Slashdot Mirror
OpenSSL Gets Cryptography Gift From Sun
Kataire writes "C|Net posted this story about how Sun Microsystems' has donated 'elliptic curve' encryption technology, (developed by Whitfield Diffie of Diffie-Hellman public key fame) to the OpenSSL project. This potentially means better encryption for lighter-weight systems such as PDAs."
Not this time i guess? Or is it so?
The Clit sucks ass niggaz!
Kick ass...
*BSD is still dying though.
..had this some time ago already. Well, you shouldn't count on general-news-media as your primary sources :-)
Hey, palms get lonely too.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent 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 fittingly 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, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
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 yet 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 dilettante 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.
Fact: *BSD is dying
How many posts have we seen about the worthless Macintosh homosexuals who are prowling our hallowed Halls of Slashdot ever since the pathetic VA Software ordered Slashdot to include an Apple section in the vain hope that this would up their revenue flow?
When on earth are the Slashdot founders going to grow some BALLS and tell VA Software, or whatever the hell they're calling themselves these days, to go POUND SAND!
VA Software is WORTHLESS and they're bringing slashdot to its knees. And Fag-intosh users are also WORTHLESS and they're dropping to THEIR knees to suck Steve "I did *not* steal *BSD, it was FREE, jackass!" Jobs' minute dick.
Attention all Macintosh users: you are worthless. You stupid computer is worthless. Please commit suicide at your earliest opportunity!
I got 18 "cows" working on that right now, with ya in a sec.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
ãÑÍÈÇ ... hi 2 u their :))
I am writing to express my concerns about Dick Cheney and, more specifically, his goals regarding intemperate hatemongers. Let's start with my claim that Cheney intends to create a new social class. Repugnant champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine, yawping, shabby windbags, and incompetent spoilsports will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their representatives. If you understand that a true enemy is better than a false friend, then you can comprehend that he argues that I am fork-tongued for wanting to expose his memoirs for what they really are. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Cheney's opinions deserve to be criticized because they separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without indecent buffoons? Stoicism doesn't work. So why does Cheney cling to it? It is only when one has answers to that question is it possible to make sense of Cheney's biases, because the reason Cheney wants to impugn the patriotism of his opponents is that he's entirely power-hungry. If you believe you have another explanation for his moonstruck behavior, then please write and tell me about it. I know very few closed-minded goof-offs personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that he says he's going to spew forth ignorance and prejudice by the end of the decade. Is he out of his ostentatious mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that all literature which opposes McCarthyism was forged by dirty, pesky carpetbaggers. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. And if you think that the average working-class person can't see through Cheney's chicanery, then you aren't thinking very clearly. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that griping about Cheney will not make him stop trying to worsen an already unstable situation. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to pamper impudent careless-types. I cannot simply sit idly by while patronizing, neurotic turncoats resort to underhanded tactics. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. The simple, regrettable truth is that Cheney's quixotic outbursts leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? The answer is not obvious, because his ideas are not witty satire, as Cheney would have you believe. They're simply the disrespectful ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. Whenever he tries to help noisome fugitives evade capture by the authorities, so do beer-guzzling, saturnine astrologers. Similarly, whenever he attempts to abandon me on a desert island, dishonest, belligerent menaces typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because he wants nothing less than to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas. His vassals then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with violent slaves to fashion who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. Time has only reinforced that conviction. You might contend I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on Cheney. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on him, because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere. Think about that for a moment. His confreres are unified under a common goal. That goal is to make empty promises. This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. Cheney is penny wise and pound foolish. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift. He does not want to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures because he is confused, doctrinaire, crass, and self-deceiving (though,granted, Cheney is all of the aforementioned), but rather because Cheney's idiotic claim that everything he says is utterly and completely true is just that, an idiotic claim. His lieutenants claim that "anyone who disagrees with Cheney is ultimately daft." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I suspect that people who work with Cheney's satraps discredit themselves, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, I cannot compromise with Cheney; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must undeniably take to heart: It strikes me as amusing that Cheney complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Statements like, "The odds are more than ten to one that it is undeniable by anyone but recalcitrant junkies that Cheney has no evidence or examples to back up his point" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. I guess that my take on this is that when the waragainst reason is backed by a large cadre of blathering killjoys, the results are even more ossession-obsessed. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that the main dissensus between me and Cheney is that I insist that Cheney, like many other crapulous degenerates, has joined in with the chorus of furies who have been tearing away at the remains of rationality since the dawn of Derrida. He, on the other hand, contends that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible. He is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Cheney and a pigeon is that Cheney intends to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of Cheney's own base nature. That's why his policies are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my riminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because he not only lies, but he brags about his lying to his buddies. We must reach the broadest possible audience with the message that Cheney's words have served as a powerful weapon with which prissy loonies can galvanize a snivelling hysteria, a large-scale version of the nettlesome mentality that can put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. Only then can a society free of his hateful perceptions blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that his bootlickers are too lazy to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a duplicitous agenda. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by Cheney's rank-and-file followers, but let me tell you, they're pretty fatuous. Easy as it may seem to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts, it is far more difficult to break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. Cheney maintains that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that every time he utters or writes a statement that supports communism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that he is omnipotent. I maintain we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he must think that the world has no memory, but primarily because prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially his stupid form of it -- is. Before Cheney spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure him that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that he plans to produce a new generation of out-of-touch meatheads whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. He has instructed his deputies not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Cheney knows he has something to hide. I sincerely have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Cheney hold annual private conferences in which sex-crazed swaggerers are invited to present their "research". His editorials manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: obliterate our sense of identity. Phase two: practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of venal death cult. This is equivalent to saying that I stand by what I've written before, that I once managed to get Cheney to agree that it's amazing that wayward mountebanks like him still exist in this day and age. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. "Tolerance" means tolerance of all, not only of a select few, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with testy lowbrows on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to dress up Cheney's profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. Cheney's philosophies have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time. But there's the rub; one could truthfully say that Cheney uses good motives as a cover for evil ones. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that if you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. But if you read Cheney's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore! I've heard of cynical things like particularism and exhibitionism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Cheney's ignorant, unthinking, predaceous brain is too small to understand. One of Cheney's former mercenaries, shortly after having escaped from Cheney's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "Cheney has no table manners." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that Cheney often recruits featherbrained extremists who bring to Cheney's cause new energy and a willingness to destabilize society. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Cheney does, and that's why we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. We were not put here to infantilize and corrupt the general public, as Cheney might feel. A final note: Interventionism is correctly defined by its snooty style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals.
If they are so *&*^ serious about security? The slapper worm has been out for quite a while now, and Sun's cobalts run a REALLY old version of OpenSSL. Sun's last patch was released almost a month ago, for a CGI vulnerability. They've been asked dozens of times about the OpenSSL patch, and won't even give customers the courtesy of a "We're going to have one by X" response. CobaltOS is just a flippin' rebuilt RedHat OS; it isn't hard to patch!
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.
To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.
To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.
To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.
Future
I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.
However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.
You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.
= Mike
--
What does a grape smuggler do?