Slashdot Mirror
IBM Running Linux On Secure Hardware
Schmad writes: "IBM announced at LinuxWorld today that IBM Research and Cryptographic Appliances have Linux running on FIPS 140 Level 4 hardware. Imagine, Linux running in a totally secure environment!
Peter Gutmann, father of the crypto toolkit cryptlib, has some things to say about it here."
Erste Poste!
pirst fost!
of the Linux company. Die before you start.
great point
Get Internet Explore 6.0 now from Microsoft to experience the web at its best. Start downloading from here after all it is a relatively small download of only about 16 megs total for a typical install.
Not really. Miss Cleo knows all.
And the compression filter blocks all.
I don't know about everybody else but I would like to see stories about operating systems other than Linux. I mean, I think it's cool that Linux is free and all, but there are other open source operating systems that are better. Not only that, there are some really good operating systems that are closed source.
It's funny how people refuse to use closed source products. Is it a crime to make money? If I wanted to be a programmer I don't think I could live off of back patting and post cards. The money you pay for a product sometimes goes toward developing it full-time. Pay a little bit and you get a better quality product and employ a programmer. Imagine.
So why is Slashdot 95% Linux all the time? What happened to the BSDs, BeOS, QNX RTP, AtheOS, even *gasp* Windows: all fairly mature operating systems. Besides, it says "News for nerds" not "News for Linux nerds."
At least search and older stuff seem to be working again although the search seems a bit slow sometimes but it is certainly better than nothing. Of course the lameness filter is as lame as ever trying to filter out any comment with a blank line or spacing with the compression thing.
Notice how nothing has been moded down to -1
this article has nothing to do with *BSD.....nobody cares, shut up please
There are many ways in which we can look at this set of benchmarks and one involves looking at the respective user bases of the system. This would explain the bleak results of the FreeBSD based systems.
/maybe/ by 2004 FreeBSD will be a contender in the low-end server market.
*BSD faces a very bleak future. I've seen the same boring cut-n-paste "BSD is dying!" trolls for years now too, so don't dismiss what I have to say as another one of those. I researched many compartive points about all the various flavours of *BSD after my comptroller asked me to deploy an OpenBSD firewall.
Granted 4.2BSD was a very fine OS, but that was in 1983. 4.4BSD, and its brother 4.4BSBD-Lite, were abymsmal performers at best during their heydey in 1993-4. Both Solaris and HP-UX had networking stacks that supported "long fat pipes," multicasting, and TCP header header prediction years before 4.4BSD did.
I don't know why 4.4BSD-Lite became so popular. Perhaps because it was released as OpenSource in 1994? But even then there were much better TCP/IP stacks and VM schemes in use (Solaris, AIX) so availability of source code was an insignificant win at best. All OpenSource does is allow poor quality code to be re-circulated and reused again and again in new systems, while high quality and RFC compliant code is relagated to the pay environment.
Regardless, the codebase of 4.4BSD-Lite became the stepping stone for all the *BSDs that are still around now. The main three *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) all use at least 85% of 4.4BSD-Lite's source code, with the rest being mostly new userland code, TCP/IP updates, and multiprocessor support.
The commerical offering, BSDI, is even more appaling - a source code diff shows roughly 94% code reuse. Paying for an archaic and outdated OS...that would explain why BSDI has less than 2% of the server market.
FreeBSD has very close ties with BSDI. I'm not one to preach doom by association, but I'm afraid FreeBSD has doomed itself by the move. If that isn't enough, FreeBSD's C2 security certification is horrible. Even NT can do better than it!
FreeBSD has a reputation of being the "fastest" BSD on x86 hardware. Actual memory bandwidth performance is a fraction of all of Sun's offerings, and the multiprocessor support is a joke since it has a poorly implemented semaphore locking mechanism. I hear a total re-write is planned, and perhaps even a security audit too, so
NetBSD, I'm afraid, is dead before it got off the ground. The goal of running on as many platforms at once is a noble and idealistic one, but in the real world its useless. At best NetBSD is a mediocre hobbyist OS that runs on outdated computers. A match made in hell it would seem, since ancient source code has been hacked to run on ancient computer. Its ports to systems such as the Dreamcast are total folly, offering no more real world use than GUI systems on headless servers. And I think the installed user base of less than 10,000 speaks for itself.
I was hopeful OpenBSD would be better as its reputation for security is interesting. Sadly, its another strikeout. OpenBSD's filesystem is extremely slow, and hardware support is nearly nonexistant. There are also numerous political issues surrouding its development team that are eating away the last bit of hope. Perhaps the reason it is secure is because no one bothers to hack it since the "prize" is mostly worthless.
*BSD users too are dooming thier own OS. As a group, they are a very vocal and rowdy bunch. No real help is given to new users and such an elitest attitude is suicide.
I chose to not deploy an OpenBSD based upon these reasons. It is my humble opinion that either NT or Solaris be used for any significant work, and *BSDs be left to the hobbyists.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
*BSD is dying
My tight wet pussy is a Totally Secure Environment
miss cleo likes to share a double dildo with my hot wet pussy.
Oh.. Sir! You dropped your Tampax.
good point, everybody loves to dip chips in tamper sauce.
lol.. dats some funny shit.. dippin the chips in dat tampah sauce! oh my!
tampax sauce?? Ugh...
For a more coherent explanation of this:-l
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0011.htm
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.