|
2009-11-09
, 15:16
|
Posts: 3,841 |
Thanked: 1,079 times |
Joined on Nov 2006
|
#22
|
|
2009-11-09
, 15:35
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#23
|
|
2009-11-09
, 15:41
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#24
|
That's a whole other thing though. You were originally talking about: which is pretty clearly an action entirely at odds with the users software freedom in principle, and wouldn't work in practice due to the user having the freedom to have dbus, the kernel, or whatever part of the stack they like, feed your app whatever value is going to make it happy.
|
2009-11-09
, 15:53
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#25
|
That's a whole other thing though. You were originally talking about: which is pretty clearly an action entirely at odds with the users software freedom in principle, and wouldn't work in practice due to the user having the freedom to have dbus, the kernel, or whatever part of the stack they like, feed your app whatever value is going to make it happy.
|
2009-11-09
, 16:59
|
|
Posts: 2,427 |
Thanked: 2,986 times |
Joined on Dec 2007
|
#26
|
Well the N900 is a GSM device so at the risk of appearing pedant: N900 thread, device might reasonably be expected to refer to a subset of the thread. (Scoping/Encapsulation rules anyone?)
|
2009-11-09
, 19:08
|
|
Posts: 900 |
Thanked: 273 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Fresno CA USA
|
#27
|
|
2009-11-09
, 19:40
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#28
|
You are a pedant; you should work on that. No where in my post did I say how unique or robust my solution was. In fact, I called it a hack. The OP mentioned Python and MAC address; I gave him one possible solution from a similar device. Then you inaccurately responded and I corrected you. And now you're making excuses for your inaccuracies with bad, pedantic scoping rules humor. You'll do well here.
Welcome to talk.maemo.org!
|
2009-11-09
, 19:44
|
|
Posts: 445 |
Thanked: 572 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford
|
#29
|
How is that at odds with anything. Plenty of FOS developed software use check sums to verify integrity and to limit distribution.
|
2009-11-09
, 19:47
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#30
|
I'm sure it is...
However it is loaded and potentially edited may require a completely different means of connection to the device as well...
I didn't think that editing this identifier was the what the OP was after. I could be wrong though.
Schemes to reasonably identify who is accessing a server or service for what ever reason is not a bad thing and has nothing to do with FOSS.
Just remember to restart wlancond