posted in the wrong forum about this. Sorry...

Korean distributions of Mozilla and Thunderbird for Linux were infected with Virus.Linux.RST.b. This virus searches for executable ELF files in the current and /bin directories and infects them. It also contains a backdoor, which downloads scripts from another site, and executes them, using a standard shell. So now we see more viruses for Linux and also Mozilla appearing, we all knew it would happen as it gained popularity.What we will now see is the real important thing: how these security issues will be addressed by the creators of the software

Firefox 1.0.7 has been released today. From the announcement "Fixes are included for the international domain name (IDN) link buffer overflow vulnerability and the Linux command line URL parsing flaw. There are also other security and stability changes, including a fix for a crash experienced when using certain Proxy Auto-Config scripts. In addition, some regressions introduced by previous 1.0.x security updates have been resolved."

Glad to know everything is OK with you, Jim!

Mike, you are absolutely correct. The FSB allows the P4 to be faster in some situations and yes, I also think that the performance numbers on the Athlon CPUs are probably a bit stretched James, I can't recall if the Venice core version is the one that uses Socket 939. If it's not, pick the one that uses Socket 939. As for Windows XP Pro x64, it really depends on what you want to do. If you're going to use applications that already exist in a 64 bit version, then you probably could use XP x64. On the other hand, if you already own a copy of Win XP (32 bit edition) and you're not thinking of running 64 bit applications, you will not gain much from buying the 64 bit version of Windows. Even more so because there is still not much 64 bit software available for Windows, except for some professional applications and a couple of games. Drivers can still be an issue, too. Unless, of course, you don't mind the price tag and want to invest for the future but in that case, I'd probably wait for Windows Vista. Or install Linux

James, the Athlon 3000+ is faster than a P4@2.6 GHz. While Intel worked mainly to improve their CPUs' clock speed, AMD has worked on other areas and made their CPUs perform as well as Intel CPUs with higher clock speeds. What this means is that although the clock speed of an AMD Athlon 3000+ CPU is lower than an Intel Pentium 4 CPU clocked at 3.0 GHz, the Athlon CPU performance is equivalent to the P4 performance. That's why AMD decided to use this nomenclature, because the clock speed is no longer the most important thing. When they call "3000+" to a CPU, it means it is as fast as an Intel CPU clocked at 3000 MHz = 3 Ghz. For instance, the Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 939) clock speed is only 1.8 GHz but I have one and I can tell you from experience that it is indeed as fast (sometimes faster) than a P4@3.06 GHz.