Go to
The Contemporary Group's web site and look
at any of the bands listed on their home page.
If those are "the better bands", I don't really
think there is a conflict. Based on the
description of his plans, I don't expect that
Jamie will be asking NSYNC to be the headlining
band at the DNA Lounge opening night.;)
is quite funny: FreeBSD and Linux and other
OSS CAN be proven to not have any back-doors.
Microsoft software cannot.
Practically speaking, yes. Open source software
can be proven not to have any back doors.
However, impractically speaking, no software is
safe. I'm sure you all have already read this,
but just in case, check out Ken Thompson's
Reflections on Trusting Trust.
Gee, an Anonymous Coward referring to an article without providing a reference?;) I'd hate to see Slashdot's spotless reputation tarnished by someone posting FUD. Seriously, though, care to provide a reference? I'd like to hear why it is that The SF Chronicle thinks that FreeBSD "continues to decline in the marketplace" (or why they think it has shown a trend toward decline lately at all).
Is BSD really needed? How much longer will it be around? Does Linux really need more "competition" besides trying to compete against the Redmond giant?
This is a good question. FreeBSD isn't really needed just like Linux isn't really needed. This isn't about competition or need; these are free software projects. One's existance doesn't need to be justified in terms of the other (or in terms of "The Redmond Giant", for that matter).
And if BSD's current age is any indecation, it should be around for a long time to come.
Aha. A FreeBSD biggot working at Microsoft. Things are starting to get clearer now. When can we expect MS-BSD ? Or is BSDI already turning FreeBSD into shareware ?
Dude, don't be an idiot. One Microsoft employee using FreeBSD does not constitute a conspiracy. Talk like that just makes Linux users in general look bad. You need to cool off.
I am interested in hearing details regarding the incidents of pollution and bad employer practices at the HP Avondale site. I have not heard anything about it, and a quick web search did not turn up any news stories. Can you provide some references? Why was the site closed down? Did the pollution predate the purchase of F&M Scientific Corporation?
Disclaimer: I am an HP employee. I do not rabidly or blindly back my company out of some misplaced sense of loyalty, and I am sure that "chewbca" doesn't either. However, I also hold HP in high regard because of its social conscience. It is one of the reasons that I still work there. It concerns me to hear about incidents where HP went against their values, and I want to have well-founded facts (i.e. with references to back them) so that I can make an informed opinion.
And exactly how big of a problem is Linux's source code, or any of RedHat 6.X's services source? Obviously not as bad as some of you make it out to be. How many times a week do you hear of people's boxes being rooted b/c somebody read Linux's source code, found a hole, and exploited a machine? Not everyone is as eleet as you and reads source code and finds buffer overflows in services(sarcasm) nightly.
First of all, relax. There's no need to be so defensive. Nobody's saying that your favorite OS sucks!:) A compliment for OpenBSD is not (necessarily) a criticism of Linux.
Services like sendmail and apache have been around for a LONG time, and many vulnerabilities have been discovered, and fixed. If you are paranoid, use the oldest version that doesn't have known vulnerabilities.
So, umm, this sounds like words of support for OpenBSD, because that's what OpenBSD does by default (do any Linux distributions take this approach?). It would be *a lot* of trouble to go around downgrading all of the critical network daemons on a Linux distribution to get it secured down (not to mention the time spent finding the last "secure" version of those daemons). Just because someone hasn't broken into a system yet, does not mean that the system is secure!;)
They (OS service developers) don't brag about formal 'line-by-line' autids of their sofware, but just because they don't have 'audits' doesn't mean that they lag behind on security.
Yes, it pretty much does. What you don't look for, you probably won't find.;) For software of any significant size and complexity, unless you actively look for security holes (or bugs in general), chances are they exist. That said, it doesn't mean that Linux is grossly insecure, but it does lag behind OpenBSD in the security arena a bit.
What mail service comes with OpenBSD? Surely they write their own, b/c Sendmail doesn't have 'security audits' of their code.
OpenBSD 2.5 and FreeBSD 3.2 (the two distributions that I happen to have in front of me at the moment, which also happen to have been released around the same time) both shipped with the exact same version of sendmail (8.9.3). The difference? On FreeBSD, sendmail is eneabled by default (as I assume it is on most Linux distributions as well, but it has been a long while since I have administered one of those, so I can't speak for any of them).
On OpenBSD (/etc/rc.conf): sendmail_flags=NO
On FreeBSD (/etc/defaults/rc.conf): sendmail_enable="YES"
(actually, a quick diff of the source files shows that they are not exactly the same -- looks like some extra type casting and bounds checking has been added)
Don't get me wrong here, I love FreeBSD (and Linux), but this illustrates the point that Louis Bertrand is trying to make: if I had no knowledge of the security issues surrounding sendmail, the default would be for my OpenBSD system to be "secure" (in that regard) and my FreeBSD system to be potentially less so. I have plenty of other things to worry about than how secure every single network daemon on my system might be, and there is some comfort in knowing that the OpenBSD folks have already done a lot of that work.
No, you just got yourself fired. Nothing personal, but:
1. You were reading slashdot at work (which is not inherently wrong, but it was entirely your choice to do so at work).
2. There is no guarantee anywhere on slashdot that any of the links posted by readers are of an "appropriate" nature by any definition.
That said, since you say in one of your responses that you are glad to be out of this job, then congratulations. But get off unemployment! That's for people who really can't get work (I assume you are an overpayed tech industry worker like the rest of us and can find work rather easily; apologies if I am wrong). Best of luck to you.
I should prefix my comment with this clarification: It was not written with the intent to sound angry. I have this problem when I write. I mean the following comment in the most cheerful of ways. Ok, read on.
This article makes some good points, and Charles Connell is not a pawn of Satan^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft just because he questions the viability of Linux as everyman's OS.
However, to be perfectly honest, it is not my mission in life to convince as many people as possible to use Linux or [Free|Net|Open]BSD, or any other free operating system. As I recall, these systems didn't start out as commercial ventures, hungry for customers. It was the industry that came to Linux (i.e. Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, etc.) and it is those companies who stand to benefit from Linux becoming the desktop of the future, not me. Perhaps Mr. Connell's article should have been addressed to them.
Admittedly, I do benefit indirectly from a free OS succeeding because it means that there is less risk that I will be forced to use an annoying, buggy, proprietary OS at work. However, I chose to use a free operating system for my own reasons, and it isn't really my business what the rest of the world chooses.
Having said that, I should also say that I am perfectly happy to help people switch to a free operating system (in fact I looove to do this). I have helped friends install both Linux and FreeBSD, with varying results. But it was their choice, and they knew what they were getting into in advance, because I told them up front. Linux (and any flavor of Unix for that matter) is not for everyone, and I will not try to convince those people for whom it is not the right OS to switch to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to The Contemporary Group's web site and look at any of the bands listed on their home page. If those are "the better bands", I don't really think there is a conflict. Based on the description of his plans, I don't expect that Jamie will be asking NSYNC to be the headlining band at the DNA Lounge opening night. ;)
Practically speaking, yes. Open source software can be proven not to have any back doors. However, impractically speaking, no software is safe. I'm sure you all have already read this, but just in case, check out Ken Thompson's Reflections on Trusting Trust.
Gee, an Anonymous Coward referring to an article without providing a reference? ;) I'd hate to see Slashdot's spotless reputation tarnished by someone posting FUD. Seriously, though, care to provide a reference? I'd like to hear why it is that The SF Chronicle thinks that FreeBSD "continues to decline in the marketplace" (or why they think it has shown a trend toward decline lately at all).
-- Anony Mouse
This is a good question. FreeBSD isn't really needed just like Linux isn't really needed. This isn't about competition or need; these are free software projects. One's existance doesn't need to be justified in terms of the other (or in terms of "The Redmond Giant", for that matter).
And if BSD's current age is any indecation, it should be around for a long time to come.
-- Anony Mouse
Dude, don't be an idiot. One Microsoft employee using FreeBSD does not constitute a conspiracy. Talk like that just makes Linux users in general look bad. You need to cool off.
To each his/her own. :)
-- Anony Mouse
Yes, humans with a social responsibility. Perhaps more so than poor people.
Yes. More, actually (and I still feel guilty -- I was raised in a Catholic family, so what can you expect? ;)
> I vote Libertarian, find out why.I vote green. Find out why
-- Anony Mouse
I am interested in hearing details regarding the incidents of pollution and bad employer practices at the HP Avondale site. I have not heard anything about it, and a quick web search did not turn up any news stories. Can you provide some references? Why was the site closed down? Did the pollution predate the purchase of F&M Scientific Corporation?
Disclaimer: I am an HP employee. I do not rabidly or blindly back my company out of some misplaced sense of loyalty, and I am sure that "chewbca" doesn't either. However, I also hold HP in high regard because of its social conscience. It is one of the reasons that I still work there. It concerns me to hear about incidents where HP went against their values, and I want to have well-founded facts (i.e. with references to back them) so that I can make an informed opinion.
Thank you,
Anony Mouse
First of all, relax. There's no need to be so defensive. Nobody's saying that your favorite OS sucks! :) A compliment for OpenBSD is not (necessarily) a criticism of Linux.
So, umm, this sounds like words of support for OpenBSD, because that's what OpenBSD does by default (do any Linux distributions take this approach?). It would be *a lot* of trouble to go around downgrading all of the critical network daemons on a Linux distribution to get it secured down (not to mention the time spent finding the last "secure" version of those daemons). Just because someone hasn't broken into a system yet, does not mean that the system is secure! ;)
Yes, it pretty much does. What you don't look for, you probably won't find. ;) For software of any significant size and complexity, unless you actively look for security holes (or bugs in general), chances are they exist. That said, it doesn't mean that Linux is grossly insecure, but it does lag behind OpenBSD in the security arena a bit.
OpenBSD 2.5 and FreeBSD 3.2 (the two distributions that I happen to have in front of me at the moment, which also happen to have been released around the same time) both shipped with the exact same version of sendmail (8.9.3). The difference? On FreeBSD, sendmail is eneabled by default (as I assume it is on most Linux distributions as well, but it has been a long while since I have administered one of those, so I can't speak for any of them).
On OpenBSD (/etc/rc.conf):
sendmail_flags=NO
On FreeBSD (/etc/defaults/rc.conf):
sendmail_enable="YES"
(actually, a quick diff of the source files shows that they are not exactly the same -- looks like some extra type casting and bounds checking has been added)
Don't get me wrong here, I love FreeBSD (and Linux), but this illustrates the point that Louis Bertrand is trying to make: if I had no knowledge of the security issues surrounding sendmail, the default would be for my OpenBSD system to be "secure" (in that regard) and my FreeBSD system to be potentially less so. I have plenty of other things to worry about than how secure every single network daemon on my system might be, and there is some comfort in knowing that the OpenBSD folks have already done a lot of that work.
-- Anony Mouse
p.s.i on=exploit&vid=1006i on=discussion&vid=1078
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?sect
http://www.securityfocus.com/vdb/bottom.html?sect
No, you just got yourself fired.
Nothing personal, but:
1. You were reading slashdot at work (which is not
inherently wrong, but it was entirely your choice
to do so at work).
2. There is no guarantee anywhere on slashdot
that any of the links posted by readers are of an
"appropriate" nature by any definition.
That said, since you say in one of your responses
that you are glad to be out of this job, then
congratulations. But get off unemployment!
That's for people who really can't get work (I
assume you are an overpayed tech industry worker
like the rest of us and can find work rather
easily; apologies if I am wrong). Best of luck
to you.
I should prefix my comment with this clarification: It was not written with the intent to sound angry. I have this problem when I write. I mean the following comment in the most cheerful of ways. Ok, read on.
This article makes some good points, and Charles Connell is not a pawn of Satan^H^H^H^H^H^H Microsoft just because he questions the viability of Linux as everyman's OS.
However, to be perfectly honest, it is not my mission in life to convince as many people as possible to use Linux or [Free|Net|Open]BSD, or any other free operating system. As I recall, these systems didn't start out as commercial ventures, hungry for customers. It was the industry that came to Linux (i.e. Red Hat Software, VA Linux Systems, etc.) and it is those companies who stand to benefit from Linux becoming the desktop of the future, not me. Perhaps Mr. Connell's article should have been addressed to them.
Admittedly, I do benefit indirectly from a free OS succeeding because it means that there is less risk that I will be forced to use an annoying, buggy, proprietary OS at work. However, I chose to use a free operating system for my own reasons, and it isn't really my business what the rest of the world chooses.
Having said that, I should also say that I am perfectly happy to help people switch to a free operating system (in fact I looove to do this). I have helped friends install both Linux and FreeBSD, with varying results. But it was their choice, and they knew what they were getting into in advance, because I told them up front. Linux (and any flavor of Unix for that matter) is not for everyone, and I will not try to convince those people for whom it is not the right OS to switch to it.