The water cooling won't help you at all, but likely hurt you (bring on overheating faster). Depends on the effectivenesss of the insulation in your carrying case, though.
Copy the nautilus icon as a button on your panel. Then you can change the app run ("Command" on the basic panel). You can't change they system menu entries, because they are system menu entries - not owned by you.
You might be able to modify the this menu behavior, I don't know (and wouldn't advise it if you could). Or maybe I don't understand your problem?
The declaration of independence has no legal authority in the United States. The constitution, on the other hand....
The declaration of independence is an interesting document from a historical perspective, but has not one bit of authority or relevance with the operation of the US government.
The idea that the constitution is a living document, and must be interpreted is built into the constitution. The people that wrote it are dead - what they would have thought has no legal authority either. They are not the supreme law of the land: the constitution is.
Are you sure that your coverage is complete? IOW, of all the people you've known for more than a day, you can positively identify all of those that are atheists? Perhaps some people you've known for a while are atheists, but the subject has never come up? Perhaps you're judging the entire group by a vocal minority?
Rarely, when religion comes up with someone I've know for a while, and the conversation leads to self-identification, I'll say that I am an atheist. This frequently surprises people who assume all atheists wear it on their sleeve. Or perhaps it's a case of people always assuming that others are like them in thought and action. Me? I asume everyone is an atheist until otherwise indicated;)
Sorry, this has already been invented. Maybe you've heard of it - it's called the Psychic Friends Network. This big fat black woman I saw on TV is apparently the primary router.
You don't have to be "invited" to go to an independent film, an independent theater, or even a film festival. Invitation is also not required to rent independent films from your local video rental store, or even the franchised video rental outlets. You also don't need an invitation to watch independent films on a variety of cable television stations including IFC and Bravo
Source code distribution is more likely a product of intellectual property concerns than a product of security concerns.
The only compartmented multi-level secure operating system I have first hand knowledge of (HP-UX CMW) is delivered to the customer with complete source code. Again, access is more important than openness of source. The NSA is working on a secure linux version that will have world-open source. Trust me, they have a better handle on the fundamentals of security than you do.
The applications my company develops can include source code, if appropriate. Our customers know the importance of physical security. If they give people unsupervised physical access to their systems they cannot and do not try to blame us. Similarly, they maintian control over source in such a way that black-hatters can't compromise their systems in this way.
Your perception of security obviously differs greatly from mine - the customers I work with have security requirements that likely exceed anything you are familiar with. Open source produects and operating systems fit without problem in these environments with no adverse security implications.
As far as your questions:
What security do you impose for the source code for custom
applications?
What do you mean? Everyone in our company (that is, everyone with physical access to our machines), has access to the source code for our custom applications. The custom applications we deliver to customers may or may not have source code with them, depening on the desires and requirements of the customer.
Do you control who gets copies?
Yes.
Do you control who can change that application and replace
it?
Obviously. If you don't control who can modify your systems, you have no security.
Why do you think that security for the source code of your OS
is any less important than the security for the source code of your key custom
applications?
This is the crux. When we use an open OS, we still control how that OS gets installed on our systems. We know where it came from, who had access (if any) to the source between acceptance from trusted sources and installation on our systems. We have means to verify the integrity both of source code and resulting binaries. Without that control, you have nothing.
It is not a question of whether open or closed source results
in a more secure system. It is a question of how you administer access to your
systems and the source code used to change
them.
Yet you maintain the openness of the application (OS in particular) in detrimental to the security of the system. Yet here, you agree it's not about opennes but about control. We agree. Our systems running open operating systems are controlled no less vigorously than our systems with closed source.
Without the source code you treat your OS much in the same way
you treat your shink wrapped applications. Is that different than how you
treat custom in-house applications?
Source is irrelavent. You think sourceless OS/application suites protects you in some fundamental way. They don't. Others have pointed this out. Though you maintain the difficulty of hacking with a sourceless system, the real world shows that the majority of security exploits occur in closed systems. How do you reconcile this fact with your claims?.
With the source code you should treat your OS much in the same
way you treat your code for custom applications. Is that different than how
you treat shink wrapped applications?
We treat both classes of software the same. Physical access is controlled. Installation and modiification of software is controlled. Audit logging and detection systems are employed. It matters not who has access to the software from which the software is derived. That access is irrelavent as long as we properly control our systems.
It is simply false to claim that having the source code does
not alter your security considerations. It clearly does. All organizations
treat their custom applications differently than they treat shink wrapped
ones.
Not the organizations I work with. So you let anyone who feels like it install shrink wrapped software on your systems? You think this is secure? If not, what is the basis for you claim?
The point here is that it does not change simply because the
product is an operating system.
No one I know of has ever claimed that they treat security
issues related to custom in-house apps in the same way they treat security
issues with shink wrapped applications for which they do not have the source
code.
You simply can not ignore the fact that the source code is
laying around everywhere. If you do, why do you not simply publish the source
code for all your custom in-house applications?
As I said before, it's a matter of intellectual property rather than security. Just because source code is widely available does not mean exploits using that source code are easy to inert into either trusted sources of that source code or the particular systems I manage that are based on similar (though separate) copies of that software. Do you think someone with the source can magically propogate his hacks into trusted distributions, vendor systems, and even installed systems? If he has that capability, again, the openness is the *very* *least* of your problems.
To the outside world, it may not matter. But, security issues
are not limited to outside world attacks. Neither can you assume that if
security issues are the same regardless of open or closed source in regard to
outside attacks that the security issues are also identical for inside
attacks.
You ignore the forest for the trees. You would ignore the greatest threats to your security in your claims that the openness of source code is a relavent factor. If your security policy is broken, using closed source products will not help you.
They simply are not.
I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. The real world shows that open applications and OSes can be very secure. Closed systems can also be secure. Or both can be very insecure. It doesn't help your case that the most dominant closed source OS for the last 10+ years has a long historry of extreme security problems. You can not ignore the real world. Your claims, if believed, would only lead people to chose that particular closed source solution over more secure open solutions. How does this promote security? What, exactly, is your motivation?
I agree in principle that the black-hat task is slightly easier given an open operating system. However, focusing on the openness of the operating system is short-sighted and indicative of a lack of understanding of sound security practices. How secure is the system you describe (unsupervised physical access is given to potential crackers)? Not secure at all. How much more insecure is said system if an open source OS is used? Marginally more insecure. So marginal I content that it is hardly worth talking about. If you were grading the security of your system on a scale of 1 (bad) to 100 (good), you would get say a 10 for close source case and maybe a 8 or 9 for the open source case (both of which have compromised physical security). IOW, openness just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. By maintaining that the difference between "horribly insecure" and "really horribly insecure" is relavent, you detract from the real problem in your hypothetical system. If the prime flaw is removed, you have no argument.
Let me put it like this: compare system security to optimzing a program. Fixing the open access problem is likely to give you the most return for your time. The difference between open and closed source OSes is comparable to spending all your time for a fraction of a percent in improvement. Furthermore, if the one big optimization is done, it renders the smaller optimization inconsequential.
What you describe is quite doable with closed source operating systems as well. In your scenario, giving untrusted persons unsupervised physical access to your machines and the means to install new operating systems results in an insecure system. It is not the fault of the OS in this case, but instead the fault of the security policy that gives away such access.
Replacing logons, installing key loggers, etc, is not difficult to do on any open or closed source OS I am familiar with (various commercial unixes and MS NT family) given you have physical or administrator access to the machine.
How do you know when your closed source OS has been modified/replaces/etc without your approval?
Well, I have accidently done something like that, but it's been about 8 years - since then it has never been an issue, and if it were, I always keep rescue media. A resonable set up is a separate directory of statically linked critical utilities (or a rescue disk, which I prefer). The utilities can be compiled with minimal features if you're worried about the executable size being too big (is 384k really too big for something that lives on your hard drive for emergencies?).
So I don't think the original posters has much of a point with respect to file size of 'ls'. I say the size is trivial for almost everyone in almost any situation - if the size matters, you can easily fix that yourself.
QED
(p.s. - if you're worried about deleting libc, aren't you worrried about deleting your statically linked tools, too?)
Why the hell would you statically link your build of
'ls'? Maybe if you were building a rescue disk or something, but even then, I'm sure you could turn things off and trim the fat. If you don't statically link, the executable is only 48k. 'ls' has lot's of options that can be quite usefull. If you don't want the features, just use '/bin/echo'.
Sheeeesh - it's only 314k - give yourself a frickken break
Have you been in a US post office lately? Last one I went into was plastered with Windows XP posters, and there were even some demo disks at one point.
The fact that MS can lobby the pentagon (the *pentagon* for crissakes) speaks volumes about how much corporations run this country. The pentagon should tell MS to fuck off - if they want to whine about it, they can make an appeal to congress or some such. The military is supposed to be insulated to some extent from this kind of crap.
If I were running the pentagon, I'd kick those slick backstabbers out on their asses -- "we'll call you if we have any questions".
Not as different as say using water instead of electrons as the signal medium? Or maybe one could be vector based while the other raster based, i.e. they're both raster based so they're not "as different as different could be".
Either you lack imagination or you're using hyperbole to discredit the other poster or you're "contradicting someone on a subject you obviously know nothing about".
MS window managements sucks compared to any X window manager for one reason: an application on MS Windows is responsible for doing window management - if the application hangs, you can't move the window or minimize it. This has been true for as long as I can remember up through at least Win2000. Bad design, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you mean anyone besides yourself? If not, your use of "else" is presumptuous. BTW, I found the post to be hella funny.
The water cooling won't help you at all, but likely hurt you (bring on overheating faster). Depends on the effectivenesss of the insulation in your carrying case, though.
"Personally, I find wealth to be repulsive." - Bill Gates, 1974
"The PC based Unix market is saturated - there's no reason to duplicate Minix" - Linus Torvalds, 1990
"I can't decide between porn and independent music" - Britney Spears, to her High School Career advisor.
"I feel like I'm in the best shape of my life" - Stephen King, shortly before dying in his Maine Home
"The last thing the music industry needs is another bitter female singer" - Alanis Morrisette, Shortly before recording the hit single "Ironic"
You might be able to modify the this menu behavior, I don't know (and wouldn't advise it if you could). Or maybe I don't understand your problem?
Right click on the icon, select "Properties". What's so fucking hard about that? And you gave up on Gnome because you couldn't figure this out?
Yeah, really, there is just one choice, at least that was my intended point (see parens at end of original).
The declaration of independence is an interesting document from a historical perspective, but has not one bit of authority or relevance with the operation of the US government.
The idea that the constitution is a living document, and must be interpreted is built into the constitution. The people that wrote it are dead - what they would have thought has no legal authority either. They are not the supreme law of the land: the constitution is.
Rarely, when religion comes up with someone I've know for a while, and the conversation leads to self-identification, I'll say that I am an atheist. This frequently surprises people who assume all atheists wear it on their sleeve. Or perhaps it's a case of people always assuming that others are like them in thought and action. Me? I asume everyone is an atheist until otherwise indicated ;)
- Choose an arbitrary system of morals to live by (relative ethics)
- Choose a religion that defines a system of absolute morals to live by. By the way, all possible choices of religions are valid (relative ethics)
Religion provides no safety from the sheer terror that we don't konw the fuck what we're doing.KEXP rocks - listening right now.
The only compartmented multi-level secure operating system I have first hand knowledge of (HP-UX CMW) is delivered to the customer with complete source code. Again, access is more important than openness of source. The NSA is working on a secure linux version that will have world-open source. Trust me, they have a better handle on the fundamentals of security than you do.
The applications my company develops can include source code, if appropriate. Our customers know the importance of physical security. If they give people unsupervised physical access to their systems they cannot and do not try to blame us. Similarly, they maintian control over source in such a way that black-hatters can't compromise their systems in this way.
Your perception of security obviously differs greatly from mine - the customers I work with have security requirements that likely exceed anything you are familiar with. Open source produects and operating systems fit without problem in these environments with no adverse security implications.
As far as your questions:
What do you mean? Everyone in our company (that is, everyone with physical access to our machines), has access to the source code for our custom applications. The custom applications we deliver to customers may or may not have source code with them, depening on the desires and requirements of the customer.
Yes.
Obviously. If you don't control who can modify your systems, you have no security.
This is the crux. When we use an open OS, we still control how that OS gets installed on our systems. We know where it came from, who had access (if any) to the source between acceptance from trusted sources and installation on our systems. We have means to verify the integrity both of source code and resulting binaries. Without that control, you have nothing.
Yet you maintain the openness of the application (OS in particular) in detrimental to the security of the system. Yet here, you agree it's not about opennes but about control. We agree. Our systems running open operating systems are controlled no less vigorously than our systems with closed source.
Source is irrelavent. You think sourceless OS/application suites protects you in some fundamental way. They don't. Others have pointed this out. Though you maintain the difficulty of hacking with a sourceless system, the real world shows that the majority of security exploits occur in closed systems. How do you reconcile this fact with your claims?.
We treat both classes of software the same. Physical access is controlled. Installation and modiification of software is controlled. Audit logging and detection systems are employed. It matters not who has access to the software from which the software is derived. That access is irrelavent as long as we properly control our systems.
Not the organizations I work with. So you let anyone who feels like it install shrink wrapped software on your systems? You think this is secure? If not, what is the basis for you claim?
As I said before, it's a matter of intellectual property rather than security. Just because source code is widely available does not mean exploits using that source code are easy to inert into either trusted sources of that source code or the particular systems I manage that are based on similar (though separate) copies of that software. Do you think someone with the source can magically propogate his hacks into trusted distributions, vendor systems, and even installed systems? If he has that capability, again, the openness is the *very* *least* of your problems.
You ignore the forest for the trees. You would ignore the greatest threats to your security in your claims that the openness of source code is a relavent factor. If your security policy is broken, using closed source products will not help you.
I'm obviously not going to convince you of anything. The real world shows that open applications and OSes can be very secure. Closed systems can also be secure. Or both can be very insecure. It doesn't help your case that the most dominant closed source OS for the last 10+ years has a long historry of extreme security problems. You can not ignore the real world. Your claims, if believed, would only lead people to chose that particular closed source solution over more secure open solutions. How does this promote security? What, exactly, is your motivation?
HTH
Let me put it like this: compare system security to optimzing a program. Fixing the open access problem is likely to give you the most return for your time. The difference between open and closed source OSes is comparable to spending all your time for a fraction of a percent in improvement. Furthermore, if the one big optimization is done, it renders the smaller optimization inconsequential.
HTH
Replacing logons, installing key loggers, etc, is not difficult to do on any open or closed source OS I am familiar with (various commercial unixes and MS NT family) given you have physical or administrator access to the machine.
How do you know when your closed source OS has been modified/replaces/etc without your approval?
HTH.
> \rm
>
> alias
>
You get the idea - it would annoy them, but not for long. You might rename the binaries, but you'd have to reengineer all your system scripts.
Fun though - might edit some rc files next time I see someone leave their terminal logged in. :)
% man rename
For more sophisticated renaming, I use a small perl script similar to another reply.
So I don't think the original posters has much of a point with respect to file size of 'ls'. I say the size is trivial for almost everyone in almost any situation - if the size matters, you can easily fix that yourself.
QED
(p.s. - if you're worried about deleting libc, aren't you worrried about deleting your statically linked tools, too?)
Sheeeesh - it's only 314k - give yourself a frickken break
The fact that MS can lobby the pentagon (the *pentagon* for crissakes) speaks volumes about how much corporations run this country. The pentagon should tell MS to fuck off - if they want to whine about it, they can make an appeal to congress or some such. The military is supposed to be insulated to some extent from this kind of crap.
If I were running the pentagon, I'd kick those slick backstabbers out on their asses -- "we'll call you if we have any questions".
However, in the real world where I live, both systems have applications that crash or hang. Dealing with those is the issue.
YMMV
Not as different as say using water instead of electrons as the signal medium? Or maybe one could be vector based while the other raster based, i.e. they're both raster based so they're not "as different as different could be".
Either you lack imagination or you're using hyperbole to discredit the other poster or you're "contradicting someone on a subject you obviously know nothing about".