Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - PantsManUK
16
Features / Re: Github & stuff
« on July 20th, 2012, 03:07 PM »@Norodo: That's the level of bad-ass I seek to attain, I'm still learning.
17
Features / Re: Github & stuff
« on July 19th, 2012, 03:25 PM »Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced. I think that for now, repohosting or bitbucket will be fine...
Getting a client you like will always be the hardest thing (Tortoise* if you're Windows only is probably the best of them. It's lacking some features in it's UI, but you've always got the command line tool to fall back to), as a repo host is a repo host for the most part, especially if you're not using them for all their webness bells and whistles (like Linus does with GH).
18
Features / Re: Github & stuff
« on July 18th, 2012, 05:13 PM »
Git's workflow is quite different to that of SVN, but Git and Hg have very similar workflows (as someone that uses/has used all three). TBH, once you get your head into the two-step commit/pull way of working, it's not a hassle. Personally, I much prefer Git, but that's cause I've mostly migrated all my development work over to my Mac and that has Tower - The most powerful Git client for Mac (best damn Git client it's been my pleasure to use; I just wish someone would do something this good for PC).
Between GH and BB, I prefer the BB website, but I'm not using the wiki or ticketing systems on either of those two sites. Tower has inbuilt GH integration (you can create a GH repo from within Tower, and some other stuff too, but as I say, I don't really use it so the integration is overkill for me and my workflows)
Between GH and BB, I prefer the BB website, but I'm not using the wiki or ticketing systems on either of those two sites. Tower has inbuilt GH integration (you can create a GH repo from within Tower, and some other stuff too, but as I say, I don't really use it so the integration is overkill for me and my workflows)
19
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 21st, 2012, 05:15 PM »
Wow, you drop off a site for a few weeks and all hell breaks loose.
As someone that has to implement solutions for this law (my employer's website is UK hosted and for UK visitors mostly, my personal website is UK hosted and I suspect mostly EU visited, and the site for the organisation I'm president of is US hosted and for EU visitors mostly, so I/we implement for all three), the best solutions I've seen so far don't operate in-page, they overlay the page (in some way, bottom-left corner remains my preferred position) and are not too big. It's simple really, until you the user say you don't mind accepting the cookies I would like to send you, I don't send those cookies. You, the visitor, can continue to visit those parts of the various sites that don't *require* the cookies to operate.
Do I think this it the thin end of a wedge? Not really, I don't think the Internets will be locked down because of this. I'm inclined to agree with Pete on this, it's time for the content providers to take some responsibility, especially those that are using cookies for the purposes of multi-site tracking. I/we don't, but there are plenty of folks out there that do.
Do I think this will magically fix the law breakers, even once there have been a few prosecutions? Nope, I'm not that stupid (wish I could spell naive ;-) ). The law breakers that are inside the EU/US[1] will just move further offshore and further offshore and eventually they'll end up funding a corrupt state somewhere just so they can continue doing what they're doing. As long as there is no "consensus law" and individual nation states are left to their own devices...
As someone that has to implement solutions for this law (my employer's website is UK hosted and for UK visitors mostly, my personal website is UK hosted and I suspect mostly EU visited, and the site for the organisation I'm president of is US hosted and for EU visitors mostly, so I/we implement for all three), the best solutions I've seen so far don't operate in-page, they overlay the page (in some way, bottom-left corner remains my preferred position) and are not too big. It's simple really, until you the user say you don't mind accepting the cookies I would like to send you, I don't send those cookies. You, the visitor, can continue to visit those parts of the various sites that don't *require* the cookies to operate.
Do I think this it the thin end of a wedge? Not really, I don't think the Internets will be locked down because of this. I'm inclined to agree with Pete on this, it's time for the content providers to take some responsibility, especially those that are using cookies for the purposes of multi-site tracking. I/we don't, but there are plenty of folks out there that do.
Do I think this will magically fix the law breakers, even once there have been a few prosecutions? Nope, I'm not that stupid (wish I could spell naive ;-) ). The law breakers that are inside the EU/US[1] will just move further offshore and further offshore and eventually they'll end up funding a corrupt state somewhere just so they can continue doing what they're doing. As long as there is no "consensus law" and individual nation states are left to their own devices...
| 1. | Oh, you, me and the side-board know *full* well that the US is going to enact something similar to this in the not too distant future. It's inevitable... |
20
Off-topic / Re: Help with apache2
« on June 1st, 2012, 11:47 AM »
A little late to the party, and a little OT. I applaud you using 12.04 (guessing this was a new VPS/VM), but as a warning to existing LTS users I wouldn't recommend upgrading to it (yet). It's very "unstable" at present; *lots* of updates... Needs a few months to settle down then it'll be good to dist-upgrade to.
21
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on May 31st, 2012, 05:57 PM »
Got eight cookies from them when I visit the live.com landing page, but no problems deleting any of them in Chrome Dev.
22
Features: Upcoming / Re: Q&A enhancement: multiple answers and multiple languages
« on May 31st, 2012, 04:49 PM »* PantsManUK likes it very much!
(MST3K reference... Props if you get it without having to Google it)
23
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on May 31st, 2012, 04:47 PM »
Just for a bit of perspective - http://www.lloydstsb.com/cookie_policy.asp
They've sent you six cookies across two domains before you get to read this, a clear violation of the regulations (feel free to complain to the ICO if you're in the EU), but otherwise their information is really good: you have a browser, you control your browser, this is how to delete cookies in your browser.
They've sent you six cookies across two domains before you get to read this, a clear violation of the regulations (feel free to complain to the ICO if you're in the EU), but otherwise their information is really good: you have a browser, you control your browser, this is how to delete cookies in your browser.
24
Features / Re: New WYSIWYG editor..?
« on May 28th, 2012, 11:54 AM »I'm old enough to remember word processors using dot commands for formatting with only basic bold/italics/underline actually being shown on-screen
:whistle:
25
Other software / Re: Has SMF Gotten Slower?
« on May 15th, 2012, 05:37 PM »
I can see mileage in per-board avatars (not that we'd use it), but per-post just seems like total overkill to me.
26
Off-topic / Re: Post count fever
« on May 10th, 2012, 10:15 AM »...and I'm now within the four-digit range!
27
Plugins / Re: CAPTCHA plugins
« on May 4th, 2012, 06:04 PM »
Well... Cards on the table, I'd be blissfully happy with reCaptcha (or better still, your CAPTCHA), Bad Behaviour and Akismet.
28
Archived fixes / Re: Long cache keys make the cache fail.
« on May 2nd, 2012, 12:12 PM »
Pretty much, yes. Salting is adding a string (of some sort) to the password prior to the hashing process to make things harder on folks attempting to reverse engineer the hashes. As long as the salt is complex enough and long enough, a rainbow attack becomes impractical (computationally speaking) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(cryptography).
Theoretically, you can store the salt value and the hash without compromising security.
Theoretically, you can store the salt value and the hash without compromising security.
29
Archived fixes / Re: Long cache keys make the cache fail.
« on May 2nd, 2012, 11:35 AM »The one thing I do want to mention is what phpBB and WP do (when using portable hashes, anyway), you take the username and password and md5 it repeatedly, making it harder to find a brute force match. I do not like that method, I'm really not convinced it's a security benefit. But I can believe that it might be if you're only working off the username and trying to match the hash through the same process (though I can also believe there are rainbow tables for that too)
Just to throw one more hat in the ring, can I just say "salting" and leave it at that...?
30
Archived fixes / Re: Long cache keys make the cache fail.
« on May 1st, 2012, 05:25 PM »
MD5 is terrible (from a cryptographic standpoint) and SHA1 isn't a lot better, but in non-security situations it's perfectly good enough; the collision risk is acceptable on both ('though MD5 is significantly cheaper in computing terms).