Linux doesn't follow some common Windows security pitfalls
Eh? It took far too long for NX to be admitted into kernel, as if software has no bugs NX does not help. Linux does have autorun, it just asks "are you sure". We all know how this is going to end up.
So not exactly same pitfalls as Windows, but very similar. IMHO too similar: just follow Debian security mailing list and you will notice soon that the number of security holes is not going down.
OK, now let me put some truth into the conversation. 1. Linux market share matters, a lot. But then again I have had over ten virus and antivirus free years and most likely will still have some. 2. Not all OS's are same. Capabilities, chroot, jail, zones, virtual machines, sandboxes and managed languages, NX, etc. should be used much more. IE8 is interesting, as are e.g. Chrome and Lobo browsers. This all was started by OpenSsh "privilege separation". 3. Linux is not ahead of virus writers. No OS is. 4. In last few years Windows have catched up and even surpassed Linux in some areas. Not all, and looks like it won't in the foreseeable future, but who knows. 5. You can protect your machine against stupid users (see second point). Quite well, actually, it is just matter of priorities. But in no OS is security #1. 6. Getting root is not necessary. Reinstalling Linux takes half an hour, reinstalling all my documents takes eternity (how do I know my backups are not infected). 7. As long as there is money to be made, viruses will be made. Or power (intelligency agencies).
My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier. All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.
Maximizing windows increases need for multiple desktops, not decreases.
For example in EeePC with small screen it is extremely nice to be able to maximize Firefox and run other applications on other desktops. Same with bigger screens too (I could not live without VirtuaWin on WIndows though it is a toy compared to Gnome/KDE/...).
According to quantum mechanics (QM) every quantum change is fully predictable by current quantum state (some theories give a possibility of random input, which you obviously cannot affect) -> your every movement in the future has "been decided" by current situation (plus the possible randomness).
Some theories considers time as just another dimension, not something that changes. We just perceive it as "time" (for unknown reasons).
So in your example your travel is not something you really can decide to take or not take if every action in your brain goes according to QM laws.
If, on the other hand, QM is not correct there is not many other scientific theories left. There are a lot of speculative ideas, but then you might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It always amazes me how ready people are to bash religions while at the same time think they can change the future. After all, according to every scientific theory we have changing the future is impossible.
Maybe they are frightened of the religions and what they propose?
Let me put this again, with correct values: Incandescent:
+ Cheap, good light.
- Bad efficiency in hot living areas (in cold areas the heat will decrease amount of heating needed)
CFLs
+ Efficient, a bit longer lifespan
- All you mention plus nowhere near the light output claimed (11W is not 60W), nowhere near claimed lifespan (usually maybe 2x), fire hazard (the base on some cheap ones can heat up too much), requires recycling.
LEDs
+ Efficient (about same as CFLs), very long lifespan
+ Others you mention
- Bloody expensive, color horrible, not enough light output to replace e.g. 60W incandescent, requires recycling (due to electronics inside, not due to mercury or like)
The efficiency of CFLs and LEDs is pretty much same, therefore they will put very closely same amount of heat. CFLs may heat the base more (no experience), but overall there cannot be any difference.
1. There is only hidden side effects 2. There can be only one of each, when you need two instances... you need to duplicate all of them (see #1) make arrays or...[1] 3. They are not thread safe 4. You do not know what variables are "live" not which are accessed at any point - without reading all the functions through. This slows down the development, increases hard to find bugs, etc.
A comment by the variable really cannot say where it is used - you cannot rely someone who accesses the variable in "far" code place will update the comment. Grepping for usage is so fun.
[1] Give up and whack them into structure(s) and pass the pointer(s).
Is Python really so slow that it "recommends" rewriting in C?
Doesn't it remove all the advantages of Python? No longer garbage collected nor safe, no longer portable.
Now you need to worry about "silly details" like "will this function take ages to finish if/when someone gives it an array with more than 1000 elements".
Does it? You have to write the function "disjointSet" somewhere, right? If the implementation is identical to the pseudo-perl above, why would it be any better? The only thing the first one is missing a comment "Calculate disjoint set".
Making functions of hard-to-read stuff does not guarantee anything. It can be better (same function used everywhere instead of copy-paste) but it can be worse (single line implementation hidden and used only once).
There are vandals who enjoy breaking things. Again and again, especially after a beer or two. There are fucktards who, well, enjoy breaking things anonymously. Especially after a beer... There are idiots who think they are right and will fight you to death. Sometimes they are right... well, sometimes someone wins in a lottery. There are teenagers who know too much - but not enough. There are bureaucrats who insist every i is dotted or else your change is bye-bye. Others who insist this particular change should be approved anyway. There are mentally ill people who do things you'd never imagine. Especially if anonymous. And not stopped. Even if stopped, actually. There are mentally ill people who do things you'd never imagine. Especially if on power. Even virtual power like a Wikipedia whatnot. Or maybe especially, wouldn't know.
Wikipedia has a future of [citation needed], in "bad, worse, statistic" sense.
Thankfully many applications, especially web based, allow both comma and period. Not all - and then there is CSV...
Situation was worse some time ago in Firefox/Linux, it made some weird character from the numerical keyboard comma (Finnish keyboard). That made banking annoying.
In my case version history is important, so important that I "need" VCS anyway. Mercurial "in one shot" gives excellent tool to keep the files in sync, too. It guarantees[1] that no change is ever lost.
I write computer programs, sometimes on the desktop, sometimes on the laptop. It is possible I make changes in both machines between syncs (it has happened) and was PITA to solve before I used Mercurial. Now it is almost fully automated.
Note that my files are pure text, so the merge tools (like WinMerge) work.
[1] well, it is SW so I do take backups... (Mercurial has never let me down this far)
Of course managed code cannot protect from ALL attacks, eg. integer overflow is still possible. But it can from quite a few. No more execute escalation even to user mode, no more overflow outside a buffer, impossible to access freed memory or with a wild pointer, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux doesn't follow some common Windows security pitfalls
Eh? It took far too long for NX to be admitted into kernel, as if software has no bugs NX does not help.
Linux does have autorun, it just asks "are you sure". We all know how this is going to end up.
So not exactly same pitfalls as Windows, but very similar. IMHO too similar: just follow Debian security mailing list and you will notice soon that the number of security holes is not going down.
OK, now let me put some truth into the conversation.
1. Linux market share matters, a lot. But then again I have had over ten virus and antivirus free years and most likely will still have some.
2. Not all OS's are same. Capabilities, chroot, jail, zones, virtual machines, sandboxes and managed languages, NX, etc. should be used much more. IE8 is interesting, as are e.g. Chrome and Lobo browsers. This all was started by OpenSsh "privilege separation".
3. Linux is not ahead of virus writers. No OS is.
4. In last few years Windows have catched up and even surpassed Linux in some areas. Not all, and looks like it won't in the foreseeable future, but who knows.
5. You can protect your machine against stupid users (see second point). Quite well, actually, it is just matter of priorities. But in no OS is security #1.
6. Getting root is not necessary. Reinstalling Linux takes half an hour, reinstalling all my documents takes eternity (how do I know my backups are not infected).
7. As long as there is money to be made, viruses will be made. Or power (intelligency agencies).
My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier. All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.
Make a wild guess.
Yes, for example TViX PVR M-6640N or DreamBox. I don't know where you live, those probably do not work in USA as they use DVB-S/C/T.
It would seem that WD TV Live Full HD might be better than the "advertised". YMMV.
Maximizing windows increases need for multiple desktops, not decreases.
For example in EeePC with small screen it is extremely nice to be able to maximize Firefox and run other applications on other desktops. Same with bigger screens too (I could not live without VirtuaWin on WIndows though it is a toy compared to Gnome/KDE/...).
How does it handle pop-ups?
The biggest problem with VirtuaWin is that e.g. Outlook alert are not "always on top" and not visible on all desktops.
This alone means that VirtuaWin is hugely worse than anything on *NIX.
It bursts thunder in your ear? You know how that would end.
What???
According to quantum mechanics (QM) every quantum change is fully predictable by current quantum state (some theories give a possibility of random input, which you obviously cannot affect) -> your every movement in the future has "been decided" by current situation (plus the possible randomness).
Some theories considers time as just another dimension, not something that changes. We just perceive it as "time" (for unknown reasons).
So in your example your travel is not something you really can decide to take or not take if every action in your brain goes according to QM laws.
If, on the other hand, QM is not correct there is not many other scientific theories left. There are a lot of speculative ideas, but then you might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Show one scientific theory which gives you a possibility to affect future.
I recommend you do not start your search from quantum mechanics as they definitely do not.
It always amazes me how ready people are to bash religions while at the same time think they can change the future. After all, according to every scientific theory we have changing the future is impossible.
Maybe they are frightened of the religions and what they propose?
Let me put this again, with correct values:
Incandescent:
+ Cheap, good light.
- Bad efficiency in hot living areas (in cold areas the heat will decrease amount of heating needed)
CFLs
+ Efficient, a bit longer lifespan
- All you mention plus nowhere near the light output claimed (11W is not 60W), nowhere near claimed lifespan (usually maybe 2x), fire hazard (the base on some cheap ones can heat up too much), requires recycling.
LEDs
+ Efficient (about same as CFLs), very long lifespan
+ Others you mention
- Bloody expensive, color horrible, not enough light output to replace e.g. 60W incandescent, requires recycling (due to electronics inside, not due to mercury or like)
The efficiency of CFLs and LEDs is pretty much same, therefore they will put very closely same amount of heat.
CFLs may heat the base more (no experience), but overall there cannot be any difference.
Why? There are phones which run full Linux (N900, Android, ...), why an earth would someone want to have less powerful OS on a tablet?
At least you can change the kernel on N800. Hopefully even with N900 (no clue).
Though for me I cannot find a reason to change it.
What is wrong with global variables?
1. There is only hidden side effects ... you need to duplicate all of them (see #1) make arrays or ...[1]
2. There can be only one of each, when you need two instances
3. They are not thread safe
4. You do not know what variables are "live" not which are accessed at any point - without reading all the functions through. This slows down the development, increases hard to find bugs, etc.
A comment by the variable really cannot say where it is used - you cannot rely someone who accesses the variable in "far" code place will update the comment. Grepping for usage is so fun.
[1] Give up and whack them into structure(s) and pass the pointer(s).
I sincerely hope you really do not use global variables.
(sure they have their places, but ...)
Is Python really so slow that it "recommends" rewriting in C?
Doesn't it remove all the advantages of Python? No longer garbage collected nor safe, no longer portable.
Now you need to worry about "silly details" like "will this function take ages to finish if/when someone gives it an array with more than 1000 elements".
increase readability AND reduce bugs
Does it? You have to write the function "disjointSet" somewhere, right? If the implementation is identical to the pseudo-perl above, why would it be any better? The only thing the first one is missing a comment "Calculate disjoint set".
Making functions of hard-to-read stuff does not guarantee anything. It can be better (same function used everywhere instead of copy-paste) but it can be worse (single line implementation hidden and used only once).
I think you miss the point entirely.
The idea is: // Calculate distance
distance = sqrt(...);
You really cannot turn every one-liner into separate function. Really.
P.S. Distance calculation is not very good example, people will start to "think about the objects".
Not necessarily. You lose a lot of the advantages of the interpreted language.
For example Python can be run in IronPython or jPython ... but not if there is C/C++ routines (not without recompile or worse).
If you envision needing a (partial) rewrite, wouldn't a RAD tool be better?
No.
There are vandals who enjoy breaking things. Again and again, especially after a beer or two. ... ... well, sometimes someone wins in a lottery.
There are fucktards who, well, enjoy breaking things anonymously. Especially after a beer
There are idiots who think they are right and will fight you to death. Sometimes they are right
There are teenagers who know too much - but not enough.
There are bureaucrats who insist every i is dotted or else your change is bye-bye. Others who insist this particular change should be approved anyway.
There are mentally ill people who do things you'd never imagine. Especially if anonymous. And not stopped. Even if stopped, actually.
There are mentally ill people who do things you'd never imagine. Especially if on power. Even virtual power like a Wikipedia whatnot. Or maybe especially, wouldn't know.
Wikipedia has a future of [citation needed], in "bad, worse, statistic" sense.
Thankfully many applications, especially web based, allow both comma and period. Not all - and then there is CSV ...
Situation was worse some time ago in Firefox/Linux, it made some weird character from the numerical keyboard comma (Finnish keyboard). That made banking annoying.
OTOH the entire section on Britney Spears ...
I can imagine more people interested about alien B.P. than titita.. titani... whatever.
In my case version history is important, so important that I "need" VCS anyway. Mercurial "in one shot" gives excellent tool to keep the files in sync, too. It guarantees[1] that no change is ever lost.
I write computer programs, sometimes on the desktop, sometimes on the laptop. It is possible I make changes in both machines between syncs (it has happened) and was PITA to solve before I used Mercurial. Now it is almost fully automated.
Note that my files are pure text, so the merge tools (like WinMerge) work.
[1] well, it is SW so I do take backups ... (Mercurial has never let me down this far)
Maybe "managed" is not enough, maybe "sandbox" is what is needed (depending how you define "managed", of course).
There is something wrong with the sandbox system if the extensions can do what they could according to the article.
With Java you cannot (unless there is bug in Java runtime and in your code).
Of course managed code cannot protect from ALL attacks, eg. integer overflow is still possible. But it can from quite a few. No more execute escalation even to user mode, no more overflow outside a buffer, impossible to access freed memory or with a wild pointer, etc.
Much better than FF or IE "track record".