It's worth noting, however, that even a crippled Linux is considered easier to use than Windows. (-:
It fits my prediction that boxes with Linux pre-installed will get non-geeks past the 'linux is hard to use' FUD. Things like set-top boxes may actually turn out to be the Linux "killer app" that people have been looking for. Between the Nokia box and hoot kits, we've got it made for introducing users to the power and freedom of Linux. `ø,,ø!
As far as I know, there's no restriction on service conditions, as long as Nokia makes the source to all the GPL-associated code available, they can do what they want with the rest. The point of the GPL is that -- once you have source code -- you have the option of doing your own service, if necessary.
In the meantime, though, my question is: Who's going to be the first person to make a hoot kit available? (drivers and software to make the machine fully functional)
(In case you're wondering, I made up the name 'hoot kit'. The etymology should be obvious) `ø,,ø!
My Redhat 6.2 box at work with all name-brand hardware (...) kernel panics about once a week.
My quick guess is to try reseating the memory DIMS. I've seen that help a surprisingly high percentage of kernel panic problems. (In the apple II days, the default 'fix' was to push down on every socketed DIP you could see on the motherboard -- also surprisingly effective.)
RAM is a rather critical and highly-stressed component of computer systems, these days. In afterthought, it's not surprising that the RAM socket is a source of many failures. `ø,,ø!
Californians think they can just have the power companies bail them out until the current crisis is
over......
I'd suggest that it's the other way 'round. The power companies expect Californians to bail them out. Chances are that they're right. Somebody else pointed out that the companies worked with the legislature to design the laws. No matter how it worked they were set.
If things worked as they expected, they'd be able to suck their suppliers dry. Instead the wholesale prices rose, and now they're turning to the government and saying Omigod, we can't afford this system we set up.
Given that the other obvious choice is for people to do without the power companies (and their power), I expect that the legislature is going to blink first.
The other option is to let the companies go into bankruptcy and take them over, but I don't expect politicians to be willing to take on that task -- given that they probably get more campaign money from big companies than they do from voters/taxpayers. `ø,,ø!
I like the APC Back-UPS Pro
500. You can only "interact" with it if you have Windows 98 or MacOS and free (non-hub) USB port...
I don't have the URL anymore, but I have used the Smart-UPS software for Linux (RS-232 version). It's even Network capable. One computer talks to the UPS and tells it's sisters (presumably connected to same UPS) what's happening with the UPS..
You can configure it to allow an admin to test, configure, shut down, etc. over the net. The Windows version is (as I remember) slightly less capable than the Unix version.
Note: It's probably advantageous to NOT put your monitor on the UPS unless you really need 24/7 access even during an outage. It gives you more reserve time if the power goes out and you're not near the machine. If you actually need to use the monitor, you can plug it in manually (you have a spare flashlight, right?).
If you're in an office, consider a UPS for the hubs/switches. I've seen an non-UPSed hub cause problems during an outage by cutting a critical (UPSed) machine off from the 'net. `ø,,ø!
I Just got hit by the "lameness filter". (Is it supposed to refer to the lameness of the filter, or what it's supposed to be filtering for?). I don't mind something that stops lame posts, but this filter seems to hit with a randomness that eludes my logic.
What is this filter supposed to do?
Do filter hits get logged, so that/. admins can verify that it's actually getting true lame posts? Is it DESIGNED to discourage putting URLs in your post? Does it actually help? Will the answer to these questions be posted by someone in the know?
In the hopes that this rant has mollified the lameness filter, I now return you to the regularly scheduled feature.
Ignore everything above this line
You're mostly complaining about our electoral system, not our voting system.
I have two pointers here. The first and The second. Excuse the brevity. I'm trying to avoid the lameness filter.
Remainder of post deleted to mollify the lameness filter `ø,,ø!
Here in Vancouver, BC, we use pencil and paper. The Civic election is the most complicated with 4 position sets (1 mayor, 12 councillors, 9 school board and 7 parks board) being voted on. The entire city votes on all of the positions, so it's not uncommon to have to pick (for example) 12 councilors out of 40 or more. (I'm not going to bother with a detailed complaint about this part of the setup).
As I remember the ballot is counted by optical scanner with human backup.
Federal elections are done with pencil and paper, with the counting done in parallel. Each poll counts it's own votes, and there's already one person available per balot box. The result is that few people are responsible for counting more than a few hundred ballots. The results are then tabulated and forwarded. Few, if any, ballots are uncounted within a couple of hours.
To prevent/minimize the probability of fraud, each candidate is allowed to have scrutineers at each ballot location to make sure that the count goes properly (I've been one). If questions are raised, a judical recount can be asked for (with a worst case not unlike the Gore-Bush standoff, but with lower stakes).
For a Judicial recount, pencil and paper allow an actual accounting. If there was a problem (including fraud) with a pure electronic system, I don't see how you could have an audit trail that had much hope of finding the problem. One option is that the system then prints a human-verifiable ballot for each vote -- in which case, you end up with something pretty close to pencil and paper.
Even so, there is a forensic value to pencil and paper: If one person marks dozens/hundreds of ballots, the similarity of the marks might get the attention of the people doing a recount and looking for signs of such fraud. With computer-printed output, they're all printed by the same machine.
BTW: I think that "the time when it took weeks
to figure out the election, every election?" was back before the telegraph/telephone days -- when it took weeks to get the results from California to Washington, and then the tabulation back to California.
`ø,,ø!
Did he have an off-site backup of his websites? We could definitely do a mirror of the sites if he does. That would be someplace to start. (I presume you have his phone#?). `ø,,ø!
They're not going after him on an obcenity charge. They're going after him for misusing IS equipment (or something like that). One guess is that they're not so stupid as to think that they can nail him directly for making fun of them, so they spent a month putting together enough proof to nail him on another charge.
As long as the charge was computer related, they've got an excuse to sieze his computers. With his computers in lockup, there's nothing to run his web sites. Job done.
Rule 47: If you're going to harass the Police, pick your nose clean before they do. `ø,,ø!
Athlon doesn't have a dual-processor configuration currently. That doesn't mean that they never will. Also: I would guess that they gave SUN a good bit more information about the probable timeline of a chipset availability than most of the public would get.
It's even possible that SUN intends to help them put one together (It's not like Sun's never done board/chipset design). I can see that as being a mutually beneficial transfer of technology `ø,,ø!
Great -- so the kid'll beat the rap. In the meantime, he'll be spending a couple of years (and lots of lawyer fees) defending himeself from the charges.
By the time he's cleared, he'll rue the day when he tried to mess with the Salem Witch-Hunters (er, um, Police Department).
OOOOH, and salem-witch-hunters.{com,org,net} is available, too! `ø,,ø!
You never know -- this could be the beginning of OS-SDI (Open Source Defence). Think about it -- Hundreds of 747's flying around with Anti-missile lasers loaded on them. It'd be an almost impenetrable shield.
Of course, the airlines would have to be willing to accept an 80% reduction in passenger volume, but we all put up with a little bit of inconvenience in the name of Open Source, don't we? `ø,,ø!
For example, my mom won't switch to Linux because she doesn't want to go through the learning
curve, not because it's not user friendly.
I can get that. It's easy for me. My machine is in a shared area. I just give any new roommate a Linux login and never boot to windows (other than for games). Within a month, they're going: "Man this is a neat system.
I seriously think that a continued disregard for usability may be a FUD tactic on the part of MS. -- I mean given how nasty the OS is (you really have to walk on tiptoes with it) -- all they have to do is suggest that any other OS is harder to use, and people will run screaming. It's an ass-backwards way of keeping people from finding out how nice Linux really is. `ø,,ø!
As for end-users, well... I haven't yet seen a Linux distro that comes close enough to something like
Windows in terms of easy installation, use, and especially configuration.
If I had the moderation points, I think I'd be inclined to just mark it down as a troll. About the only thing that helps Windows claim to not be 'hard to install' is that most people have never done an Wintendos install. Even when Windos becomes so bolluxed up that they need to do a clean and install, they often get 'an expert' to do it for them.
Personally, I'd rather do a Linux install than a Wintendos install any day (having done a number of both of them). `ø,,ø!
A $1200 home entertainment box is 100s of times the speed of the best supercomputer of the 1970's arms race era. The government has also acknowledged that clustering (eg: combining a truckload of commodity boxes into a beowulf - like cluster) isn't very hard. I think it's pretty clear that proliferation isn't why they're limiting computer exports.
They may be out to prevent {en,de}cryption problems or something, but if you can't design a workable nuke with the discarded CPU boards that some of us geeks now have in storage, you shouldn't be in the business.
`ø,,ø!
Yes it does. The volume of downloads and usage of Linux code is a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible of scienfintic description and explanation. That people are willing to use something where there has been an MS offering (even if the MS offering is inferior) is also something that is apparently beyond their own intuition and thought process. `ø,,ø!
Yes, and for 6 years the only people who knew about it were the appointed illuminati and the black hats.
It's an age-old debate. Older than the computer. Some people feel that it's just torture to tell a terminally ill patient that they're about to die. Others welcome the opportunity to say goodbye to friends and spend the their retirement money. `ø,,ø!
Once we get used to things, it's pretty easy to ignore the implications. Hitler got the people of Germany used to the idea of mass-murder by a gradual increase in the severity of the treatment of Jews.
Whether it's profit-driven, back-doors, or mass-murder: How often have you heard the phrase: "That's just the way we do things."? `ø,,ø!
I read it moron. I personally don't think that a year was needed to find this. I would have thought that
the first day that the source was released someone would have read the code from start to finish with
a pen and paper next to them and written "obvious backdoor in eight files, remove" and fixed it.
I second this notion: I run the following script on ANY source code I recieve:
grep -R 'obvious backdoor' `find . -name '*.[ch]' -print` | Mail -s 'Fix these' me
(It's a one-liner. Re-assemble if necessary. Modify appropriately for other languges.)
anybody who takes this seriously deserves to. `ø,,ø!
Well if you look at the dates, 92-94, security was very different. Back then security meant
remembering to lock the server room door.
1992 may have been pre-commercialization of the 'net, but it wasn't deep and savage pre-history. People already knew that backdoors were a bad thing. The people at borland were either as a group ignorant of basic security issues, or chose to ignore them. I'd be inclined to bet on the latter.
I'd also be inclined to bet on the probability that code is being designed and written today with these sorts of problems in them. Probably these people are justifying it to themselves.
It's necessary.
It's temoprary
We're the only ones who know about it.
Nobody will ever figure it out.
The proper solution would take too long.
We shouldn't burden the (ignorant) user with this administrivia.
There's nothing really wrong with it! (is there?)
Investment in security will continue until the cost of the security exceeds the cost of a breach -- or until someone insists on getting some usefull work done.
Murphy's laws file, ~1979 `ø,,ø!
A back door can be good thing on the local level. ie a sysadmin who can unlock a workstation even
when the user has forgotten the password.
By this (implied) definition, 'root' is a backdoor. If I accept that definition, then this becomes a question about the 'domain' of a backdoor. I.e. how many people should know of the existence and details of a given backdoor, and how 'editable' is the backdoor.
In the case of root, the existence of the backdoor is well known, but the details (password) are nominally only known by a few people. On some systems, the 'root' name is changed to something else (e.g. toor) for obscurity reasons.
In the case of Inprise, the existence and details of the backdoor were known to external persons (developers) but unknown by the actual user and the details are unchangable without source code.
(note: it looks like a quick fix here would be to edit the backdoor details in the source and recompile). This was entirely 'security by obscurity' and, now that the cat is out of the bag, almost every user of the software is at risk.
Point to be made here: Opening the source code simply made it much easier to find the backdoor. Overall, I think that this is a good thing. There may be some hackers out there who knew of this backdoor for many years. Now we have the knowledge and impetus to clean it up.
I don't think that this was a malicious backdoor. The design of the software seemed to require it (oops!). The big mistake is that nobody who had access questioned it's existence. The lesson to be learned is that people who have access to source code and see this sort of stuff should make waves to open up the process.
The best gemeric solution is to remove the need for internal 'backdoors' in code. That being infeasible, the software should be changed so that the details of the backdoor are editable by the end-user (or randomized on every start of the software). Obviously, the user has to be made aware of the need to edit this data. That solution, of course, has its own security implications (exercise for the reader). `ø,,ø!
There still is the precedent of the data being 'purchased' by an outside company. Ownership, in the Western world is essentially the right to destroy, and anything less drastic. In this case, Disney essentially paid for the data, and the destruction of it -- at $.20/customer name. It's kinda a backdoor solution, and it doesn't do much to the premise of 'you have to sell your database'. I don't know if the unusual conditions attached to the sale make much of a difference because, once Disney purchased the data, it was Disney's right to have it destroyed.
I thaink that what we really need for a full win would be for the company to destroy the data on their own say-so. `ø,,ø!
IANAL, but I've definitely heard of companies in bancruptcy being sued. A slightly nicer target, however, might be the bankruptcy trustee who took the positive action to cause the trust relationship RE: Privacy to be breached. As far as I know, any costs to the bankruptcy trustee (including setlements and related legal fees) would come off the top of any asset sales.
If it could be shown that such costs would reasonably exceed the value of any such sale -- I think that such a database could then be legaly considered 'unsalable'. `ø,,ø!
PC Operating Systems are unstable in
many situations because of hardware differences, when manufacturers fail to follow the spec.
If that were true, Linux would be no more stable than Windows. Windows crashes because it's badly written. A Windows box may also sometimes crash because of hardware, but Windows is so bad by itself, that sometimes it's hard to tell when you really DO have a hardware problem -- You tend to presume that the problem is with the OS (usually a good bet!). WIndows' lack of a sane explanation when it crashes doesn't help much, either. `ø,,ø!
Slashdot Mirror
It fits my prediction that boxes with Linux pre-installed will get non-geeks past the 'linux is hard to use' FUD. Things like set-top boxes may actually turn out to be the Linux "killer app" that people have been looking for. Between the Nokia box and hoot kits, we've got it made for introducing users to the power and freedom of Linux.
`ø,,ø!
In the meantime, though, my question is: Who's going to be the first person to make a hoot kit available? (drivers and software to make the machine fully functional)
(In case you're wondering, I made up the name 'hoot kit'. The etymology should be obvious)
`ø,,ø!
RAM is a rather critical and highly-stressed component of computer systems, these days. In afterthought, it's not surprising that the RAM socket is a source of many failures.
`ø,,ø!
If things worked as they expected, they'd be able to suck their suppliers dry. Instead the wholesale prices rose, and now they're turning to the government and saying Omigod, we can't afford this system we set up. Given that the other obvious choice is for people to do without the power companies (and their power), I expect that the legislature is going to blink first.
The other option is to let the companies go into bankruptcy and take them over, but I don't expect politicians to be willing to take on that task -- given that they probably get more campaign money from big companies than they do from voters/taxpayers.
`ø,,ø!
Note: It's probably advantageous to NOT put your monitor on the UPS unless you really need 24/7 access even during an outage. It gives you more reserve time if the power goes out and you're not near the machine. If you actually need to use the monitor, you can plug it in manually (you have a spare flashlight, right?).
If you're in an office, consider a UPS for the hubs/switches. I've seen an non-UPSed hub cause problems during an outage by cutting a critical (UPSed) machine off from the 'net.
`ø,,ø!
I Just got hit by the "lameness filter". (Is it supposed to refer to the lameness of the filter, or what it's supposed to be filtering for?). I don't mind something that stops lame posts, but this filter seems to hit with a randomness that eludes my logic.
What is this filter supposed to do?
Do filter hits get logged, so that /. admins can verify that it's actually getting true lame posts? Is it DESIGNED to discourage putting URLs in your post? Does it actually help? Will the answer to these questions be posted by someone in the know?
In the hopes that this rant has mollified the lameness filter, I now return you to the regularly scheduled feature.
Ignore everything above this line
You're mostly complaining about our electoral system, not our voting system.
I have two pointers here. The first and The second. Excuse the brevity. I'm trying to avoid the lameness filter.
Remainder of post deleted to mollify the lameness filter
`ø,,ø!
As I remember the ballot is counted by optical scanner with human backup.
Federal elections are done with pencil and paper, with the counting done in parallel. Each poll counts it's own votes, and there's already one person available per balot box. The result is that few people are responsible for counting more than a few hundred ballots. The results are then tabulated and forwarded. Few, if any, ballots are uncounted within a couple of hours.
To prevent/minimize the probability of fraud, each candidate is allowed to have scrutineers at each ballot location to make sure that the count goes properly (I've been one). If questions are raised, a judical recount can be asked for (with a worst case not unlike the Gore-Bush standoff, but with lower stakes).
For a Judicial recount, pencil and paper allow an actual accounting. If there was a problem (including fraud) with a pure electronic system, I don't see how you could have an audit trail that had much hope of finding the problem. One option is that the system then prints a human-verifiable ballot for each vote -- in which case, you end up with something pretty close to pencil and paper.
Even so, there is a forensic value to pencil and paper: If one person marks dozens/hundreds of ballots, the similarity of the marks might get the attention of the people doing a recount and looking for signs of such fraud. With computer-printed output, they're all printed by the same machine.
BTW: I think that "the time when it took weeks to figure out the election, every election?" was back before the telegraph/telephone days -- when it took weeks to get the results from California to Washington, and then the tabulation back to California.
`ø,,ø!
Did he have an off-site backup of his websites? We could definitely do a mirror of the sites if he does. That would be someplace to start. (I presume you have his phone#?).
`ø,,ø!
As long as the charge was computer related, they've got an excuse to sieze his computers. With his computers in lockup, there's nothing to run his web sites. Job done.
Rule 47: If you're going to harass the Police, pick your nose clean before they do.
`ø,,ø!
It's even possible that SUN intends to help them put one together (It's not like Sun's never done board/chipset design). I can see that as being a mutually beneficial transfer of technology
`ø,,ø!
By the time he's cleared, he'll rue the day when he tried to mess with the Salem Witch-Hunters (er, um, Police Department).
OOOOH, and salem-witch-hunters.{com,org,net} is available, too!
`ø,,ø!
Of course, the airlines would have to be willing to accept an 80% reduction in passenger volume, but we all put up with a little bit of inconvenience in the name of Open Source, don't we?
`ø,,ø!
I seriously think that a continued disregard for usability may be a FUD tactic on the part of MS. -- I mean given how nasty the OS is (you really have to walk on tiptoes with it) -- all they have to do is suggest that any other OS is harder to use, and people will run screaming. It's an ass-backwards way of keeping people from finding out how nice Linux really is.
`ø,,ø!
If I had the moderation points, I think I'd be inclined to just mark it down as a troll. About the only thing that helps Windows claim to not be 'hard to install' is that most people have never done an Wintendos install. Even when Windos becomes so bolluxed up that they need to do a clean and install, they often get 'an expert' to do it for them.
Personally, I'd rather do a Linux install than a Wintendos install any day (having done a number of both of them).
`ø,,ø!
They may be out to prevent {en,de}cryption problems or something, but if you can't design a workable nuke with the discarded CPU boards that some of us geeks now have in storage, you shouldn't be in the business.
`ø,,ø!
`ø,,ø!
Yes it does. The volume of downloads and usage of Linux code is a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible of scienfintic description and explanation. That people are willing to use something where there has been an MS offering (even if the MS offering is inferior) is also something that is apparently beyond their own intuition and thought process.
`ø,,ø!
It's an age-old debate. Older than the computer. Some people feel that it's just torture to tell a terminally ill patient that they're about to die. Others welcome the opportunity to say goodbye to friends and spend the their retirement money.
`ø,,ø!
Whether it's profit-driven, back-doors, or mass-murder: How often have you heard the phrase:
"That's just the way we do things."?
`ø,,ø!
grep -R 'obvious backdoor' `find . -name '*.[ch]' -print` | Mail -s 'Fix these' me
(It's a one-liner. Re-assemble if necessary. Modify appropriately for other languges.)
anybody who takes this seriously deserves to .
`ø,,ø!
I'd also be inclined to bet on the probability that code is being designed and written today with these sorts of problems in them. Probably these people are justifying it to themselves.
Investment in security will continue until the cost of the security exceeds the cost of a breach -- or until someone insists on getting some usefull work done.Murphy's laws file, ~1979
`ø,,ø!
In the case of root, the existence of the backdoor is well known, but the details (password) are nominally only known by a few people. On some systems, the 'root' name is changed to something else (e.g. toor) for obscurity reasons.
In the case of Inprise, the existence and details of the backdoor were known to external persons (developers) but unknown by the actual user and the details are unchangable without source code. (note: it looks like a quick fix here would be to edit the backdoor details in the source and recompile). This was entirely 'security by obscurity' and, now that the cat is out of the bag, almost every user of the software is at risk.
Point to be made here: Opening the source code simply made it much easier to find the backdoor. Overall, I think that this is a good thing. There may be some hackers out there who knew of this backdoor for many years. Now we have the knowledge and impetus to clean it up.
I don't think that this was a malicious backdoor. The design of the software seemed to require it (oops!). The big mistake is that nobody who had access questioned it's existence. The lesson to be learned is that people who have access to source code and see this sort of stuff should make waves to open up the process.
The best gemeric solution is to remove the need for internal 'backdoors' in code. That being infeasible, the software should be changed so that the details of the backdoor are editable by the end-user (or randomized on every start of the software). Obviously, the user has to be made aware of the need to edit this data. That solution, of course, has its own security implications (exercise for the reader).
`ø,,ø!
I thaink that what we really need for a full win would be for the company to destroy the data on their own say-so.
`ø,,ø!
If it could be shown that such costs would reasonably exceed the value of any such sale -- I think that such a database could then be legaly considered 'unsalable'.
`ø,,ø!
`ø,,ø!