All it takes is one compitent programmer in the cracker community or elsewhere to write a modified TCP stack for Windoze which can spoof the source IP and all the zombies can bring it with them.
Indeed. You don't even need to do the hard work of building a full stack if you are just going to SYN flood or similar. You just need a packet driver and some IP smarts.
Regardless of how Konqueror and Mozilla render pages, if they render them differently from Internet Explorer then they are wrong and IE is right, in the only sense that most end users will care about.
Sadly, this is probably true. I have always seen it as part of the role of Mozilla to help improve the quality of the web by 'doing the right thing', even if it breaks existing sites.
I can understand the Konqueror pragmatist approach: 'I want a browser that I can actually use on the real web.'
Given this apparent gap in philosophy, it does matter. Designing purely for IE shouldn't be an acceptable practice. It's too early to call that battle lost.
Exactly my point also. If someone posing as a Microsoft employee would write you a bad check, would you then post a story saying that 'Microsoft has a bad credit history' or something similar?
No, but I would expect my bank to have the capability to cancel a stolen credit card, by having the ability to check against a list of cancelled cards.
The problem with IE is that it has no method of doing such a check on a Verisign certificate. Oh geez, IE isn't compatible with the #1 CA. Obviously, entirely the CA's fault.
OK, it was human error on Verisign's part. However, it was caught by their internal people. It should be a dead story by now. That it isn't is largely MS's fault.
There is a W3C standard called CC/PP... Then again, everyone is ignoring CC/PP.
I just checked, and it seems to be still a working draft. Given that just about all browsers have basic HTTP, HTML4 or CSS2 bugs, CC/PP can probably wait a while.
Ever hear of a little country called Germany (Deutchland to it's natives)? Germany sent a diplomat to Sealand to negotiate for the release of one of it's citizens who was being held prisoner on Sealand.
In a hostage situation, one negotiates with a lot of undesirable people. It doesn't mean zip.
The most important third party (UK courts) do. If the UK take Sealand they have a huge legal problem in that their courts will rule that they are there illegally and order them out.
LOL. That's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Because Sealand claimed sovreignity before the expansion, if they are a country then their territory isn't part of Britain at all.
Well yes. I was just saying the court ruling was irrelevant because the *at the time* Sealand was in international waters. As either way, Sealand isn't now, the ruling is inconsequential.
I don't know if the UK can arbitrarily declare that her territorrial waters are now extended. International law is clear about how far from a countries shores are their territory.
Yes, well the UK are bringing their claim into line with the normally recognised 12 miles (neither the US or the UK have actually ratified the relevant treaty).
The thing to realise here is that Sealand doesn't need to be party to these treaties - it's what England and the U.S. are party to that counts. Which is why neither of them would be able to go in with force.
That sounds like nonsense to me. For one thing: when has it stopped the US before? Secondly, it assumes that third parties actually recognise Sealand. Let's face it, if Britain decided to use force, do you seriously think anyone is going to give a damn?
One final thing, has anyone seen IE for MAC? Why do you think it so much better than IE for Windows?
As I understand it, IE for MAC shares almost no code with IE for Windows. If one looks at (say) CSS support, objective tests put the big 4 in the order: IE/Mac, Opera, Mozilla, IE/Win.
Re:Just a little premature?
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 2
Actually, the book is far more balanced in that respect than the review. It notes the controversy around the Mindcraft benchmarks, Samba and W2K, the Halloween documents.
RMS is a tad unhappy about it, from what I've heard. It's reflections on history are, from what I understand, somewhat focussed and neglect the larger picture (the pre-existing Free Software movement, which supplied the userland tools for the Linux kernel, etc).
Focus is a good thing in a book. You don't get a good overview of WW1 by reading 'All Quiet on the Western Front' either.
RMS gets about 20-30 pages, including the first substantial chapter. Only Linus gets a comparable amount.
The book uses the term GNU/Linux throughout. And it refers to RMS as "more than just the greatest hacker who has ever lived".
Without knowing what (or if) RMS' reservations are I woudn't like to comment further. However, some folks round here have gone way over the top.
Re:Open Source vs. Free Software
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 2
What are the actual contributions of the "Open Source" movement? Linux, GNU, Gnome are all Free Software.
All of the above + BSD, Apache, Perl, Python...
I think Stallman is right that he is being written out of history. This is either sheer ignorance on the part of the author...
That's crap. There is quite a big, and largely complimentary, piece on him in the book. Besides, history will take care of itself. In a hundred years time, Linux will be gone. Will students be writing papers on 'the FSF and the end of intellectual property rights'. Maybe.
Re:A flaw in the book? Or the review?
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 2
The book starts with linux?
Well, yes. It's a book about Linux more than anything else. Check the title.
It does go back and try to put things in some sort of perspective. But it's not a book about the creation of the Internet, or the history of Unix. It does touch on other things: GNU and the GPL, Apache and Mozilla, Perl.
I take the point, that it's a wrong view to take the story of Linux in isolation. However, I don't think the book makes that mistake, and focussing on Linux does give it some narrative coherence.
What is really happening is that the DSL provider really doesn't expect to be providing the true bandwidth. Their business model and infrastructure would fall apart if they actually had to provide what they are selling you.
But that's not what they are selling you; they are selling a discounted rate that factors in usage.
It's like buying standby tickets and whining when you get bumped.
If you don't like the terms find another provider.
You're a website owner/designer who wants to get as many people to see your site as you possibly can...
Guess again! Not everyone builds websites for the same reason. Of course, a commercial site will want to port to as many browsers as they can reasonably. Others can do what the hell they feel like. This is the Internet, right?
However, development on the web has got in a mess. Why? It's because the Mozilla project dumped most of the old Netscape codebase, and dropped some compatibility features. That's left a lot of people with a frozen release.
Now, one of the big complaints about Netscape 6, (apart from performance, which Moore's law will take care of in time) is that is standards compliant is all very well but it handles spaghetti HTML worse than other browsers.
All the WaSP are saying is that some people who don't have a pressing commercial need to do otherwise should just write clean HTML. It's not a question of forcing people to upgrade: it's just redressing the balance.
I note that they all explicitly acknowledge the SSH trademark.
"SSH is a registered trademark...These trademarks may not be used as part of a product name or in otherwise confusing manner".
It's always bad news when the name of a product derives from its canonical implementation. It's not a BFD though - Samba is none the worse for a forced name change. At least with trademark infringment, nobody stops you hacking the code. If the name matters so much to them, I say let them have it.
Therefore, if a species is split into the ones suffering from parasites, and the ones not, one would expect the ones not suffering from parasites to prevail.
If the species were split statically, this might be so. However, it is obviously possible for non-infected hosts to become infected hosts.
One would first have to have a group of hosts immune to the parasites to have two independent groups. Then one might imagine the immune group being successful.
But (and this is a big but) a resistant mutation would have a big hill to climb to establish a viable population. It's a neat trick: a sort of genetic embrace, extend, extingush.
Actually, that gives a good analogy: one might expect PCs with free (as in beer) operating systems to be more competitive than non-free ones. However, life ain't that simple.
Apparently, Brits don't have the distrust of government that seems inherent in Americans. It just seems amazing to me that people are so willing to trade liberty for (perceived) saftey.
Well the broad history of Britain has largely been about moving the power from the monarchy to the elected parliament. We still don't have an entirely elected legislature.
It's a small island. In England, at least, the govenment never seems that far away. There isn't really the idea that the national government is some alien thing.
That isn't to say that I agree with the legislation. There seems to be a tradition on/. to believe that bills get passed without amendment. Some of the worst provisions of the RIP Bill were removed. I confidently predict that this Bill will be heavily amended.
There is also the more general principle that you can't make things more reliable by throwing redundancy at them. You need to have some understanding what the likely failure modes are.
Are the two wires: in different conduits, powered from different supplies... That was kind of the point: wires shouldn't be failing at that rate. If your servers keep crashing, you don't buy another redundant one in a quality operation - you fix the problem.
Frankly, I don't see the problem. If I give my mail address to a sales type and then get mailed it's not Spam. If I didn't want mail, then why give it to them?
I don't think any reasonable person could object to being mailed with a trailer saying: we mailed you because you stopped by our stand at Vapourware 2000; here are our latest product/contact details.
Make someone personally responsible for messages sent to your lists and the maintenance of the database. Publish full contact details. Make opting-out easy (or better still make it opt-in after the first message).
Whilst a rare few may get overexcited about junk mail, most people will be reasonable if they can see you are acting responsibly.
Slashdot Mirror
Compaq could have done because they acquired the rights to VMS and Tru64 from Digital.
This also applies to bridge, which is on track for Olympic status, and already has had its first dope tests.
Gee, not only does the devil have all the best music but a kick-ass PKI as well.
Indeed. You don't even need to do the hard work of building a full stack if you are just going to SYN flood or similar. You just need a packet driver and some IP smarts.
Sadly, this is probably true. I have always seen it as part of the role of Mozilla to help improve the quality of the web by 'doing the right thing', even if it breaks existing sites.
I can understand the Konqueror pragmatist approach: 'I want a browser that I can actually use on the real web.'
Given this apparent gap in philosophy, it does matter. Designing purely for IE shouldn't be an acceptable practice. It's too early to call that battle lost.
No, but I would expect my bank to have the capability to cancel a stolen credit card, by having the ability to check against a list of cancelled cards.
The problem with IE is that it has no method of doing such a check on a Verisign certificate. Oh geez, IE isn't compatible with the #1 CA. Obviously, entirely the CA's fault.
OK, it was human error on Verisign's part. However, it was caught by their internal people. It should be a dead story by now. That it isn't is largely MS's fault.
I just checked, and it seems to be still a working draft. Given that just about all browsers have basic HTTP, HTML4 or CSS2 bugs, CC/PP can probably wait a while.
In a hostage situation, one negotiates with a lot of undesirable people. It doesn't mean zip.
LOL. That's the funniest thing I've read all week.
Well yes. I was just saying the court ruling was irrelevant because the *at the time* Sealand was in international waters. As either way, Sealand isn't now, the ruling is inconsequential.
Yes, well the UK are bringing their claim into line with the normally recognised 12 miles (neither the US or the UK have actually ratified the relevant treaty).
At the time, it was outside British territorial waters, so obviously not part of Britain. Since then Britain has extended its claim.
It's a nonsense to claim this ruling is an implicit recognition of Sealand.
That sounds like nonsense to me. For one thing: when has it stopped the US before? Secondly, it assumes that third parties actually recognise Sealand. Let's face it, if Britain decided to use force, do you seriously think anyone is going to give a damn?
As I understand it, IE for MAC shares almost no code with IE for Windows. If one looks at (say) CSS support, objective tests put the big 4 in the order: IE/Mac, Opera, Mozilla, IE/Win.
Actually, the book is far more balanced in that respect than the review. It notes the controversy around the Mindcraft benchmarks, Samba and W2K, the Halloween documents.
Focus is a good thing in a book. You don't get a good overview of WW1 by reading 'All Quiet on the Western Front' either.
RMS gets about 20-30 pages, including the first substantial chapter. Only Linus gets a comparable amount.
The book uses the term GNU/Linux throughout. And it refers to RMS as "more than just the greatest hacker who has ever lived".
Without knowing what (or if) RMS' reservations are I woudn't like to comment further. However, some folks round here have gone way over the top.
All of the above + BSD, Apache, Perl, Python...
I think Stallman is right that he is being written out of history. This is either sheer ignorance on the part of the author...
That's crap. There is quite a big, and largely complimentary, piece on him in the book. Besides, history will take care of itself. In a hundred years time, Linux will be gone. Will students be writing papers on 'the FSF and the end of intellectual property rights'. Maybe.
Well, yes. It's a book about Linux more than anything else. Check the title.
It does go back and try to put things in some sort of perspective. But it's not a book about the creation of the Internet, or the history of Unix. It does touch on other things: GNU and the GPL, Apache and Mozilla, Perl.
I take the point, that it's a wrong view to take the story of Linux in isolation. However, I don't think the book makes that mistake, and focussing on Linux does give it some narrative coherence.
But that's not what they are selling you; they are selling a discounted rate that factors in usage. It's like buying standby tickets and whining when you get bumped.
If you don't like the terms find another provider.
Guess again! Not everyone builds websites for the same reason. Of course, a commercial site will want to port to as many browsers as they can reasonably. Others can do what the hell they feel like. This is the Internet, right?
However, development on the web has got in a mess. Why? It's because the Mozilla project dumped most of the old Netscape codebase, and dropped some compatibility features. That's left a lot of people with a frozen release.
Now, one of the big complaints about Netscape 6, (apart from performance, which Moore's law will take care of in time) is that is standards compliant is all very well but it handles spaghetti HTML worse than other browsers.
All the WaSP are saying is that some people who don't have a pressing commercial need to do otherwise should just write clean HTML. It's not a question of forcing people to upgrade: it's just redressing the balance.
"SSH is a registered trademark...These trademarks may not be used as part of a product name or in otherwise confusing manner".
It's always bad news when the name of a product derives from its canonical implementation. It's not a BFD though - Samba is none the worse for a forced name change. At least with trademark infringment, nobody stops you hacking the code. If the name matters so much to them, I say let them have it.
If the species were split statically, this might be so. However, it is obviously possible for non-infected hosts to become infected hosts.
One would first have to have a group of hosts immune to the parasites to have two independent groups. Then one might imagine the immune group being successful.
But (and this is a big but) a resistant mutation would have a big hill to climb to establish a viable population. It's a neat trick: a sort of genetic embrace, extend, extingush.
Actually, that gives a good analogy: one might expect PCs with free (as in beer) operating systems to be more competitive than non-free ones. However, life ain't that simple.
Well the broad history of Britain has largely been about moving the power from the monarchy to the elected parliament. We still don't have an entirely elected legislature.
It's a small island. In England, at least, the govenment never seems that far away. There isn't really the idea that the national government is some alien thing.
That isn't to say that I agree with the legislation. There seems to be a tradition on /. to believe that bills get passed without amendment. Some of the worst provisions of the RIP Bill were removed. I confidently predict that this Bill will be heavily amended.
Are the two wires: in different conduits, powered from different supplies... That was kind of the point: wires shouldn't be failing at that rate. If your servers keep crashing, you don't buy another redundant one in a quality operation - you fix the problem.
I don't think any reasonable person could object to being mailed with a trailer saying: we mailed you because you stopped by our stand at Vapourware 2000; here are our latest product/contact details.
Make someone personally responsible for messages sent to your lists and the maintenance of the database. Publish full contact details. Make opting-out easy (or better still make it opt-in after the first message).
Whilst a rare few may get overexcited about junk mail, most people will be reasonable if they can see you are acting responsibly.