This myth gets trotted out again. It is arguably easier to find exploits without source. The source distracts from the discovery of an exploit. The binary simply is. The black-hat is looking for a way to subvert a system. Typically she is not interested in the documented (by source or documentation) functionality. That simply distracts from the issue which is finding out what the software actually does, especially in edge circumstances.
This is what fuzzers do. Typically not aware of the utility of the program, they simply inject tons of junk until something breaks.
Source availability tends to benefit people auditing and repairing more than black-hats.
Yes, it took years for heartbleed to surface. If heartbleed (or a defect like it), was discovered due to a code audit, that speaks to the superiority of open source over closed source. If this defect is found by fuzzing or binary analysis, it is much harder to repair, as users are now at the mercy of the holder of the source. Build a matrix of Open/Closed Source vs. Bug found in Source, Bug by fuzzing/binary analysis.
Bug found in source vs Closed Source is not applicable, giving three element. Found in source vs. Open Source (where the bug will be repaired in the source by anyone). Bug found by fuzzing... where the bug will be repaired in the source by anyone (Open Source) or the Vendor (Closed Source).
The question then is (as I started the article): Is it easier to find bugs by source inspection? Assume big threats will HAVE the source anyway. If it was easy to find by inspection, it would be easy to fix (for examples: OpenBSD continously audits, and security has been a priority at Microsoft for the past decade). Fuzzing and binary analysis is still the preferred (quickest) method, giving the edge to Open Source. The reason is simple -- the black-hat cares about what is actually happening, and not what the source says is happening.
I have been using Gnome 3.10 (Fedora 20) on an Acer Iconia W700. This has no keyboard when I use it as a tablet. It does have multi-touch, and gyro/magnetic/ambient light/etc sensor.
Tried XFCE (my usual desktop for the past decade) -- it doesn't do well with the 192dpi display. I then decided to try Gnome 3, because of all the complaints (it forces tablet view on users).
- No keyboard means typing to find an application doesn't work. Adding the "Applications Menu" and "Places" Gnome Shell extensions solves this.
- The default on-screen keyboard doesn't support function keys, esc key, control keys. Solution: add florence
- Without a keyboard, yumex is not usable. Can't enter password to activate stuff.
- Can't activate the bottom panel reliably. Using "Frippery bottom panel" helps out (gnome shell extension). Tapping the "!" at the bottom right then does the job. The "Hi, Jack" extension almost works, but isn't reliable enough.
- Rotation doesn't work. I had to put a script on the desktop to activate rotation.
- No multi-touch support in Gnome 3 (really strange, I have a python program that demonstrates multi-touch).
- And now for the cake - Focus is very strange. I can launch a new application but the old application still has some focus! Nasty bug that in interacting with user input.
I would prefer to stay with Fedora. Is there any DE that supports touch better on Fedora? Or do I go with Ubuntu and Unity? Are improvements coming in Gnome 3.12 or 3.14?
Given that your Gnome 3 experience has been much more positive, what is your advice?
Re:We Choose Framentation Over Consolidation.
on
Toward Better Programming
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've been programming professionally for 35 years. And, I have come to the conclusion that the languages, libraries and MOST of the tools are utterly irrelevant.
Clear thought is important. And, to support this: Source control is important. On-line editing with macros are important. Literate programming is important (DE Knuth -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...). Garbage collection is (reasonably) important. Illustrations are important. Documentation rendering is important.
Hell, most of my programs are 90% documentation. Bugs? Very rare.
The SINGLE most important tool that has advanced things for me in the past 20 years? Web Browsers (HTML). Makes reading programs as literary works accessible. My programs, anyway.
Past 30 years? Literate Programming (with TDD)
Past 35 years? Scheme.
I expect my programs to be read. As literary works. That's how I write them. Most is prose, with some magic formulas. Fully cross-referenced for your browsing pleasure. With side notes and illustrations. And even audio commentary and video snippets.
These days, I see a lot of code that CANNOT be read without using an "IDE". The brain (my brain, anyway) cannot keep the required number of methods and members. Discussing the program becomes... impossible. And that which cannot be discussed and reasoned about cannot be reliable. Illustrations and diagrams need to be generated, and references from the code to those are needed.
So, invert it and make the diagram and documentation primary, and the code itself secondary to that. In other words, Knuth's Literate Programming.
Dump Windows for Linux. Pretty dumb reason. In fact, not a reason. And, it won't save you money. Back in 2008/9 a Linux netbook was 50ish dollars cheaper. Now, you can't get one (easily). If you have a need for Linux (I do, it runs the applications I want), you will typically get the machine with Windows, and then replace it with Linux. Microsoft gets money, and has one less customer to support.
But... I assume you are in the US or Canada. Didn't your currency just get a bug fix update for anti counterfeiting? An update to the US $100 bill was released October 2013. Obviously, you can't trust that yet -- give it a few years.
As to being "regulated" by government, -- what is that, exactly? BTC is one possible crypto-currency, so it is of interest what you think this "regulation" should look like.
I design code, your "EEs" design electrical hardware. I have been delivered hardware without such safeties. I could simply refuse to deliver code for the platform -- it will simply be offshored.
DX12. Microsoft is the sole definer. Implemented for only ONE Operating Environment, according to the defining body. May be implemented for two OSs at Microsofts leisure.
May or may not be upward or downward compatible with itself or anything else.
So PLEASE. STOP calling DX ANYTHING a standard. You may call it a library or an API.
PHIGS is the standard. OpenGL has pretty much supplanted PHIGS but is still not a standard. OpenGL is also an API but with broader support.
We KNOW what happened to those bitcoins. We WILL know when they are spent. Indeed, it is possible to simply taint them (and this IS done).
Bitcoin is FULLY traceable, and is worthless unless the blockchain confirms. Which makes control very easy.
The fact that the exchange is not secure -- is the problem for the customers. Just like a bank. But, if money is tainted, the government will just print more...
With bitcoin the tainting would just end being pretty permanent. Yes, "fresh" bitcoin are worth more. I would pay more for a fresh clean btc. You want to sell me a btc that traces back to this theft (and yes, I would know in milliseconds, since I, like others) track all btc transactions, I wouldn't buy it -- I would report you to the police.
Tell me how I do that with cache?
I would need access to a registry of all currency serial numbers. Which I have with bitcoin.
It is STUPID to say that the government doesn't watch bitcoin. Hell *I* watch bitcoin. Sure people can steal bitcoin. They cannot lie about it. I know if a bitcoin is tainted. I may even participate, but I would certainly devalue those bitcoins (but would actually simply report the attempt to move stolen property to the police). The bitcoin in question transferred, and that transfer is public knowledge. The bitcoin, source and destination. After that, I can consider those btc tainted.
Of course, keeping track of all this bitcoin activity is the fundamental problem... It requires days to catch up now, and continuous on-line connection to keep up. But, I do it with an Atom based computer (not mining, just tracking transactions).
BTC is NOT "anonymous", BTC is NOT "untraceable". EVERY BTC is DEFINED by its entire history since it was mined. Using it simply adds to its history.
Bitcoin Problems:
- Ignorance - There will come a time when the transaction records can no longer be managed by individuals (not yet a problem). - Blind trust in the "internets" (why should someone have trust "Gox" anyway?) - Lemming behaviour - Deflation
A completely laissez-faire system has no protection under law.
Trade secrets aren't that useful -- once out, there is no longer any protection under law. Only the protection of a Guild would work.
A Trade Secret or NDA under current law is a "one-time only" thing. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is not stuffing it back in. A Guild offers the ability to stuff that cat back in. Sure, it may take "mafia-style" tactics, but if the Guild is placed correctly, it WILL be allowed to get away with it.
The point of granting patents was to OPEN the process up. Say we completely eliminate patent protection... Now, inventions will remain secret. Guilds will form and the technology will be held within the Guild (as history has shown us, even to death). Eliminate the Guild? The technology dies. Making the Guild more powerful than the Government.
You access some resources on your corporate network from your laptop. To do this, you have configured an application to talk to the server. That server happens to have the name whizzy.corp.
So far, no biggy. IF you launch the application and you are not at work, whizzy.corp doesn't resolve. For example, at your local starbucks, BEFORE you open your VLAN.
What happens when.corp is assigned? Suddenly whizzy.corp is now a machine on he internet. Say the application is your corporate IM system.
(I would imagine that names like exchange.corp would be very hot items).
For this reason, the recommendation is that.corp,.home and.mail be reserved.
I would like all the RFC 6762 names to be reserved (.intranet,.private,.lan,.internal as well).
Of course, startup applications on laptops COULD be locked down, along with a strict no-byod policy, thereby eliminating these issues... maybe. If your company supports a VLAN, they may well arise anyway. This CAN be made to work, but I am (fairly sure) that most users wouldn't like it.
Why do you mention Linux? This sub-thread compared Windows against z/OS. The "market share" for z/OS as a general compute device is, of course, even less than Linux. However, z/OS is arguably much more secure than Windows.
Why is it that Windows criticism is taken as Linux support? Linux has its place (and I use it as my primary OS) but I certainly wouldn't claim it is secure. Windows should be secure, given that it is pre-installed on almost every consumer computing product.
I used to subscribe to Cable TV and Cable Internet.
My supplier (Rogers) managed to piss me off. So badly, in fact, with required service (6 years ago). That I told them to cancel. Indeed, they had strung "temporary" wires over my property -- for two years.
They were warned. No easement to string that wire.
I took shears and removed the wire A real "cable cutting".
Second, ACLs were in Redhat AS3, which puts it back to 2003.
I'll even concede that Windows is secure now. But, my opinion is that it should be! (given how much it costs). My experience is with Unix.
Pretty much 24/7 people come a-knockin' at SSH. Trying user/password combinations. Quickly (which gets them blackholed) or slowly.
Even my Linux XBMC box gets thousands of attempts a day.
I imagine that Windows gets it worse. Using a small percentage OS that covers the functions I need? Is a good thing. Sure, obscurity isn't security, but I do know how to harden the boxes I deploy. At least to the level needed.
Windows needs to be a whole lot "harder" out of the box. People get it on new computers. I know I do! People with no knowledge or experience in security. Who want to "download" and gleefully poke holes in the router. At least, until a standard was devised to allow programs I consider untrusted to do the poking for them. Then, to find exploits in those routers... possibly (wearing a black hat) allowing snooping of local traffic, and injection of bad packets. Why not?
Still not going to bother me any, and, no, I don't bother with ACLs in most circumstances. Simply, by the time the ACL would help is far too late anyway.
If I control your router, and your router attached storage, I really don't care about your computer anymore.
Which brings us back to Linux and BSD. And, our aforementioned group that simply deploys with no deeper understanding.
I am very glad that Microsoft has made money. I have a financial interest in them (no, I don't have a stake in Redhat).
Why? Microsoft gets to move a unit of Windows for just about every home PC. (I bought some Acer Veriton 282G units that didn't come with Windows, but, in general, this hold true).
I would prefer that my Fedora/whatever boxes remain somewhat obscure. I would like router vendors to be more open (specifically, support flashing third party firmware without voiding hardware guarantees).
1 - Xeyes over the network. And that IS more important to me than "competition".
In fact, my Xeyes application(s) don't run on Windows, Android or Mac. They run on AIX, Solaris and Redhat. Different hardware and OSs. The common GUI IS X11. Which makes this very important... I have tried Cygwin on Windows -- and, I guess it would do... but THAT is what "Linux" is competing with FOR ME.
2 - A platform for POSIX applications.
3 - Hey, I am not bashing Windows, Android or Mac. Don't get in my grill and bash X/POSIX and my needs
4 - I do need "office applications". Since I have NEVER used Windows XP or Microsoft Office I am very adept at the tools I use. That they happen to be no-cost and libre? My benefit. Yes, I have used OpenOffice right back to when it was Star Office. Evolution, Mozilla/Firefox. When I attempt comparing my tools against Windows/MS Office/IE, the Microsoft tools fall short. Why? Because for ME, my tools are the "gold standard". For Microsoft users, the Microsoft tools are the "gold standard". Any deviation makes us uncomfortable.
5 - Sure, I will adopt another "paradigm". About the same time that AIX, Solaris, HP-UX and Redhat do. Or those platforms die.
I agree, we do not think alike. That is why I am in the minority, and use Linux. If Linux discards X or Posix, I would have to see if OpenOffice, Evolution and Firefox supported one of the BSDs and move to that platform. My needs... Why do I need douches complaining that *MY NEEDS* are minority when I am already using a *MINORITY* platform specifically BECAUSE it meets my needs! In disclosure, I hold Microsoft shares. I don't have a position in Redhat or Apple (at this time).
So, my needs are not important, even when *I* try to steer my minority platform to support them. I am not suggesting that Windows, Mac or Android go that way. It is obvious that Xeyes isn't a priority for you.
Now, I use xfce. With compositing. I was curious as to the applications on my laptop that wouldn't "remote" properly - smplayer, and audio, because of pulseaudio. All of my other applications are "remoteable". All the GUI applications are my Solaris, AIX and HP-UX systems are useable. RDP/VNC support? I guess... but the GUI *is* X.
I don't particularly like "systemd" either. Prefer sysvinit. Why? Makes Linux closer to the other OSs I use. However, I can tolerate that change because it is internal to my terminal ONLY.
A year ago, I had an altercation with a car. Split my right femur. Car drivers fault.
Safer? Embed glass in the dashboard of cars, no airbags, no seatbelts. Force car drivers to pay attention.
Because, honestly, bikes are not the problem -- cars are.
Cars get their own highways, and, as a cyclist, I am forced to share non-highway roads. Average speed through my city? 27 kmph. So, reducing the speed from 60 kmph to 50 kmph would also help (and, as a car driver, there is still the choice to go 100 kmph on the highway!).
But... the grandparent poster DIDN'T put a windowing system on the server!
virt-manager is a pretty simple X client, and the GUI is solely on your workstation. No GUI on the server at all. And, if that's what YOU do, you also don't have a GUI on the server:
[myworkstation] $ ssh -X myname@myserver [myserver] $ virt-manager... and virt-manager appears in a window on your workstation.
clicky, clicky, happy.
Folks - that's ALL there is to it. Except... myserver can be something completely different - A Solaris box, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX.
But, we get farther away... The Solaris application that has it's display on my workstation cannot use notifications (which should have been designed as an X extension, but the kids didn't know...). XBell seems to be deprecated. Without hackery, the xterm (that may be running on that AIX box) can't make a sound on my workstation (using that newfangled "pulse" thing). It can be hacked to work, though.
RDP? Will that help me? Probably not -- I don't log in to a single system that supports RDP.
Local X clients on my workstation can do fancier stuff, off course. But all the applications render to my X server, and the compositing happens locally, anyway. My Solaris and AIX X applications can push bitmaps, but they generally don't. Those applications really don't care.
The biggest problems with X today? Notifications. Other crap that uses other inter-application communications (like DBUS) instead of X. Deprecation of XBell. Network sound that is far too complicated.
If it takes "Wayland" to solve this, make sure that there is a simple proxy that can easily be deployed that lets me use those X applications. However, that doesn't fix my X issues, and just adds an additional layer.
How does this stack up? About the same as if I run an X Server (say Hummingbird, or Cygwin) on a Windows workstation. Interesting, that...the PRIMARY reason I (personally) run Linux as a workstation OS is to allow me to use an X Server as my primary display.
If that were not the case, I would just leave Windows (whatever version) on my workstation, and start from there.
Well... that and being able to simply recompile my code to run on the workstation or the servers as appropriate. I generally use Tk as a GUI for applications anyway (at least for one-off apps).
To move the cursor with a touchpad, you "swipe" in a direction.
You need to move the cursor to select with a mouse or a touchpad. On your iPad ("iTouch"??), you just touch; there is no need to move the cursor.
Which means swipe is separate from move on the "iTouch", and is not on the authors system (may be the system vendors configuration error, or Microsofts, or a driver issue, doesn't matter because it rendered the system unusable),
To rephrase (and it's really not stated clearly) - you don't think a Linux Vendor has produced a packaged Linux based OS that does not require a "command line".
Wrong.
- Android (Linux) - Fedora (16, 17, and as far back as 8). Gnome or even XFCE (Linux) - Mac OS X (BSD)
Now, I am glad that you qualified your statement with "that Windows has a button for". So that's two "Linux OSs", and one "BSD OS" over a bunch of versions.
I'm surprised about Ubuntu (not that I am all that aware of it).
It is clear that you consider command line usage a "flaw".
But, to supply a typical example: someone wanted to know how to change a user's UID and GID (Unix/Linux user id and group id). The answer?
Log in as root, and "vi/etc/passwd". Find and change the line referencing the user. "vi/etc/group" and do the same for the group.
Type "find / -uid 1000 -exec chown 2000:2000 '{}' \+"
to change ownership of the files from user uid 1000 to uid 2000 : gid 2000 (replace the numbers with your desired numbers).
It is fairly obvious that with a small amount of Unix lore, this administration task can be successfully completed. The instructions can be made even more specific, if needed. It is specific to Unix (Linux), and will only ever be needed by someone running NFS in a networked environment (or, possibly, running a license server). In other words, in an office/work environment by an experienced admin, or by a small fraction of home users (a very small fraction).
Is it worth making a button for this? I think the answer is NO. I wouldn't even know where to look for such a thing -- it would take more instructions on how to use it, as compared to "cut and paste into a terminal".
There is common stuff that I would find trivial under Unix (Linux) that I would have no idea how to approach under Windows.
Not CRITICAL stuff; just "nice to have". When I run across one, I just give my head a shake, and ignore it. I expect that you are the same with Linux.
The people who should be or are using Linux know why. I can't advocate change just for change. There must be some benefit.
It may be hardware support. It may be POSIX compliance. It may be performance related. It may be something completely different.
For example -- with 2 and 3TB consumer drives available, I usually recommend a scrubbing, redundant file system. Like ZFS. Of course, that requires Solaris, Linux, BSD or MAC OS X (and it was removed from OS X). Linux has more hardware support, so it would be the choice. At least for the file server. Or, use BSD for a home NAS.
A reason to use Unix!
Talk with the users. Find out what they are after. You can even sell them a service. I wouldn't transition "Joe or Josephine Random" from Microsoft Windows to Unix (Linux, BSD, Apple) without a discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
This myth gets trotted out again. It is arguably easier to find exploits without source. The source distracts from the discovery of an exploit. The binary simply is. The black-hat is looking for a way to subvert a system. Typically she is not interested in the documented (by source or documentation) functionality. That simply distracts from the issue which is finding out what the software actually does, especially in edge circumstances.
This is what fuzzers do. Typically not aware of the utility of the program, they simply inject tons of junk until something breaks.
Source availability tends to benefit people auditing and repairing more than black-hats.
Yes, it took years for heartbleed to surface. If heartbleed (or a defect like it), was discovered due to a code audit, that speaks to the superiority of open source over closed source. If this defect is found by fuzzing or binary analysis, it is much harder to repair, as users are now at the mercy of the holder of the source. Build a matrix of Open/Closed Source vs. Bug found in Source, Bug by fuzzing/binary analysis.
Bug found in source vs Closed Source is not applicable, giving three element. Found in source vs. Open Source (where the bug will be repaired in the source by anyone). Bug found by fuzzing... where the bug will be repaired in the source by anyone (Open Source) or the Vendor (Closed Source).
The question then is (as I started the article): Is it easier to find bugs by source inspection? Assume big threats will HAVE the source anyway. If it was easy to find by inspection, it would be easy to fix (for examples: OpenBSD continously audits, and security has been a priority at Microsoft for the past decade). Fuzzing and binary analysis is still the preferred (quickest) method, giving the edge to Open Source. The reason is simple -- the black-hat cares about what is actually happening, and not what the source says is happening.
I have been using Gnome 3.10 (Fedora 20) on an Acer Iconia W700. This has no keyboard when I use it as a tablet. It does have multi-touch, and gyro/magnetic/ambient light/etc sensor.
Tried XFCE (my usual desktop for the past decade) -- it doesn't do well with the 192dpi display. I then decided to try Gnome 3, because of all the complaints (it forces tablet view on users).
- No keyboard means typing to find an application doesn't work. Adding the "Applications Menu" and "Places" Gnome Shell extensions solves this.
- The default on-screen keyboard doesn't support function keys, esc key, control keys. Solution: add florence
- Without a keyboard, yumex is not usable. Can't enter password to activate stuff.
- Can't activate the bottom panel reliably. Using "Frippery bottom panel" helps out (gnome shell extension). Tapping the "!" at the bottom right then does the job. The "Hi, Jack" extension almost works, but isn't reliable enough.
- Rotation doesn't work. I had to put a script on the desktop to activate rotation.
- No multi-touch support in Gnome 3 (really strange, I have a python program that demonstrates multi-touch).
- And now for the cake - Focus is very strange. I can launch a new application but the old application still has some focus! Nasty bug that in interacting with user input.
I would prefer to stay with Fedora. Is there any DE that supports touch better on Fedora? Or do I go with Ubuntu and Unity? Are improvements coming in Gnome 3.12 or 3.14?
Given that your Gnome 3 experience has been much more positive, what is your advice?
I've been programming professionally for 35 years. And, I have come to the conclusion that the languages, libraries and MOST of the tools are utterly irrelevant.
Clear thought is important. And, to support this: Source control is important. On-line editing with macros are important. Literate programming is important (DE Knuth -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...). Garbage collection is (reasonably) important. Illustrations are important. Documentation rendering is important.
Hell, most of my programs are 90% documentation. Bugs? Very rare.
The SINGLE most important tool that has advanced things for me in the past 20 years? Web Browsers (HTML). Makes reading programs as literary works accessible. My programs, anyway.
Past 30 years? Literate Programming (with TDD)
Past 35 years? Scheme.
I expect my programs to be read. As literary works. That's how I write them. Most is prose, with some magic formulas. Fully cross-referenced for your browsing pleasure. With side notes and illustrations. And even audio commentary and video snippets.
These days, I see a lot of code that CANNOT be read without using an "IDE". The brain (my brain, anyway) cannot keep the required number of methods and members. Discussing the program becomes... impossible. And that which cannot be discussed and reasoned about cannot be reliable. Illustrations and diagrams need to be generated, and references from the code to those are needed.
So, invert it and make the diagram and documentation primary, and the code itself secondary to that. In other words, Knuth's Literate Programming.
Dump Windows for Linux. Pretty dumb reason. In fact, not a reason. And, it won't save you money. Back in 2008/9 a Linux netbook was 50ish dollars cheaper. Now, you can't get one (easily). If you have a need for Linux (I do, it runs the applications I want), you will typically get the machine with Windows, and then replace it with Linux. Microsoft gets money, and has one less customer to support.
But... I assume you are in the US or Canada. Didn't your currency just get a bug fix update for anti counterfeiting? An update to the US $100 bill was released October 2013. Obviously, you can't trust that yet -- give it a few years.
As to being "regulated" by government, -- what is that, exactly? BTC is one possible crypto-currency, so it is of interest what you think this "regulation" should look like.
Way to shunt blame!
I design code, your "EEs" design electrical hardware. I have been delivered hardware without such safeties. I could simply refuse to deliver code for the platform -- it will simply be offshored.
Just costs me work.
That upsets me the most. Just bought an Acer Iconia W700. Came with Windows 8 which I never used. What it is, I guess.
PS Works ok with Fedora 20. No application support for multi touch or the accelerometer though.
DX12. Microsoft is the sole definer. Implemented for only ONE Operating Environment, according to the defining body. May be implemented for two OSs at Microsofts leisure.
May or may not be upward or downward compatible with itself or anything else.
So PLEASE. STOP calling DX ANYTHING a standard. You may call it a library or an API.
PHIGS is the standard. OpenGL has pretty much supplanted PHIGS but is still not a standard. OpenGL is also an API but with broader support.
Crap.
We KNOW what happened to those bitcoins. We WILL know when they are spent. Indeed, it is possible to simply taint them (and this IS done).
Bitcoin is FULLY traceable, and is worthless unless the blockchain confirms. Which makes control very easy.
The fact that the exchange is not secure -- is the problem for the customers. Just like a bank. But, if money is tainted, the government will just print more...
With bitcoin the tainting would just end being pretty permanent. Yes, "fresh" bitcoin are worth more. I would pay more for a fresh clean btc. You want to sell me a btc that traces back to this theft (and yes, I would know in milliseconds, since I, like others) track all btc transactions, I wouldn't buy it -- I would report you to the police.
Tell me how I do that with cache?
I would need access to a registry of all currency serial numbers. Which I have with bitcoin.
It is STUPID to say that the government doesn't watch bitcoin. Hell *I* watch bitcoin. Sure people can steal bitcoin. They cannot lie about it. I know if a bitcoin is tainted. I may even participate, but I would certainly devalue those bitcoins (but would actually simply report the attempt to move stolen property to the police). The bitcoin in question transferred, and that transfer is public knowledge. The bitcoin, source and destination. After that, I can consider those btc tainted.
Of course, keeping track of all this bitcoin activity is the fundamental problem... It requires days to catch up now, and continuous on-line connection to keep up. But, I do it with an Atom based computer (not mining, just tracking transactions).
BTC is NOT "anonymous", BTC is NOT "untraceable". EVERY BTC is DEFINED by its entire history since it was mined. Using it simply adds to its history.
Bitcoin Problems:
- Ignorance
- There will come a time when the transaction records can no longer be managed by individuals (not yet a problem).
- Blind trust in the "internets" (why should someone have trust "Gox" anyway?)
- Lemming behaviour
- Deflation
Protection of law.... is what patents offer.
A completely laissez-faire system has no protection under law.
Trade secrets aren't that useful -- once out, there is no longer any protection under law. Only the protection of a Guild would work.
A Trade Secret or NDA under current law is a "one-time only" thing. Once the cat is out of the bag, there is not stuffing it back in. A Guild offers the ability to stuff that cat back in. Sure, it may take "mafia-style" tactics, but if the Guild is placed correctly, it WILL be allowed to get away with it.
So, you assume biking is only for exercise?
No wonder using a bike is so dangerous on the street.
Interesting... you used the word rentier! Wrong.
The point of granting patents was to OPEN the process up. Say we completely eliminate patent protection... Now, inventions will remain secret. Guilds will form and the technology will be held within the Guild (as history has shown us, even to death). Eliminate the Guild? The technology dies. Making the Guild more powerful than the Government.
Um... this will happen all the time!
You access some resources on your corporate network from your laptop. To do this, you have configured an application to talk to the server. That server happens to have the name whizzy.corp.
So far, no biggy. IF you launch the application and you are not at work, whizzy.corp doesn't resolve. For example, at your local starbucks, BEFORE you open your VLAN.
What happens when .corp is assigned? Suddenly whizzy.corp is now a machine on he internet. Say the application is your corporate IM system.
(I would imagine that names like exchange.corp would be very hot items).
For this reason, the recommendation is that .corp, .home and .mail be reserved.
I would like all the RFC 6762 names to be reserved (.intranet, .private, .lan, .internal as well).
Of course, startup applications on laptops COULD be locked down, along with a strict no-byod policy, thereby eliminating these issues... maybe. If your company supports a VLAN, they may well arise anyway. This CAN be made to work, but I am (fairly sure) that most users wouldn't like it.
Why do you mention Linux? This sub-thread compared Windows against z/OS. The "market share" for z/OS as a general compute device is, of course, even less than Linux. However, z/OS is arguably much more secure than Windows.
Why is it that Windows criticism is taken as Linux support? Linux has its place (and I use it as my primary OS) but I certainly wouldn't claim it is secure. Windows should be secure, given that it is pre-installed on almost every consumer computing product.
I used to subscribe to Cable TV and Cable Internet.
My supplier (Rogers) managed to piss me off. So badly, in fact, with required service (6 years ago). That I told them to cancel. Indeed, they had strung "temporary" wires over my property -- for two years.
They were warned. No easement to string that wire.
I took shears and removed the wire A real "cable cutting".
Combine this drone with the phone/tablet killswitch and much hilarity can be had!
- or -
A new sport. After all, skeets can't dodge, and mailboxes are just too easy a target... Highway drone shooting!
---
I used to think /.'s biggest problem was dups! Now we've got BETA -- and I promise to NEVER complain about dups again!
First, "rwx" works for most use cases.
Second, ACLs were in Redhat AS3, which puts it back to 2003.
I'll even concede that Windows is secure now. But, my opinion is that it should be! (given how much it costs). My experience is with Unix.
Pretty much 24/7 people come a-knockin' at SSH. Trying user/password combinations. Quickly (which gets them blackholed) or slowly.
Even my Linux XBMC box gets thousands of attempts a day.
I imagine that Windows gets it worse. Using a small percentage OS that covers the functions I need? Is a good thing. Sure, obscurity isn't security, but I do know how to harden the boxes I deploy. At least to the level needed.
Windows needs to be a whole lot "harder" out of the box. People get it on new computers. I know I do! People with no knowledge or experience in security.
Who want to "download" and gleefully poke holes in the router. At least, until a standard was devised to allow programs I consider untrusted to do the poking for them. Then, to find exploits in those routers... possibly (wearing a black hat) allowing snooping of local traffic, and injection of bad packets. Why not?
Still not going to bother me any, and, no, I don't bother with ACLs in most circumstances. Simply, by the time the ACL would help is far too late anyway.
If I control your router, and your router attached storage, I really don't care about your computer anymore.
Which brings us back to Linux and BSD. And, our aforementioned group that simply deploys with no deeper understanding.
I am very glad that Microsoft has made money. I have a financial interest in them (no, I don't have a stake in Redhat).
Why? Microsoft gets to move a unit of Windows for just about every home PC. (I bought some Acer Veriton 282G units that didn't come with Windows, but, in general, this hold true).
I would prefer that my Fedora/whatever boxes remain somewhat obscure. I would like router vendors to be more open (specifically, support flashing third party firmware without voiding hardware guarantees).
Rant is over. Resume your regular /. read.
Actually, the reasons I use Linux are:
1 - Xeyes over the network. And that IS more important to me than "competition".
In fact, my Xeyes application(s) don't run on Windows, Android or Mac. They run on AIX, Solaris and Redhat. Different hardware and OSs. The common GUI IS X11. Which makes this very important... I have tried Cygwin on Windows -- and, I guess it would do... but THAT is what "Linux" is competing with FOR ME.
2 - A platform for POSIX applications.
3 - Hey, I am not bashing Windows, Android or Mac. Don't get in my grill and bash X/POSIX and my needs
4 - I do need "office applications". Since I have NEVER used Windows XP or Microsoft Office I am very adept at the tools I use. That they happen to be no-cost and libre? My benefit. Yes, I have used OpenOffice right back to when it was Star Office. Evolution, Mozilla/Firefox. When I attempt comparing my tools against Windows/MS Office/IE, the Microsoft tools fall short. Why? Because for ME, my tools are the "gold standard". For Microsoft users, the Microsoft tools are the "gold standard". Any deviation makes us uncomfortable.
5 - Sure, I will adopt another "paradigm". About the same time that AIX, Solaris, HP-UX and Redhat do. Or those platforms die.
I agree, we do not think alike. That is why I am in the minority, and use Linux. If Linux discards X or Posix, I would have to see if OpenOffice, Evolution and Firefox supported one of the BSDs and move to that platform. My needs... Why do I need douches complaining that *MY NEEDS* are minority when I am already using a *MINORITY* platform specifically BECAUSE it meets my needs! In disclosure, I hold Microsoft shares. I don't have a position in Redhat or Apple (at this time).
So, my needs are not important, even when *I* try to steer my minority platform to support them. I am not suggesting that Windows, Mac or Android go that way. It is obvious that Xeyes isn't a priority for you.
Now, I use xfce. With compositing. I was curious as to the applications on my laptop that wouldn't "remote" properly - smplayer, and audio, because of pulseaudio. All of my other applications are "remoteable". All the GUI applications are my Solaris, AIX and HP-UX systems are useable. RDP/VNC support? I guess... but the GUI *is* X.
I don't particularly like "systemd" either. Prefer sysvinit. Why? Makes Linux closer to the other OSs I use. However, I can tolerate that change because it is internal to my terminal ONLY.
Of course.
A year ago, I had an altercation with a car. Split my right femur. Car drivers fault.
Safer? Embed glass in the dashboard of cars, no airbags, no seatbelts. Force car drivers to pay attention.
Because, honestly, bikes are not the problem -- cars are.
Cars get their own highways, and, as a cyclist, I am forced to share non-highway roads. Average speed through my city? 27 kmph. So, reducing the speed from 60 kmph to 50 kmph would also help (and, as a car driver, there is still the choice to go 100 kmph on the highway!).
Not true. There are organizations that specialize in migrations, and the per-week costs are no where near 10,000/consultant.
But... the grandparent poster DIDN'T put a windowing system on the server!
virt-manager is a pretty simple X client, and the GUI is solely on your workstation. No GUI on the server at all. And, if that's what YOU do, you also don't have a GUI on the server:
[myworkstation] $ ssh -X myname@myserver ... and virt-manager appears in a window on your workstation.
[myserver] $ virt-manager
clicky, clicky, happy.
Folks - that's ALL there is to it. Except... myserver can be something completely different - A Solaris box, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX.
But, we get farther away... The Solaris application that has it's display on my workstation cannot use notifications (which should have been designed as an X extension, but the kids didn't know...). XBell seems to be deprecated. Without hackery, the xterm (that may be running on that AIX box) can't make a sound on my workstation (using that newfangled "pulse" thing). It can be hacked to work, though.
RDP? Will that help me? Probably not -- I don't log in to a single system that supports RDP.
Local X clients on my workstation can do fancier stuff, off course. But all the applications render to my X server, and the compositing happens locally, anyway. My Solaris and AIX X applications can push bitmaps, but they generally don't. Those applications really don't care.
The biggest problems with X today? Notifications. Other crap that uses other inter-application communications (like DBUS) instead of X. Deprecation of XBell. Network sound that is far too complicated.
If it takes "Wayland" to solve this, make sure that there is a simple proxy that can easily be deployed that lets me use those X applications. However, that doesn't fix my X issues, and just adds an additional layer.
How does this stack up? About the same as if I run an X Server (say Hummingbird, or Cygwin) on a Windows workstation. Interesting, that...the PRIMARY reason I (personally) run Linux as a workstation OS is to allow me to use an X Server as my primary display.
If that were not the case, I would just leave Windows (whatever version) on my workstation, and start from there.
Well... that and being able to simply recompile my code to run on the workstation or the servers as appropriate. I generally use Tk as a GUI for applications anyway (at least for one-off apps).
Now you've gone and done it!
I am off building an ARM to Atom binary compiler, and see what that gives.
To move the cursor with a touchpad, you "swipe" in a direction.
You need to move the cursor to select with a mouse or a touchpad. On your iPad ("iTouch"??), you just touch; there is no need to move the cursor.
Which means swipe is separate from move on the "iTouch", and is not on the authors system (may be the system vendors configuration error, or Microsofts, or a driver issue, doesn't matter because it rendered the system unusable),
Gothmolly
Evolution works fine as a working Exchange client. Email, calendaring, notes, address book.
LibreOffice works as a "drop-in" (quoted because of below) replacement for Microsoft Office (INCLUDING VISIO).
Macros need conversation.
"Linux on the desktop" is viable. Won't be popular, anyway. Mostly because it will be rejected without further thought by most people.
Bold statement, there.
To rephrase (and it's really not stated clearly) - you don't think a Linux Vendor has produced a packaged Linux based OS that does not require a "command line".
Wrong.
- Android (Linux)
- Fedora (16, 17, and as far back as 8). Gnome or even XFCE (Linux)
- Mac OS X (BSD)
Now, I am glad that you qualified your statement with "that Windows has a button for". So that's two "Linux OSs", and one "BSD OS" over a bunch of versions.
I'm surprised about Ubuntu (not that I am all that aware of it).
It is clear that you consider command line usage a "flaw".
But, to supply a typical example: someone wanted to know how to change a user's UID and GID (Unix/Linux user id and group id). The answer?
Log in as root, and "vi /etc/passwd". Find and change the line referencing the user. "vi /etc/group" and do the same for the group.
Type "find / -uid 1000 -exec chown 2000:2000 '{}' \+"
to change ownership of the files from user uid 1000 to uid 2000 : gid 2000 (replace the numbers with your desired numbers).
It is fairly obvious that with a small amount of Unix lore, this administration task can be successfully completed. The instructions can be made even more specific, if needed. It is specific to Unix (Linux), and will only ever be needed by someone running NFS in a networked environment (or, possibly, running a license server). In other words, in an office/work environment by an experienced admin, or by a small fraction of home users (a very small fraction).
Is it worth making a button for this? I think the answer is NO. I wouldn't even know where to look for such a thing -- it would take more instructions on how to use it, as compared to "cut and paste into a terminal".
There is common stuff that I would find trivial under Unix (Linux) that I would have no idea how to approach under Windows.
Not CRITICAL stuff; just "nice to have". When I run across one, I just give my head a shake, and ignore it. I expect that you are the same with Linux.
The people who should be or are using Linux know why. I can't advocate change just for change. There must be some benefit.
It may be hardware support. It may be POSIX compliance. It may be performance related. It may be something completely different.
For example -- with 2 and 3TB consumer drives available, I usually recommend a scrubbing, redundant file system. Like ZFS. Of course, that requires Solaris, Linux, BSD or MAC OS X (and it was removed from OS X). Linux has more hardware support, so it would be the choice. At least for the file server. Or, use BSD for a home NAS.
A reason to use Unix!
Talk with the users. Find out what they are after. You can even sell them a service. I wouldn't transition "Joe or Josephine Random" from Microsoft Windows to Unix (Linux, BSD, Apple) without a discussion.