101001010101

5 ms·

1.
by 101001010101 15y ago
Sort of. But you have to keep X11 running on another vt. Stopping and restarting X many times in a session is a different story. At least for me. And even in the case I keep X11 running on another vt, I've found that when using no wm, or
2.
by 101001010101 15y ago
Thanks. I've learnt the lesson now. I can understand why that's a good rule. Am I the only one who thinks these titles are too often unoriginal, suggestive and often conclusive? And sometimes the conclusions in the title are not even sup
3.
by 101001010101 15y ago
There we go again. Sense of humour is penalised on HN.
4.
by 101001010101 15y ago
An astounding conclusion! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
5.
by 101001010101 15y ago
And I'd guess they still charge a fee for that, too. :)
6.
by 101001010101 15y ago
Right. The way I see it, CarrierIQ gives carriers the kind of information that Apple could, in theory, gather quite easily. Maybe that was the idea behind CIQ? Just taking a wild guess.
7.
by 101001010101 15y ago
At least you have an agreement with your carrier. Alas, you have none with CIQ. Even though you're using their software.
8.
by 101001010101 15y ago
Ah. Cheers.
9.
by 101001010101 15y ago
It would be interesting to see their agreements with the carriers. Presumably the carriers could request any data, not simply diagnostics. It certainly sounds like CIQ is prepared to deliver whatever a carrier might ask for: CIQ's rootkit c
10.
by 101001010101 15y ago
It says they don't authorise carriers to install it. But do carriers need authorisation? If the consumer never knows it's there, is there any risk to the carrier? To put it another way, what are the consequences if one installs something
11.
by 101001010101 15y ago
All due respect, Apple should not need to use CarrierIQ. They are a hardware company that sells the hardware it makes direct to consumer. They are perfectly positioned and quite capable of writing their own "rootkits". Of course, when they