Yes, it has to point to something the client knows. Android uses a
gstatic.com link.
The key is that the client knows to expect a
particular response, but the captive middlebox does not. Thereby the
client can find out whether there is a captive middlebox or not, by
seeing whether it gets
Hendrik Boom writes:
Worst is probably the connections that seem to be wide open, but
aren't. The ones where you have to open a browser and look for a page
and get an interception page instead asking for your credentials.
Those are detectable: Open http://wlanhelper.devuan.org/.html in
the
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 07:44:28PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> Well, it's pretty likely things are quantized at or around Planck's length,
> that makes everything integers, and thus the state of the Universe can be
> represented in a finite number of bits (although the Planck's length is
>
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:44:50PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> The most common cases involve WPA2 or (especially at hotels) wide open.
> Those are easily accommodated at the script level. If anybody's using
> WEP anymore, they deserve to be diverted to wicd.
Worst is probably the connections
Le 08/12/2016 19:44, Adam Borowski a écrit :
Well, it's pretty likely things are quantized at or around Planck's length,
that makes everything integers, and thus the state of the Universe can be
represented in a finite number of bits (although the Planck's length is
smaller compared to atom
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:44:50PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> OK. Fair enough.
>
> Perhaps do a script for the common cases, and if that fails, tell the
> user:
>
> Failed to get a network. Would you like to try using conman and wicd?
> Y/N=>
>
There is already such a "script" in
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:19:46 +
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > * Because most wifi software sucks, I suggest Devuan roll its own
> > CLI software, for the installation, that iwlist wlan0 scanning
> >
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:07:54AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Dr. Nikolaus Klepp (dr.kl...@gmx.at):
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb Rick Moen:
> > > So, banning software patents is difficult, because of the ease of
> > > instantiating software in hardware.
> >
> > On the
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:03:45AM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb KatolaZ:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb Rick Moen:
> > > > So, banning software patents is difficult,
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb KatolaZ:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb Rick Moen:
> > > So, banning software patents is difficult, because of the ease of
> > > instantiating software in hardware.
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb Rick Moen:
> > So, banning software patents is difficult, because of the ease of
> > instantiating software in hardware.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite easy: what ever can be implemented
Am Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 schrieb Rick Moen:
> So, banning software patents is difficult, because of the ease of
> instantiating software in hardware.
On the contrary, it's quite easy: what ever can be implemented using a turing
machine is not patentable.
--
Please do not email me
Quoting Clarke Sideroad (clarke.sider...@gmail.com):
> I believe software should not be patent-able although could/should be
> protected under a shortened copyright term at worst.
It used to be the case that software was not patentable. The
consequence was that, e.g., the patent on
, you're only stating that now.
> and once again, the same
> guy who brought patents into the mix asserted that I had falsely
> diagnosed the OP's problem.
You surely did:
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20161206.220637.24cd7edb.en.html
|Author: Robert Storey
|Date: 2016-12-0
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:55:44 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> Wifi is always problematic. Always. NetworkManager, Wicd, and even the
> wpa_* all seem to fail at just the wrong time. If I were Devuan, I'd
> create a wifi module that:
>
> 1) Displays the wifi signals in signal
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
[cut]
>
> * Because most wifi software sucks, I suggest Devuan roll its own CLI
> software, for the installation, that iwlist wlan0 scanning lists the
> access points, takes the ssid and password, and then appends the
> result of
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:11:10 +
Simon Hobson wrote:
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> But then, this is all getting well off-topic for the list and the
> thread. The point remains - neither patents nor DMCA are relevant.
Indeed we are
Clarke Sideroad wrote:
> I believe software should not be patent-able ...
And this is part of the "system is broken" - especially in the USA.
A novel business process which happens to use computers/software should (IMO)
be patentable under the same rules of prior
I believe software should not be patent-able although could/should be
protected under a shortened copyright term at worst.
Software when you get right down to it is a presentation of an idea
using math, ideas are free, math is free, so why a patent?
Clarke
KatolaZ wrote:
> All very good points, indeed, which unfortunately become automatically
> nonsense in the case of software. 17 or 25 years are the blink of an
> eye for hardcore 19th centrury industrial innovation, when the patent
> system was invesned, but correspond to
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:11:10PM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
>
> > No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
> > invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it during that
> > time.
>
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
> No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
> invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it during that
> time.
>
> Introduced to make research economically viable.
And the flip side
Am Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 schrieb Renaud OLGIATI:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:45:32 +0100
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > The reason patents were introduced for was getting more money for the king.
>
> No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 11:45:32 +0100
Adam Borowski wrote:
> The reason patents were introduced for was getting more money for the king.
No, they were introduced to guarantee the inventor the exclusivity of his
invention for a certain time, so he alone could profit from it
On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:10:35AM +, Simon Hobson wrote:
> The first bit is correct - most proprietary software is encumbered by
> patents, DMCA restrictions, and all that stuff - I almost said "all that
> carp" but that would be wrong since both patents and (to a much lesser
> extent) DMCA
Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> That's a non sequitur
>> The ONLY, and I mean ONLY bit that's relevant is the one about licence terms
>> - and that's *relatively* easy to deal with one way or another as the
>> licence terms are there to be read (either there are terms
Quoting Renaud OLGIATI (ren...@olgiati-in-paraguay.org):
> On the other hand, by making it impossible to install without having
> to go and hunt firmwares under the excuse that they are not open
> source, open-source talibans are doing exactly what they condemn in
> the systemd talibans: both
Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> OK fine, just have this yes or no question early in the install:
>>
>> =
>> Are you willing to have the install try non-free drivers and firmware
>> for your network, video,
Alessandro Selli said:
> I'd like to point out that including proprietary drivers does
> not address any of the issues Robert Storey described:
>
> 1) no WiFi support in the install program;
> 2) no DHCP autoconfiguration using a wired Ethernet connection;
> 3) Wicd missing after installation.
>
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:28:13 -0500
Steve Litt wrote:
> OK fine, just have this yes or no question early in the install:
>
> =
> Are you willing to have the install try non-free drivers and firmware
> for your
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 11:28:13 -0500 Steve Litt
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:27:33 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> > Il giorno Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:12:34 -0300
> > Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI ha scritto:
[...]
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 15:27:33 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> Il giorno Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:12:34 -0300
> Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI ha scritto:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:30:58 +0100
> > Alessandro Selli wrote:
> >
Il giorno Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:12:34 -0300
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI ha scritto:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:30:58 +0100
> Alessandro Selli wrote:
>
> > Devuan was born with the intention of removing the artificial limits
> > systemd is
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 at 13:54:30 + Dave Turner
wrote:
> Robert has a very valid point.
Robert Storey does have a vlid point. In my opinion Steve Litt does not.
Robert Storey laments the lack of WiFi connectivity support in "the
installation program
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 14:30:58 +0100
Alessandro Selli wrote:
> Devuan was born with the intention of removing the artificial limits
> systemd is imposing users. Proprietary software is even worse in restricting
> people's choice. If your vision of Devuan is something
On 06/12/16 13:30, Alessandro Selli wrote:
Il giorno Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:55:44 -0500
Steve Litt ha scritto:
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:05:11 +0800
Robert Storey wrote:
It pains me to say this, but the installation program for Devuan
Beta2 is
Il giorno Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:55:44 -0500
Steve Litt ha scritto:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:05:11 +0800
> Robert Storey wrote:
>
> > It pains me to say this, but the installation program for Devuan
> > Beta2 is seriously broken. And I say this not
37 matches
Mail list logo