The idea is to code the exploit in such a way that Google extracts the exploit itself as the content description in the index. This probably gives 200 bytes or so for the entire exploit (maybe more, I don't have time to try this stunt right now).
The idea is to put up useful content into the web site, along with the exploit. Google will index, and when the target searches google, the code will be injected into the search results.
Of course, this needs hacking; both trying to figure out what google will allow in the content section, and to find a browser exploit that can be exploited.
Just sayin...
Your point of trust (as the target) is your browser. Which means ONLY open source browsers should be used. Those, at least, are controllable as to the exposure and behaviour when being delivered content.
Great... but it doesn't play. MS Office/Mac and MS Office/Intel suffer line-break and formatting problems between each other. If it were THAT simple, I would have gone with OpenOffice.org (which reads ALL documents, except one).
But, the formatting issues are nasty.
I think my answer is the isolated Windows XP box "in the corner". It is allowed to "phone home" once, and is then disconnected from the 'net. MS Office is installed, and user documents on a removable disk. User documents are moved around on CD-ROM, if transport (say, for emailing) is needed.
Every three months, the hard drives containing data are removed physically, the OS drive "toasted & ghosted", and the machine is allowed to "phone home" for any updates.
This should work, as long as the "toasting" is secure. I believe that is more secure than my clients systems. Just need to make sure the process is logged.
How about a REAL IMMUNE SYSTEM anti-spam filter? I had a dream...
Here's how it works. I catch me a SPAMMER, and have it tested. IFF it is alergic to a common item (ragweed, peanuts, shellfish, etc.). I keep it in the sub-basement. Otherwsie, I release it back to the wild and catch me another.
Once SPAMMER is aquired, I put it in a chair, and provide food and water. SPAMMER is given computer, internet access, and is also attach to an allergen device that delivers the substance SPAMMER is allergic to, in controllable quantities.
SPAMMER is given control of the COMPUTER INCOMING SPAM FILTER, and allowed to freely hack on the internet.
If SPAM is delivered, and identified by my userbase, the ALLERGEN DEVICE is activated, releasing a quantity of the ALLERGEN. If a period of time (settable) goes by WITHOUT identified SPAM, the ALLERGEN DEVICE is disabled, with a random delay in the system.
If the SPAMMER is able to capture two additional SPAMMERs, it is removed from service.
The purpose of the "OS" (its actually not the OS here, but lets use that term to make the following discussion clear) is to provide the set of tools needed to implement your "paradigm" (again, not true, but it will do).
Your way of thinking.
As it turns out, having multiple "files" composing a "document" is easily mapped in a hierarchical layout. As a simple idea, put all the files into a node and call that node the name of the document.
The "OS" should not impose upon the applications, but should provide ready services that map well into what the application(s) want.
Unix further provides "hard" and "soft" links to allow you to do (for example) sharing. As an example; you have a boilerplate logo image. It can be hard linked into your documents.
"Random" (I do not think you really want random) can be accomplished with soft links.
Content searching? Either "find" or "grep" will do (ok, for up to several hundred megabyte of content -- and if you have hit THAT limit, let me know -- its a separate discussion).
You will have noticed that I have (so far) eschewed GUI tools in this discussion. The blatent omission of find/grep and other tools has mystified me. Either it is hard to do (semantic mapping of symbolic language to pictures) -- which is true, or the GUI designers are deliberatly dumbing things down.
It would be nice to have an "assembler" in file open boxes: I would like to be able to say "Please open a file containing project in the name, whose contents include September 10, which was last modified in 2002, of type ASCII text".
Now, all the tools to do this are included in the "CLI" interface: find, grep, ls, file. But, when we hit the GUI, these tools vanish. "NO SYMBOLIC REASONING FOR YOU - STICK TO THE CONCRETE" is the slogan.
Since the "classic" Unix GUI is basically X supporting XTERM, which in turn launches applications, the CLI is still there. But in modern Linux, Unix, OS X environments, most users are never exposed. And, in turn call for more "paradigms" to be created.
And, this is HARD. Witness Microsofts failure with "WinFS". Witness that the largest jump has been to Plan9, which extends the Unix way (by putting more stuff under this control). Witness the success of mapping things like "/proc". There really HASN'T been a new "paradigm" that offers more.
The problem is that trying to utilize the filesystem is lost in the GUI translation. Apple indexes files, by content, for GUI consumption. This is NOT a new breakthrough -- Unix has had "locate" which is most of the way there for ages. Indexing by content? Again, not new. Merging these ideas is fair, and I wish that Apple had based the kit on CLI for maximum portability.
A client was demonstrating an application using Oracle running on EL3. Hardware platform was a SUN v40z, with 8GB of memory. The client had a "simple" problem -- the sysem was only using half of the available memory.
Solution? Of course its obvious. Simply deploy the large memory kernel. But, they had three Oracle people on site, who were not familiar. The client had brought in someone else, who had no clue. I was happy, because I get to bill at emergency rates (a demo was scheduled for less than a week away). The client also wanted me to look at kernel tuning for Oracle.
If Oracle starts providing this service, it will, of course, cut me out of the loop. But I don't think it can change right away. Oracle has to provide a lot of internal training first. I expect that there will be work "in them thar hills" for the next two years...
The judge rejected the argument. "The fallacy in the argument is that if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence. Thus it can confer no licence for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a licence. Thus, provided that the licensing system is enforceable in law, the circumstances exemplified cannot give rise to a legitimate trade in COAs." -----------
Let's break it down, shall we? The original purchaser receives software. She has no intention to every use it, and further never installs, operates, or agrees to terms, she cannot "pass on the license" as an offer. Never opened, and yet useless.
Interesting, and so I checked the Microsoft EULA FAQ. Googled "microsoft eula faq", first hit doesn't exist, second is:
"Licenses for Office XP or Office 2003 acquired preinstalled on a new PC are single-PC licenses that cannot be transferred or installed a second time on another PC or laptop computer".
I couldn't be bothered digging down further.
So, such software is "locked" to a specific CPU, and is not transferable. Of course, I may not have known that, and re-sold what I had received (and I did so, once. Bought a cheap computer for a BSD project. They wouldn't sell it WITHOUT around 15 CDs of useless, to me, software. Turned around and sold the lot "over $500 worth of software included!" to someone for $50 and a beer). It wasn't Office XP or Office 2003, and I have no idea what the license would say.
Crap; I may guilty of breaking the law! Who the fuck reads EULAs for software you are NOT going to install? And, what if the EULA DOESN'T show up UNTIL you install it? Isn't that Catch-22?
No, that would be Fritz-Rudolf Güntsch in 1957. First practical (for some value of practical) implementation was unveiled with the Atlas in 1962 (Manchester University)
As to add-in cards: SUN had one to allow windows to run on their workstations; even Microsoft made one to allow z80 software to run on an apple ][. That's not very special.
As to your main point: yes IBM is strong in VMM technologies and implementations.
This *is* a backdoor. The digital data is in the frame buffer, but cannot be extracted (programs that are not trusted cannot be run). The Print Screen function is trusted, and so can run even with end-to-end crypto. The Print Screen function has access to the entire frame buffer. I don't know of another way to do this -- this one is actually brilliant.
And, Print Screen can be scripted. The player can ALSO be "scripted". As in, pause, and single step ("consumer" features). As to the speed of such a utility -- I would estimate that the re-encode process for a typical movie would take around 400 minutes (on a "typical" high end PC, see next paragraph for the amount of data involved). Ripping the audio track is more difficult (especially in full 5.1+ glory), but the technology for that is known. Time for that is real-time. Pulling a figure out of my ass, I would think a usable rip would take 800 minutes.
It's not "2 trillion" screen captures. It is a lot of data, though. At maximum resolution (1920x1080p) its 2 million pixels per frame. At 24bpp, that's 672 GB per hour (108,000 frames). The data HAS to be jammed through an encoder right away. This, of course, introduces new artifacts (its not going to be a "perfect" first generation copy). But its still going to be better than DVD quality.
I believe that the keys for this software will be revoked, and the current users (if any) "upgraded".
The point that this attack makes is that "DRM" is actually rather laughable. Your audience needs the decrypt keys, and yet can't be trusted with the decrypt keys... It just isn't stable.
Running RAID5, you NEED to do the parity calculation when writing to the array.
When reading? The data rolls off FASTER because it is effectively striped. And... heres the kicker. UNLESS there is an error during reading, you don't need to do the parity calculation.
So, for reading, RAID5 is almost on par with RAID1, *not* RAID0.
For writing? The largest bottleneck in a RAID5 is (normally), the need to read the entire block for a small update. Why? because the checksum has to be recalculated.
And this is where a "software raid" can have a MAJOR advantage over "hardware raid". Specifically, if the FILESYSTEM layer knows that a block is "fresh", is doesn't have to be read before the checksumming. A hardware implementation can never know this, and is forced to do the block reads.
Implications: "Home users shouldn't use RAID5" because its not "backup". Enterprise customers should use "hardware RAID5" because its somehow superior.
What utter bunk.
I like my data; I back up my data; and I use RAID5. NOTHING is more important than my data. Now, the big thing about RAID5 is computing the checksums. And how fast is that? Lets have a look (from ganymede, my storage box):
Adding RAID1 or RAID5 is a graid5: measuring checksumming speed
8regs : 430.800 MB/sec
32regs : 219.600 MB/sec
8regs_prefetch: 430.800 MB/sec
32regs_prefetch: 219.600 MB/sec
pII_mmx : 532.000 MB/sec
p5_mmx : 554.800 MB/sec raid5: using function: p5_mmx (554.800 MB/sec) md: raid5 personality registered as nr 4
Look at that carefully -- we are computing checksums at a rate of 555 MB/sec. And what is this mysterious box?
A Pentium II/266. That's right, a bleeding Pentium II/266.
Quite fast enough to do "software RAID". So, would adding a dedicated RAID5 card help? Nope, you would never see the difference. We are faster than the drives, and the network. The bottleneck is NOT the RAID5 software. Go back and look at the machine spec again.
What happens if I put a RAID5 card in this system? Um... right, another potential point of failure. By Crom! Lets not do that, and increase reliability! If you need 24x7, you would need redundant hardware anyway (including CPU and disk controllers). If you DON'T need 24x7, do what I do, and invest in a "cold spare".
First, "Big Brother" is not being broadcast on the net. Unless it is being sent via UDP/RTP protocols, (say, via mbone). Which is not the case. It is an extreme narrowcast, and is only "received" by explicit request.
Television is sent over the air, and can reach you, WITHOUT explicit request. This makes the medium "broadcast". The PUBLIC owns the airwaves (frequencies), and thus governmental (public) regulation can be applied. This was done by government granted monopoly because the frequencies are considered a limited resource.
As to your online vs ? journalist remark; the salient point is that JOURNALISTS are protected. The medium has nothing to do with it. If I publish my journalism privately, I am held to the same rules. Do not forget that newspapers, etc. are PRIVATELY held. "Online" has nothing to do with that protection.
"Protect the children"? Sure, why not. Protect the children... but what has THAT got to do with censorship of this sort?
An equivalent example would be: I leave a porno around and my child picks it up and watches it. Say "Pee on Me #42". My child has been exposed to a perversion, sure, but is it MY fault, the vdeo vendors fault, or the video producers fault?
Obviously, given the "protect the children" slant, it is the vendor. The producer didn't do anything wrong, and I didn't, so it must be the transport at fault.
Ok, I think this could be a very useful device. But... (as usual) I am annoyed.
I hate pricing like "3495". Why not suggest 3500? Especially for a big ticket item such as this. More reasonably, how about 20% over cost? (given its a medical item). Pick a number, and go with it. 3495?
Back in the late '70s I worked for Philips, servicing P2000 series Word Processors. My territory was Toronto, Canada. A lot of the units were installed in government offices in town.
Back then, typing pools were commonly used. One day (in June 1979), I got a service call for a machine in a govt office. The complaint? "Doubled letters when I type". Diagnostic on the main unit - ok, peripherals - ok. Replaced the keyboard anyway.
A couple of days later, the call repeats. This time, replace the logic unit. Again, two days, and the call repeats. Replace ALL the electronics, AND cabling. Three days, a repeat.
This time, I waited until the typing pool was out for lunch. I physically SWAPPED the word processor with another one in the office.
Two days, repeat call.
This time, I stayed and WATCHED. Indeed, doubled letters. This is using a long-though hall-effect keyboard!
Inspiration strikes! I observe that the operator is a BIG girl. Maybe 280 pounds, or more. BIG fingers. I told her "I think I can solve your problem".
Back at the shop, I disassembled a keyboard. Return springs for each key! I took each return spring and s t r e t c h e d it. Reassemble keyboard. It works, but it now takes a HEAVY POUND to actually activate each key. Installed at the customer.
Result? One very happy operator. No more doubled letters! Thank Crom for service contracts... if they hadn't had the contract, I would never have had the option to pursue the issue to final joy.
Ok, with that in mind, I am going to make a Linux distribution suggestion for you. And, I will try to justify it.
Fedora FC5
and, drum roll, for the justifications:
You know your way around "classic" unix configuration. So, you don't need super seatbelts. Seems that GUI configuration would be nice for you. When installing, you want to be able to define additional partitions (pre-existing) and easily incorporate into the system. You want an easy way to set screen res/depth, via menu. You want a platform that nVideo/ATI etc. will support with binary drivers. And you like the GNOME stuff, and want something that "maximizes" GNOME. You are able to read a few "readmes" to be able to modify the online repositories to get you mp3, dvd and other "non-free" pieces. You do want a pleasent out-of-the-box experience; it has to feel like a reasonable workstation. Fit and finish is important.
I do believe that FC5 would be a very good fit for you. Don't go any earlier, later (FC6) isn't stable enough. The reason for not going earlier is that (AFAIK) FC5 is the first that will automagically mount USB and other removable media (stick it in, it shows up on the desktop, right-click unmount when done). System/Preferences/Screen Resolution (and lots of other tweakable stuff). Network browsing works (in a Microsoft environment, with mostly XP). Setup files follow old-school Redhat locations (variation on SystemV theme), instead of something wonky-ass.
Some problems (fit&finish): if you plug in an mp3 player, usb1.1, and copy a lot of data to it (easy enough), and then unmount, the OS may pop up an error box saying it couldn't be unmounted -- because it was timing the unmount, which was flushing data to the device, and the unmount GUI "timed out". Similar, there is no positive acknowledge that such a device can now be safely removed. This is probably my biggest "annoyance" with FC5.
Equally, STAY AWAY FROM UBUNTU. It may be the most "popular" (in some sense), but it is not meant for you -- you have too much "on the ball". It may well be hard to figure out how to change hardware settings (eg. screen resolution) in Ubuntu, because the target audience just won't do it (it should hopefully be preset to the most "usable" mode). In a similar vein, hard drives and partitions can be confusing, so Ubuntu will try to be as safe and usable as possible. I *like* Ubuntu, but it is targetted for my parents, wife, and kids (all who don't care or know about such details).
Ok, so the video is not the question. The "system remained a pain to use even after I had the video working".
Now, we are down to something that can be discussed. Was it that everything is just different? Or specific functionality that you missed?
To give examples I don't really care for OS X except for the transparent terminals which I really REALLY want. Not enough to make me switch to it, but I do envy that feature. On the other hand, I use NIS for signon on my home network; Linux, Solaris, OS X can all handle it. But Windows? No way. Same with NFS -- but Samba can help out with that (although there are commercial NFS client implementations for Windows). Solaris? I really REALLY like DTRACE, and wish it were available for more platforms.
These are all specific functionality issues with one OS or another.
The usability aspects (things that are just different): I find that generally a GUI is a GUI. That aside, I am fond of the GNOME desktop. Minimal, yet supports most of the candy (twm is almost unusable by most users). Windows XP is ok for me, once I jam it into "Classic" mode. But, on this point, your mileage will definitely vary.
Any functionality issues? Or, is it a question of just "knowing" where stuff is?
Replaced the video card. With anything recent. VESA graphics is standard, and works. Now, if you have a "wide-screen" format monitor, it may not be smooth (and you are stuck with Vendor specific stuff, sorry for you). But, 640x480 on up to 1280x1024 (and beyond) is fine. Now, if you want OpenGL, get yourself an nVidia card (5200fx is typical $30 these days).
And, for Crom's sake, test it with the Live CD.
Now, I am going to call you a Troll: here's why --
(1) did you try installing OS X on that hardware? How did that work out?
(2) Did you install Windows on that box? Get anything other than VESA modes? If you got VESA modes (graphics), Ubuntu would have picked them up. So, your hardware isn't VESA compliant. (before you shoved in a driver, of course). And, if its an old video card, did you manage to find Windows XP drivers? Or are you back at Windows 9x?
Why didn't you report on that? Inquiring minds really want to know.
The Apple comment is a canard. Apple doesn't sell an OS specifically targetted to embedded systems (with the claim that it is good for routers as well). Microsoft does.
And, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Apple router were based on, say, BSD, anyway (I don't know -- just saying).
I can still buy the Microsoft router from retailers here; it takes a long time to flush it through the chain. What was the problem with it? I don't know.
All I am pointing out is that Microsoft has the OS. Microsoft has hardware dev (or the connections to rebrand). They want to expand into markets -- so desparately that they are attacking Linux on a TCO basis. Does Linux offer an embedded solution? Yes, and Microsoft is using it in preference to their own solution.
Let me ask you: if you had to do an embedded system, which one would you use based on this Microsoft example. Windows/CE or Linux? I would choose Linux; obviously Microsoft prefers solutions based on it. Must have cojones, eh?
I assumed the risks. But I find the idea of LOCKING these two together to be, um..., interesting and frightening.
Win32 is a API. Since its main implementation is a closed source program, programs written to it have to follow the API guidelines. As part of (the main part of) anti-trust settlements, Microsoft has to ensure a "level playing field" for API usage.
Which means that Microsoft Office should run on any Win32 implementation (given that the implementation follows the API specification).
And it does. Microsoft Office works for me (when I need it). But, it seems that WGA is required for updates (bug fixes to code I have purchased). And I am being locked out of that? Basically, being forced to use the monopoly implementation of the API specification. Now, the reason I have Microsoft Office is that I get all kinds of material from clients, and have to revise and create material for... Microsoft Office. It appears to have a monoply status of its own.
As a result, I am forced to use it (and I do pay for it.). Now, I may be forced to base on Windows, or ignore updating the software. I can't use Windows XP (the "phone home" stuff is a killer; I deal with confidential/trade secret/secret material).
I don't want people to use bootleg Windows. I certainly don't. I want AWARENESS increased.
As to my supposed "FUD" -- honestly, I just read the Microsoft WGA FAQ -- it mentioned Office in the same place. This disturbed me, because I run Microsoft Office with Wine.
I was taken aback, because I am a "corner case"; a user of Microsoft Office and some other Microsoft Software, that is not a user of Windows.
I certainly purchased Microsoft Office. As to not being able to go to the download site... Microsoft has it in the WGA FAQ -- Windows 98 and ME can go in, XP needs authorization, non-MS platforms don't work.
So, if there is an update to my purchased copy of MS Office which I cannot retrieve because WGA won't work on Wine, because (naturally) Wine is not an Genuine Windows platform, isn't that pushing Windows monopoly into another area?
Alternatively, does Microsoft have a monopoly on OSs and office suites as well?
And does having both monopolies somehow cancel the Sherman Act? I don't know.
What is the purpose of WGA? Windows Genuine Advantage.
It's purpose is to enforce Microsoft's Intellectual Property Rights. And what right is that? There are really only two -- the right to be paid for Windows, and the right to not have to support Windows that has not been paid for. (and, Customer Education).
The only way to enforce being paid for Windows via WGA is to turn off Windows that haven't been paid for.
The only way to enforce the support right, is to not allow support if WGA is not present, or finds that Windows has not been paid for.
WGA won't work on non-Microsoft platforms. (Microsoft will support Windows 98 and ME without validation, &etc. but has stated that NON-MICROSOFT platforms are not supported by WGA).
Not running WGA locks the user out of the Microsoft Download Center.
Which leads to the "Advantage" part: If you are running Microsoft products on a Microsoft platform, you have the advantage of being able to given access to the Microsoft Download Center for support.
That, of course, can't be true, because it is a violation of US monoply laws (it locks the use of MS Office to the use of Windows). Since it is ridiculous to presume that a company would so blatantly ignore laws, this cannot be the case.
So, either WGA is not needed to get download support for Microsoft Office, OR WGA disables Windows. One is illegal; and the other is silly.
Since I run Microsoft Office under Wine, I wonder if I can request any support via sending of the updates by a different channel (and I will not "crack", "reverse", etc. WGA). Has anyone tried this? Because if that is the case, there is another alternative:
WGA is a tool that simply boosts consumer awareness of bootleg Windows. And that I am completely supportive of.
Recommend a commercial solution. These are integrated into timecard, ordering, inventory, &etc.
The cost makes you choke... yes, but does it make your friend choke? When I ran/owned a small cafe, I didn't choke at spending $6000 for a display case/cooler, $3000 for an expresso machine, &etc. Its the business... (ps, back in 1984 -- I don't know what prices are now).
If you want an "open source" solution, try to get someone to customize -- and get someone good. This is where you can most help your friend; weed out the bullshit so that your friend gets quality product.
And that's good advice for a "closed source" solution as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. I am knee-deep in a job, and just wanted to rant at the end. Sorry.
Ratboy.
The idea is to code the exploit in such a way that Google extracts the exploit itself as the content description in the index. This probably gives 200 bytes or so for the entire exploit (maybe more, I don't have time to try this stunt right now).
The idea is to put up useful content into the web site, along with the exploit. Google will index, and when the target searches google, the code will be injected into the search results.
Of course, this needs hacking; both trying to figure out what google will allow in the content section, and to find a browser exploit that can be exploited.
Just sayin...
Your point of trust (as the target) is your browser. Which means ONLY open source browsers should be used. Those, at least, are controllable as to the exposure and behaviour when being delivered content.
Ratboy
Great... but it doesn't play. MS Office/Mac and MS Office/Intel suffer line-break and formatting problems between each other. If it were THAT simple, I would have gone with OpenOffice.org (which reads ALL documents, except one).
But, the formatting issues are nasty.
I think my answer is the isolated Windows XP box "in the corner". It is allowed to "phone home" once, and is then disconnected from the 'net. MS Office is installed, and user documents on a removable disk. User documents are moved around on CD-ROM, if transport (say, for emailing) is needed.
Every three months, the hard drives containing data are removed physically, the OS drive "toasted & ghosted", and the machine is allowed to "phone home" for any updates.
This should work, as long as the "toasting" is secure. I believe that is more secure than my clients systems. Just need to make sure the process is logged.
Ratboy
How about a REAL IMMUNE SYSTEM anti-spam filter? I had a dream...
Here's how it works. I catch me a SPAMMER, and have it tested. IFF it is alergic to a common item (ragweed, peanuts, shellfish, etc.). I keep it in the sub-basement. Otherwsie, I release it back to the wild and catch me another.
Once SPAMMER is aquired, I put it in a chair, and provide food and water. SPAMMER is given computer, internet access, and is also attach to an allergen device that delivers the substance SPAMMER is allergic to, in controllable quantities.
SPAMMER is given control of the COMPUTER INCOMING SPAM FILTER, and allowed to freely hack on the internet.
If SPAM is delivered, and identified by my userbase, the ALLERGEN DEVICE is activated, releasing a quantity of the ALLERGEN. If a period of time (settable) goes by WITHOUT identified SPAM, the ALLERGEN DEVICE is disabled, with a random delay in the system.
If the SPAMMER is able to capture two additional SPAMMERs, it is removed from service.
Ratboy
The purpose of the "OS" (its actually not the OS here, but lets use that term to make the following discussion clear) is to provide the set of tools needed to implement your "paradigm" (again, not true, but it will do).
Your way of thinking.
As it turns out, having multiple "files" composing a "document" is easily mapped in a hierarchical layout. As a simple idea, put all the files into a node and call that node the name of the document.
The "OS" should not impose upon the applications, but should provide ready services that map well into what the application(s) want.
Unix further provides "hard" and "soft" links to allow you to do (for example) sharing. As an example; you have a boilerplate logo image. It can be hard linked into your documents.
"Random" (I do not think you really want random) can be accomplished with soft links.
Content searching? Either "find" or "grep" will do (ok, for up to several hundred megabyte of content -- and if you have hit THAT limit, let me know -- its a separate discussion).
You will have noticed that I have (so far) eschewed GUI tools in this discussion. The blatent omission of find/grep and other tools has mystified me. Either it is hard to do (semantic mapping of symbolic language to pictures) -- which is true, or the GUI designers are deliberatly dumbing things down.
It would be nice to have an "assembler" in file open boxes: I would like to be able to say "Please open a file containing project in the name, whose contents include September 10, which was last modified in 2002, of type ASCII text".
Now, all the tools to do this are included in the "CLI" interface: find, grep, ls, file. But, when we hit the GUI, these tools vanish. "NO SYMBOLIC REASONING FOR YOU - STICK TO THE CONCRETE" is the slogan.
Since the "classic" Unix GUI is basically X supporting XTERM, which in turn launches applications, the CLI is still there. But in modern Linux, Unix, OS X environments, most users are never exposed. And, in turn call for more "paradigms" to be created.
And, this is HARD. Witness Microsofts failure with "WinFS". Witness that the largest jump has been to Plan9, which extends the Unix way (by putting more stuff under this control). Witness the success of mapping things like "/proc". There really HASN'T been a new "paradigm" that offers more.
The problem is that trying to utilize the filesystem is lost in the GUI translation. Apple indexes files, by content, for GUI consumption. This is NOT a new breakthrough -- Unix has had "locate" which is most of the way there for ages. Indexing by content? Again, not new. Merging these ideas is fair, and I wish that Apple had based the kit on CLI for maximum portability.
Ratboy
I just did a "quick" job.
By quick, I mean two days billable.
A client was demonstrating an application using Oracle running on EL3. Hardware platform was a SUN v40z, with 8GB of memory. The client had a "simple" problem -- the sysem was only using half of the available memory.
Solution? Of course its obvious. Simply deploy the large memory kernel. But, they had three Oracle people on site, who were not familiar. The client had brought in someone else, who had no clue. I was happy, because I get to bill at emergency rates (a demo was scheduled for less than a week away). The client also wanted me to look at kernel tuning for Oracle.
If Oracle starts providing this service, it will, of course, cut me out of the loop. But I don't think it can change right away. Oracle has to provide a lot of internal training first. I expect that there will be work "in them thar hills" for the next two years...
Ratboy
The judge rejected the argument. "The fallacy in the argument is that if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence. Thus it can confer no licence for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a licence. Thus, provided that the licensing system is enforceable in law, the circumstances exemplified cannot give rise to a legitimate trade in COAs."
p x
-----------
Let's break it down, shall we? The original purchaser receives software. She has no intention to every use it, and further never installs, operates, or agrees to terms, she cannot "pass on the license" as an offer. Never opened, and yet useless.
Interesting, and so I checked the Microsoft EULA FAQ. Googled "microsoft eula faq", first hit doesn't exist, second is:
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.ms
the section of interest is
"Licenses for Office XP or Office 2003 acquired preinstalled on a new PC are single-PC licenses that cannot be transferred or installed a second time on another PC or laptop computer".
I couldn't be bothered digging down further.
So, such software is "locked" to a specific CPU, and is not transferable. Of course, I may not have known that, and re-sold what I had received (and I did so, once. Bought a cheap computer for a BSD project. They wouldn't sell it WITHOUT around 15 CDs of useless, to me, software. Turned around and sold the lot "over $500 worth of software included!" to someone for $50 and a beer). It wasn't Office XP or Office 2003, and I have no idea what the license would say.
Crap; I may guilty of breaking the law! Who the fuck reads EULAs for software you are NOT going to install? And, what if the EULA DOESN'T show up UNTIL you install it? Isn't that Catch-22?
Ratboy
IBM invented virtual memory?
No, that would be Fritz-Rudolf Güntsch in 1957. First practical (for some value of practical) implementation was unveiled with the Atlas in 1962 (Manchester University)
As to add-in cards: SUN had one to allow windows to run on their workstations; even Microsoft made one to allow z80 software to run on an apple ][. That's not very special.
As to your main point: yes IBM is strong in VMM technologies and implementations.
Ratboy.
This *is* a backdoor. The digital data is in the frame buffer, but cannot be extracted (programs that are not trusted cannot be run). The Print Screen function is trusted, and so can run even with end-to-end crypto. The Print Screen function has access to the entire frame buffer. I don't know of another way to do this -- this one is actually brilliant.
And, Print Screen can be scripted. The player can ALSO be "scripted". As in, pause, and single step ("consumer" features). As to the speed of such a utility -- I would estimate that the re-encode process for a typical movie would take around 400 minutes (on a "typical" high end PC, see next paragraph for the amount of data involved). Ripping the audio track is more difficult (especially in full 5.1+ glory), but the technology for that is known. Time for that is real-time. Pulling a figure out of my ass, I would think a usable rip would take 800 minutes.
It's not "2 trillion" screen captures. It is a lot of data, though. At maximum resolution (1920x1080p) its 2 million pixels per frame. At 24bpp, that's 672 GB per hour (108,000 frames). The data HAS to be jammed through an encoder right away. This, of course, introduces new artifacts (its not going to be a "perfect" first generation copy). But its still going to be better than DVD quality.
I believe that the keys for this software will be revoked, and the current users (if any) "upgraded".
The point that this attack makes is that "DRM" is actually rather laughable. Your audience needs the decrypt keys, and yet can't be trusted with the decrypt keys... It just isn't stable.
Ratboy.
Running RAID5, you NEED to do the parity calculation when writing to the array.
When reading? The data rolls off FASTER because it is effectively striped. And... heres the kicker. UNLESS there is an error during reading, you don't need to do the parity calculation.
So, for reading, RAID5 is almost on par with RAID1, *not* RAID0.
For writing? The largest bottleneck in a RAID5 is (normally), the need to read the entire block for a small update. Why? because the checksum has to be recalculated.
And this is where a "software raid" can have a MAJOR advantage over "hardware raid". Specifically, if the FILESYSTEM layer knows that a block is "fresh", is doesn't have to be read before the checksumming. A hardware implementation can never know this, and is forced to do the block reads.
Ratboy
Implications: "Home users shouldn't use RAID5" because its not "backup". Enterprise customers should use "hardware RAID5" because its somehow superior.
What utter bunk.
I like my data; I back up my data; and I use RAID5. NOTHING is more important than my data. Now, the big thing about RAID5 is computing the checksums. And how fast is that? Lets have a look (from ganymede, my storage box):
Adding RAID1 or RAID5 is a graid5: measuring checksumming speed
8regs : 430.800 MB/sec
32regs : 219.600 MB/sec
8regs_prefetch: 430.800 MB/sec
32regs_prefetch: 219.600 MB/sec
pII_mmx : 532.000 MB/sec
p5_mmx : 554.800 MB/sec
raid5: using function: p5_mmx (554.800 MB/sec)
md: raid5 personality registered as nr 4
Look at that carefully -- we are computing checksums at a rate of 555 MB/sec. And what is this mysterious box?
A Pentium II/266. That's right, a bleeding Pentium II/266.
Quite fast enough to do "software RAID". So, would adding a dedicated RAID5 card help? Nope, you would never see the difference. We are faster than the drives, and the network. The bottleneck is NOT the RAID5 software. Go back and look at the machine spec again.
What happens if I put a RAID5 card in this system? Um... right, another potential point of failure. By Crom! Lets not do that, and increase reliability! If you need 24x7, you would need redundant hardware anyway (including CPU and disk controllers). If you DON'T need 24x7, do what I do, and invest in a "cold spare".
Ratboy
First, "Big Brother" is not being broadcast on the net. Unless it is being sent via UDP/RTP protocols, (say, via mbone). Which is not the case. It is an extreme narrowcast, and is only "received" by explicit request.
Television is sent over the air, and can reach you, WITHOUT explicit request. This makes the medium "broadcast". The PUBLIC owns the airwaves (frequencies), and thus governmental (public) regulation can be applied. This was done by government granted monopoly because the frequencies are considered a limited resource.
As to your online vs ? journalist remark; the salient point is that JOURNALISTS are protected. The medium has nothing to do with it. If I publish my journalism privately, I am held to the same rules. Do not forget that newspapers, etc. are PRIVATELY held. "Online" has nothing to do with that protection.
"Protect the children"? Sure, why not. Protect the children... but what has THAT got to do with censorship of this sort?
An equivalent example would be: I leave a porno around and my child picks it up and watches it. Say "Pee on Me #42". My child has been exposed to a perversion, sure, but is it MY fault, the vdeo vendors fault, or the video producers fault?
Obviously, given the "protect the children" slant, it is the vendor. The producer didn't do anything wrong, and I didn't, so it must be the transport at fault.
Ok, I think this could be a very useful device. But... (as usual) I am annoyed.
I hate pricing like "3495". Why not suggest 3500? Especially for a big ticket item such as this. More reasonably, how about 20% over cost? (given its a medical item). Pick a number, and go with it. 3495?
I know -- those pricing tricks work... Oh well.
Ratboy
Back in the late '70s I worked for Philips, servicing P2000 series Word Processors. My territory was Toronto, Canada. A lot of the units were installed in government offices in town.
Back then, typing pools were commonly used. One day (in June 1979), I got a service call for a machine in a govt office. The complaint? "Doubled letters when I type". Diagnostic on the main unit - ok, peripherals - ok. Replaced the keyboard anyway.
A couple of days later, the call repeats. This time, replace the logic unit. Again, two days, and the call repeats. Replace ALL the electronics, AND cabling. Three days, a repeat.
This time, I waited until the typing pool was out for lunch. I physically SWAPPED the word processor with another one in the office.
Two days, repeat call.
This time, I stayed and WATCHED. Indeed, doubled letters. This is using a long-though hall-effect keyboard!
Inspiration strikes! I observe that the operator is a BIG girl. Maybe 280 pounds, or more. BIG fingers. I told her "I think I can solve your problem".
Back at the shop, I disassembled a keyboard. Return springs for each key! I took each return spring and s t r e t c h e d it. Reassemble keyboard. It works, but it now takes a HEAVY POUND to actually activate each key. Installed at the customer.
Result? One very happy operator. No more doubled letters! Thank Crom for service contracts... if they hadn't had the contract, I would never have had the option to pursue the issue to final joy.
Ratboy.
kwerle:
Ok, with that in mind, I am going to make a Linux distribution suggestion for you. And, I will try to justify it.
Fedora FC5
and, drum roll, for the justifications:
You know your way around "classic" unix configuration. So, you don't need super seatbelts. Seems that GUI configuration would be nice for you. When installing, you want to be able to define additional partitions (pre-existing) and easily incorporate into the system. You want an easy way to set screen res/depth, via menu. You want a platform that nVideo/ATI etc. will support with binary drivers. And you like the GNOME stuff, and want something that "maximizes" GNOME. You are able to read a few "readmes" to be able to modify the online repositories to get you mp3, dvd and other "non-free" pieces. You do want a pleasent out-of-the-box experience; it has to feel like a reasonable workstation. Fit and finish is important.
I do believe that FC5 would be a very good fit for you. Don't go any earlier, later (FC6) isn't stable enough. The reason for not going earlier is that (AFAIK) FC5 is the first that will automagically mount USB and other removable media (stick it in, it shows up on the desktop, right-click unmount when done). System/Preferences/Screen Resolution (and lots of other tweakable stuff). Network browsing works (in a Microsoft environment, with mostly XP). Setup files follow old-school Redhat locations (variation on SystemV theme), instead of something wonky-ass.
Some problems (fit&finish): if you plug in an mp3 player, usb1.1, and copy a lot of data to it (easy enough), and then unmount, the OS may pop up an error box saying it couldn't be unmounted -- because it was timing the unmount, which was flushing data to the device, and the unmount GUI "timed out". Similar, there is no positive acknowledge that such a device can now be safely removed. This is probably my biggest "annoyance" with FC5.
Equally, STAY AWAY FROM UBUNTU. It may be the most "popular" (in some sense), but it is not meant for you -- you have too much "on the ball". It may well be hard to figure out how to change hardware settings (eg. screen resolution) in Ubuntu, because the target audience just won't do it (it should hopefully be preset to the most "usable" mode). In a similar vein, hard drives and partitions can be confusing, so Ubuntu will try to be as safe and usable as possible. I *like* Ubuntu, but it is targetted for my parents, wife, and kids (all who don't care or know about such details).
Ratboy.
Ok, so the video is not the question. The "system remained a pain to use even after I had the video working".
Now, we are down to something that can be discussed. Was it that everything is just different? Or specific functionality that you missed?
To give examples I don't really care for OS X except for the transparent terminals which I really REALLY want. Not enough to make me switch to it, but I do envy that feature. On the other hand, I use NIS for signon on my home network; Linux, Solaris, OS X can all handle it. But Windows? No way. Same with NFS -- but Samba can help out with that (although there are commercial NFS client implementations for Windows). Solaris? I really REALLY like DTRACE, and wish it were available for more platforms.
These are all specific functionality issues with one OS or another.
The usability aspects (things that are just different): I find that generally a GUI is a GUI. That aside, I am fond of the GNOME desktop. Minimal, yet supports most of the candy (twm is almost unusable by most users). Windows XP is ok for me, once I jam it into "Classic" mode. But, on this point, your mileage will definitely vary.
Any functionality issues? Or, is it a question of just "knowing" where stuff is?
Ratboy
What I would have done:
Replaced the video card. With anything recent. VESA graphics is standard, and works. Now, if you have a "wide-screen" format monitor, it may not be smooth (and you are stuck with Vendor specific stuff, sorry for you). But, 640x480 on up to 1280x1024 (and beyond) is fine. Now, if you want OpenGL, get yourself an nVidia card (5200fx is typical $30 these days).
And, for Crom's sake, test it with the Live CD.
Now, I am going to call you a Troll: here's why --
(1) did you try installing OS X on that hardware? How did that work out?
(2) Did you install Windows on that box? Get anything other than VESA modes? If you got VESA modes (graphics), Ubuntu would have picked them up. So, your hardware isn't VESA compliant. (before you shoved in a driver, of course). And, if its an old video card, did you manage to find Windows XP drivers? Or are you back at Windows 9x?
Why didn't you report on that? Inquiring minds really want to know.
Ratboy
The Apple comment is a canard. Apple doesn't sell an OS specifically targetted to embedded systems (with the claim that it is good for routers as well). Microsoft does.
And, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Apple router were based on, say, BSD, anyway (I don't know -- just saying).
I can still buy the Microsoft router from retailers here; it takes a long time to flush it through the chain. What was the problem with it? I don't know.
All I am pointing out is that Microsoft has the OS. Microsoft has hardware dev (or the connections to rebrand). They want to expand into markets -- so desparately that they are attacking Linux on a TCO basis. Does Linux offer an embedded solution? Yes, and Microsoft is using it in preference to their own solution.
Let me ask you: if you had to do an embedded system, which one would you use based on this Microsoft example. Windows/CE or Linux? I would choose Linux; obviously Microsoft prefers solutions based on it. Must have cojones, eh?
Ratboy.
I assumed the risks. But I find the idea of LOCKING these two together to be, um..., interesting and frightening.
Win32 is a API. Since its main implementation is a closed source program, programs written to it have to follow the API guidelines. As part of (the main part of) anti-trust settlements, Microsoft has to ensure a "level playing field" for API usage.
Which means that Microsoft Office should run on any Win32 implementation (given that the implementation follows the API specification).
And it does. Microsoft Office works for me (when I need it). But, it seems that WGA is required for updates (bug fixes to code I have purchased). And I am being locked out of that? Basically, being forced to use the monopoly implementation of the API specification. Now, the reason I have Microsoft Office is that I get all kinds of material from clients, and have to revise and create material for... Microsoft Office. It appears to have a monoply status of its own.
As a result, I am forced to use it (and I do pay for it.). Now, I may be forced to base on Windows, or ignore updating the software. I can't use Windows XP (the "phone home" stuff is a killer; I deal with confidential/trade secret/secret material).
Do you have a solution?
Ratboy
SilentChris
I don't want people to use bootleg Windows. I certainly don't. I want AWARENESS increased.
As to my supposed "FUD" -- honestly, I just read the Microsoft WGA FAQ -- it mentioned Office in the same place. This disturbed me, because I run Microsoft Office with Wine.
I was taken aback, because I am a "corner case"; a user of Microsoft Office and some other Microsoft Software, that is not a user of Windows.
Ratboy
I am a professional developer. Hardware and software. I get paid (very well) for my efforts. I am one of those "corporations".
So, I know EXACTELY what I am saying.
DO NOT USE UNLICENSED SOFTWARE. DO NOT USE SOFTWARE IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE TERMS.
There, I said it again. There are alternatives (FreeDOS, Linux, ReactOS, BSD, Solaris, and others).
They run the gamut of licensing. What these alternatives have in common is that they are all "free as in beer". No need to use bootlegged Windows.
Ratboy.
I certainly purchased Microsoft Office. As to not being able to go to the download site... Microsoft has it in the WGA FAQ -- Windows 98 and ME can go in, XP needs authorization, non-MS platforms don't work.
So, if there is an update to my purchased copy of MS Office which I cannot retrieve because WGA won't work on Wine, because (naturally) Wine is not an Genuine Windows platform, isn't that pushing Windows monopoly into another area?
Alternatively, does Microsoft have a monopoly on OSs and office suites as well?
And does having both monopolies somehow cancel the Sherman Act? I don't know.
Ratboy
Don't you know that you are expected to be running as an administrator at ALL times?
Ratboy
So, be rational.
What is the purpose of WGA? Windows Genuine Advantage.
It's purpose is to enforce Microsoft's Intellectual Property Rights. And what right is that? There are really only two -- the right to be paid for Windows, and the right to not have to support Windows that has not been paid for. (and, Customer Education).
The only way to enforce being paid for Windows via WGA is to turn off Windows that haven't been paid for.
The only way to enforce the support right, is to not allow support if WGA is not present, or finds that Windows has not been paid for.
WGA won't work on non-Microsoft platforms. (Microsoft will support Windows 98 and ME without validation, &etc. but has stated that NON-MICROSOFT platforms are not supported by WGA).
Not running WGA locks the user out of the Microsoft Download Center.
Which leads to the "Advantage" part: If you are running Microsoft products on a Microsoft platform, you have the advantage of being able to given access to the Microsoft Download Center for support.
That, of course, can't be true, because it is a violation of US monoply laws (it locks the use of MS Office to the use of Windows). Since it is ridiculous to presume that a company would so blatantly ignore laws, this cannot be the case.
So, either WGA is not needed to get download support for Microsoft Office, OR WGA disables Windows. One is illegal; and the other is silly.
Since I run Microsoft Office under Wine, I wonder if I can request any support via sending of the updates by a different channel (and I will not "crack", "reverse", etc. WGA). Has anyone tried this? Because if that is the case, there is another alternative:
WGA is a tool that simply boosts consumer awareness of bootleg Windows. And that I am completely supportive of.
Ratboy.
Recommend a commercial solution. These are integrated into timecard, ordering, inventory, &etc.
The cost makes you choke... yes, but does it make your friend choke? When I ran/owned a small cafe, I didn't choke at spending $6000 for a display case/cooler, $3000 for an expresso machine, &etc. Its the business... (ps, back in 1984 -- I don't know what prices are now).
If you want an "open source" solution, try to get someone to customize -- and get someone good. This is where you can most help your friend; weed out the bullshit so that your friend gets quality product.
And that's good advice for a "closed source" solution as well.
YMMV
Ratboy