|
|
 | | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
| (...) [snip a lot of differences] cool - I just installed it today, as an upgrade, so I didn't notice most of these... I upgraded the daemons myself as they came out, and wouldn't let it touch my inetd.conf, so a lot of these would be missed on me. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
| (...) Oh man, have I ever looked at it. This release of BU Linux is actually based on RH 6.2. Major differences are: - kerberos5 support (urg. we use kerberos4, so that's more annoying than helpful) - 128 bit netscape navigator by default - includes (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
| (...) cool :) Heh, did you look at 6.2 yet? I installed it today, though I haven't noticed any major difference yet... :) Dan btw, since you're at BU, have you ever heard of Three Kingdoms, or more commonly, 3K? ;) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: Adobe Illustrator to Macromedia Flash
|
| (...) The upshot was that we were sent duff files. All is well now. ++Lar (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | NQC in Boston University Linux :)
|
| So, when we release BU Linux R1 next Tuesday [1], it will be the first [2] Linux distribution to ship with NQC included. (URL), if you care. [1] or maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Hopefully Tuesday. Depends on the wheels of bureaucracy. [2] not (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) Javascript story: I just came across someone the other day who was mad because he had to "covert all his equal signs into double-equals so they'd work with netscape". Hrm. Not exactly confidence-inspiring, that. (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) nod, exactly. (...) you're very correct, I'm sorry. I don't have much experience with either java or JS, so the two unknowns are very similar. I do know that java is a respectable language though :) Dan (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) Reject it on the server end, and serve the form again with an appropriate error message. If you were using the CGI module (1), return an error if (for example) $cgi->param("Vlogin") returns a blank string. Oh, yeah. And don't rely on (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) I agree that JavaScript really isn't the best way to validate this. As long as you're doing CGI, why not do a POST to the same script, evaluate, the answers, and complain if they're not any good? With regards to the multiple fields, I think (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: CGI question
|
| (...) well, not sure how you can do it with java, but you shouldn't rely on java for form validation anyhow - it's unreliable, and easily overcome. If you had to, you could add another text field, in which case enter won't submit the form, and you'd (...) (25 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
