Slashdot Mirror

Mod parent up, daethon is essentially right. IBM got their asses handed to them in the '80's, learned very hard lessons, and built a set of tools and technologies for a specific marketplace. During that time, they perfected both their technologies and the match between their technology and their chosen market. I think I've heard of mainframe applications running continuously for decades... Too lazy to find a specific link though.

7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box. Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35% data, 65% header when applications talk. Network is at the speed of memory. zVM has been developed for over 20 years.

I remember booting VM/CMS and DOS (which is all we had licenses to run) under VM/370 in 1975, though of course the networking was not quite as polished then! :-) :-) (that is the DOS that eventually grew into DOS/VSE their second-tier OS.) I've long forgotten the begats leading from OS/360 through MFT, MVT, etc. which led to VM/370 and on to today's Z series, but as I look back through all that history I see that IBM has built a truly remarkable system that almost certainly deserves the praise it receives for reliability and scalability.

IBM (who at the time were RAGING monopolists and on occasion behaved as as badly as Microsoft is behaving today) has been researching, implementing and improving virtualization technology for *at least* 35 years, could be 40.

I also remember an event that I believe brought the mainframe to relative currency, in 1998 or 1999: The day that a developer ported Linux to an S/390, and just for the adventure of it, tried to find a limit of the number of Linux images he could run on it. I remember indistinctly that he quit trying at 40,000 instances. It's not really functional (see this article but it still gives a hint of the capabilities that modern mainframe technology offers.

Never mind, I guess it already exists: http://librenix.com/?inode=634

I've run GNU/Linux for years without any anti-virus software on my boxen whatsoever.
I agree that social engineering is still the #1 way to exploit any system, and probably will remain at that spot indefinitely.
However, that doesn't mean I believe Linux is absolutely impervious to trojan or other attacks.
The fact remains that, unlike *nix systems and their related userbase, MS has failed miserably at providing an environment where virii have a hard time existing to begin with. Granted, there was a somewhat half-assed addressing of this since XP - but it's relatively useless since most users just make their accounts == Administrator because otherwise they can't install any software at all, negating the whole attempt of 'root privilege' isolation. The only real segregation is in user documents and similar such files. Executables/DLLs still have 'root' access to kernel resources. Until this fatal flaw in architecture is fixed, it will not even be close to being a secure OS and AV software will be required on windows, whereas it's not necessarily required on others even despite the tech level of users.

Yes they can. http://librenix.com/?inode=10106

The decTOP is a tiny AMD Geode-based box that consumes a total of about 8 watts, doesn't have a fan, runs Linux, and the only noise is the hard drive. With a flash-based drive, the power would drop to around 5 watts, perhaps, and it'd be totally silent.

The 1 watt AMD Geode in the decTOP runs at 366 MHz and makes a fine light-duty server.

live.linuX-gamers.net is a Linux live-dvd distribution: "boot 'n play" http://live.linux-gamers.net/

One of My Favorites, AdvanceCD is a bootable live CD, DVD and USB disk of a minimal Linux distribution containing the AdvanceMAME emulator.

You can boot it in any PC and play the contained games without any installation. The default distribution contains the arcade games Gridlee, Poly Play and Robby Roto and it uses only 20 Mbyte leaving the whole disk for your roms. http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/cd-readme.html

Games Knoppix
Review http://www.linux.com/articles/113906
Download http://www.games-knoppix.org/

http://gamer-linux.pappapc.com/

and on and on and on. You have heard of Google, yeah?

From time to time I'll visit http://librenix.com/, a "linux tutorial" aggregator site where people collect various tips about Linux and its various applications. This is often how I will hear about various applications, methods to secure your computer, tricks for administering Linux, etc. For example, as of this writing, among the first page list of articles we have a tutorial on installing VirtualBox in Linux, emacs essentials, how to install dual monitors, etc. Most articles are good, although the styles can vary since Librenix just points to various web pages; they weren't created for Librenix itself.

Recommended.

int fct1();
int fct2();
 
int main()
{
    int x = fct1(), fct2();
}

If everyone were to migrate to Linux, Viruses/Bugs would migrate aswell, but with ease. When someone has access to the source of your operating system....thats like giving a theif the layout of your security system to your home.

Indeed. Good viruses are bad for quite a few reasons.

For example, how do you 'control' a brilliant white-hat worm when the code is in the hands of a black-hat?

We recently purchased a NAS from eRacks, which we are happy with & is slightly less expensive than the options you posted.

Ther are MANY tutorials on building your own RAIDed NAS on the net. Some have been slashdotted. Here's one. Google for others.

Yes, and various other prediction in history were 100% wrong -- until the actual event happened. Then they were suddenly transformed into accurate predictions.

It's that 'never changing' conventional wisdom that causes so many surprises to look so obvious in retrospect once the shift happens.

> What matters is that this article quality on /. is substandard and causing me to look for alternatives to /.

http://technocrat.net/

And as a supplement for OSS/UNIX/Linux stuff in particular, I like:

http://rootprompt.org/
http://www.librenix.com/

Have you looked into eclipse? Runs on pretty much anything (isn't java grand?). Although I do not use it for such, there are C/C++ plugins avaliable (http://www.eclipse.org/cdt/ and http://librenix.com/?inode=1423) as well as perl etc. For java at least, has auto complete, integrated help into javadoc etc. Give it a try, I have found that it rivals Visual Studio (not in speed though, sadly).

Routers just pass packets, they don't examine packets for certain data. I've never seen a firewall that will examine TCP/25 packets for a RCPT TO address, either

Check out ROPE. It's a firewall scripting language (iptables matching module) that will filter based on packet data. Examples are given for filtering based on "key: value" strings in HTTP headers, for example. Seems reasonable that it could see a RCPT TO field, no? More here

I keep hearing about this "linux virus" that's just around the corner...

There are security issues with Linux, but viruses just really aren't on the list, and the need for a "virus scanner" is just lost. Don't look for the virus, fix the problem that allowed the virus in the first place!

There are many articles on why this is so so 20 minutes with google and you'll begin to see the difference.

Again, it's not as though *nix is perfectly secure, it's just that automated viruses are really not in the mix.

And there HAVE been a number of Linux viruses, one good enough to cause me to update outside my usual update cycle.

It's just rare, and it will most likely stay that way.

...on the problems with beneficial computer viruses.

The link to this article was posted on Librenix earlier today so I got to read the whole thing before it got slashdotted. Is slashdot getting slow? Anyway I think I will switch to ReiserFS since that is what is recommended by Gentoo anyway.

"...more detail to security will have to be maintained to ensure the safety of the systems you are running."

Oh you mean like SELinux, UML Linux, File System ACL's, and Chroot jails? Oh I feel much more comfortable about Linux's security future than Windos.

Why not just mod me up instead? I provide links!

A really good troll makes every word in his sentence a link so that his point seems valid.

You don't even have to visit the sites, just google something like "linux vs windows", grab relevent links and include then in your post. No one will read them anyways, and believe you because you provided plenty of background Info and reputable sources (computing.net included!). They will have to believe your Pro-Windows rant.

Linux isn't a Toy OS. it's used by google. Who provided you this Informative post :)

Yes, I point out that distinction here. And, I commend the correction of a flawed license. It leaves a more palatable choice for those who are adverse to the GPL, yet the work can now be considered compatible with the FSF's licenses. This doesn't negate the fact it leaves the work without protection from abuse, but some people aren't inclined towards the community in that manner.

Software should be free because it is ideas and ideas are non-rivalous resources.

Ah, I think I see where our differences are a little more clearly. I don't consider software ideas. I believe it is commonly held that software is the implementation of ideas. In addition, there is nothing that keeps ideas from being at odds or at rivalry with another except for the integral meaning of those ideas. Case in point would be our disagreement with this issue. But, I believe you meant that "software" (being ideas in your terms) are non-rivalous resources. That's not true.

But at the same time, software should be protected from "theft"

If that is a concern, BSD will not get you there. Use the GPL or LGPL.

and "splintering", something that just can't happen with a non-rivalous resource.

Splintering in itself isn't something to be avoided. Software, to maintain usefulness and creativity in the long run, may require forking. However, without a mechanism to ensure that growth and change be reincorporated back into the original community would bring about another round of the Unix Wars. Rivalry, breathes vitality into variety. Currently, the GPL is a popular mechanism to ensure that forking doesn't become true splintering that can be brought about by unchecked greed and selfishness. Forking is healthy, and allows exploration into newer ideas when older ideas become stale. It is derivation, and that's progress. Using a GPL'd product as the base of your derivation simply means that you acknowledge that your derivations aren't built on air, but on the collective back of the community. Your simply adding your brick to the house built by others. Future brick layers will in turn give back to you as well. No GPL'd product can remain permanently forked as long there is a single person willing to maintain unity. BSD invites permanent forks by rivalrous private corporations seeking vendor lock-in and other expensive surprises for consumers.

Perhaps I don't see the problems produced by Unix that you do, being an old unix hand myself.

That explains the difference of opinion. People have forgotten how Linux was ridiculed by Unix-purists. No self-respecting Unix guru would believe that this little GPL'd missing link (the rest of the GPL'd OS was already made, just missing the kernel) would amount to anything more than a toy. Perhaps with another license, that would have been true. The toy turned out to be a juggernaught under the protection of the GPL.

The common set of tools with a predictable interface meant that I could do work on any system, no matter if it was Linux, Sun, NeXT, IRIX or AIX.

Yes, you can thank GNU and GPL for that: "and thus quite often any machine running a commercial Unix variant would stock GNU versions of utilities to take advantage of these features and to have a standardized version of them."

But I think that you don't really know your history here. The Free BSDs developed about the same time as GNU/Linux in response to a primarily proprietary Unix market. If anyone is responsible for the rise of proprietary Unix, it was Bell Labs and AT&T during the 1970s! (See this history for more details.) Since the Open Source BSDs were stalled due to a lawsuit from 1992-1994 (the same period when

I have an earthlink.net account and a couple of weeks ago I was issued an IP address in the dreaded slashdot BANNED! file. Pity poor me, getting the big orange screen telling me about the terms of use and how, as a BANNED! IP addy, I was unable to even read them. Fortunately, the evil orange BANNED! page quoted me a few of the offenses that might have gotten 'my' IP banned. I must have spammed the input queue or posted a PWP (page widening post) or somesuch.

Of course, it wasn't me. It was some other Earthlink customer who, sometime in the past, was issued that same dynamic IP address and committed the unpardonable offense. That customer has moved on to a new IP, but /. never forgets.

It was hell. I spent *hours* unable to access /. -- can you imagine the suffering that such a fate would cause *you*??!

Eventually, I was issued a new IP address from earthlink and was back online as the ageless Sun Tzu once more. But I still live in fear that someday, perhaps when I least expect it, the evil orange BANNED! page will return to haunt me. This is the personal hell that I inhabit and it is here that I shall remain, until I get a clean static IP address of my very own. I live for that day.
--
Send us your Linux System Administration articles

As a Sun system administrator and a military strategist on SST, I think they should call it, simply, Sun Tzu. I would take offense of use of the hyphen. heh.
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin Articles

With only that statement to go on, I would guess that you may be new to Slashdot. Please visit and read the outrageous lies. More can be found here, here, and here.

You've confirmed for me that not many people actually looked at the code (around 500 lines) or even tried the demos that came with it before offering an opinion. The value of their opinions should be weighed with that in mind. After all, why voice an opinion on something you haven't tried? Why should someone believe that opinion? If you have a child, would you give that child the advice of following, and believing, in the opinion of others who haven't even experienced the subject firsthand, or know of actual cases where the subject warranted that opinion? Granted, a small minority of posters who didn't "think" the product could work at least prefaced their opinion with the fact that they didn't know the product at all.

did not convince that their product was useful for any real purpose

The idea that there isn't a place for this technology is proven false by the existance of products using some form of object prevalence. Simply go through the posts in this article and you'll run into a handful of people who bothered to post about their experiences and projects.

However, if you have no interest in using the product, there is nothing wrong with that. There may be a myriad of legitimate technical reasons why someone wouldn't use it (I know of very few). However, let's be clear here. To base a reason on packaging is nothing more than a simple matter of taste, not true objectivity. It has absolutely nothing to do with technical merits.

= 9J =

FWIW, that's not how I remember it -- the original DeCSS was (I assume) a C program, and there was a trend of re-implementing it in different languages to keep it from being eradicated. The Perl example you cite was the shortest implementation, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the original.

I can't find direct citations for this, but the "remove cascading stylesheets" DeCSS -- which came out as a protest to the original DeCSS decoder -- is talked about in this page, which is dated 16 Feb 2000. There's a reference to the 7 line Perl version from this article, dated 8 Mar 2001, and in this Wired article from Jun 2001.

This is enough to convince me that the original DeCSS wasn't as you describe here. I'm still not sure if it was Perl or not, but it wasn't the 7 liner that came out over a year later than the original.

----

REPOST: the original version of this comment had a broken anchor tag, which is corrected here. Feel free to mod the other version into oblivion...

FWIW, that's not how I remember it -- the original DeCSS was (I assume) a C program, and there was a trend of re-implementing it in different languages to keep it from being eradicated. The Perl example you cite was the shortest implementation, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the original.

I can't find direct citations for this, but the "remove cascading stylesheets" DeCSS -- which came out as a protest to the original DeCSS decoder -- is talked about in this page, which is dated 16 Feb 2000. There's a reference to the 7 line Perl version from this article, dated 8 Mar 2001, and in this Wired article from Jun 2001.

This is enough to convince me that the original DeCSS wasn't as you describe here. I'm still not sure if it was Perl or not, but it wasn't the 7 liner that came out over a year later than the original.

This is proof that even without running network services and without a bunch of lusers with accounts on it, a mainframe still isn't secure.

I can't wait to see what IBM's patch for this little security problem is, heh. ;)
--
Send us your Linux Programming articles

The difference between Linux and Windows that the original poster was obviously referring to is this:

Linux consists of 99%+ functionality patches

Windows consists of 182%+(*) security patches, many of which, unfortunately, have security issues

(*) Totals exceed 100% due to previous patches getting patched for new security issues.
--
Send us your Linux programming articles

http://pyrll.ibm.com/rewardprograms/scobounty/reba teform.html is where I applied. I think they're paying quite generously for posts on message boards and even more if you have access to an authoritative-looking website. Now's your chance to use those 31337 h0x0ring sk1lz for big bux!
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

A related article sums an argument against beneficial viruses. Unauthorized intrusion is bad, no matter that the perpetrators _claim_ their are good.
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

A related article sums an argument against beneficial viruses. Unauthorized intrusion is bad, no matter that the perpetrators _claim_ their are good.
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

1) The company probably either archived the code, sold it, or ignored it during the assets liquidation. Therefore, all you have is a _copy_ of the code. Sit on the copy until the copyright expires.
2) You are now in possession of _public_domain_ code -- and you are probably the _only_ person holding such code.
3) Make a _legal_ derived product from the public domain code and register the copyright to _your_ work.
4) Burn the original copy.
5) ??????
6) Profit!
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin article.

I didn't think spiders and bots were officially counted in the employment rolls, but maybe that's just speciesism on the part of us humans.
--
Check out our little bitty Linux Sysadmin Portal.

...distributing linux. On May 3rd, 2003, this article about SCO's problem first went up.

It may be feasible to have micropayments down to as little as a penny per transaction based on the infamous web bug. Don't let the name scare you! ;)

article 1
article 2
Cutting through RMS' crud.

Check out this article about the GPL implications of their republishing IBM's alegedly infringing code in their own version of Linux.

Check out this article about the GPL implications of their republishing IBM's alegedly infringing code in their own version of Linux.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Please register or login. There are 6 registered and 2756 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 1635.01 kbit/s

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles!

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.

Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.!

Software development is one hundred percent design