Slashdot Mirror

> The Mailing List and Newsgroup just aren't an adequate security model.
If you don't trust a patch floating around a mailing list/newsgroup, fine. They will eventually get looked at by the (trusted) maintainers, who will personally review the patch and likely include it in the standard distribution. It's not as if joe schmoe can magically write some code, post it on a newsgroup, and *bam*, it's in the distro. It doesn't work like that. Code has to go through an EXTENSIVE public review process before it gets merged into the main tree. That's a more than adequate security model, and better than most proprietary software vendors.
If getting patches from an untrusted source in a newsgroup bothers you, then you can wait for them to get reviewed and either be rejected (and the functionality added in some other way), or make their way into the standard distribution. I don't see what's so hard about that.
You obviously haven't actually had any direct experience with the way these projects work.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

I wouldn't worry about it, myself. It'd be the proveribal drop -- no, molecule -- in the bucket.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

[apprunner] crashes silently at the end of its startup spiel.

No, just the first time you run it, you actually run the installation wizard, which exits when it is done. When you start apprunner the next time (and all subsequent times), it will start up the browser.

If you don't like something, you really can fix it without having to wade through reams and reams of mediocre eighties code.

Er, there's not really any of that "mediocre eighties code" left...
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

Let's just hope that journalists don't start hounding him on c.o.l and linux-kernel...
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

~just a little bit~

~just a little bit~

S-A-R-C-A-S-M

(to the tune of "RESPECT")
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

"No", the patches are not cumulative, "yes," you'll need to get and apply all the intermediate patches in order.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

In case you haven't noticed, the majority of Alpha sales have been OpenVMS and DG-UX kits, not NT. There actually hasn't been that much demand for NT on Alpha, so I think Compaq is just doing the savvy thing -- they're just dropping a less profitable (for them) OS.

Dropping NT is not going to have that significant an effect on Alpha sales.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

You just want to start the client up as a specific user on bootup, right? That doesn't necessarily imply a login.

Probably what you want to do is stick something like su -c "rc5clientthingy --option blah" rc5user < /dev/null 2>&1 > /dev/null & in one of your init scripts. Bonus points if you set up a full-blown SYSV script for it (a la /etc/rc.d/init.d).

You probably want this to start in runlevel 2, 3 or 4, as those are the "network-enabled" ones. (if you're using standard runlevel configurations)

One day they will run out of reserves and they'll have two choices. 1) Don't add any more features, no matter how important they may be or 2) break existing programs and change the layout.

or, 3) subclass the existing interfaces

That's more readable in places than the original text...

Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

Can someone translate?

Here goes...

Clarification filter:

Although the subnetting (sub-division of a parent network) features of IPv4 do not offer much flexibility, they have served to relieve congestion, ease management, and provide performance gains. These were meagre benefits, and did nothing to increase the effective number of addresses availible for allocation. Yet, they could still provide a way for the IETF to reduce the need to implement a new IP addressing scheme.

Crap isolation filter:

The subnetting features of IPv4 are inflexible and useless. They did reduce congestion, provide performance gains, and make management easier, but none of that matters because subnetting does provide any more addresses to allocate. However, the IETF can use subnetting to fix the current address shortage.

Crap removal filter:

IP subnetting can potentially be used to remove or reduce the need to implement a new IP addressing scheme, although that was not its original purpose.

Interpretation filter:

So far, IP subnetting has had limited usefulness. However, the IETF could take advantage of it to re-use individual IPs in different subnets. Doing so would at least temporarily remove the need to switch to IPv6.

Plain English filter:

Subnets aren't that useful. We should use the fields to get 4 more octets in our IP addresses instead.

Conclusion:

This guy is the most horrid writer I have ever encountered. I have known functional illiterates who could draft more readable and well-thought-out documents.

I strongly suspect that author was under the influence of multiple controlled substances at the time of the document's composition.

Interpretation filter:

This guy is on crack.

I get 2 second ping times on IRC all the time. Does this mean NASA will be running an ircd on their next interplanetary probe?

*grins*
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

It already exists, and I believe has been published in part.

Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org