Am I the only one that opposes total electronic distribution of art? I like holding my DVD's, CD's, and books.
Don't worry, you're not the only one.
I also like to read books (the good old fashioned paper kind), watch movies (on DVD or VHS) and listen to music (audio CDs). However, I also like the convience of having these same things available in electronic form. How often have you looked for hours for something in a book when having grep and and electronic form of the book would have take seconds? Or, when have you really wanted to hear a song and all of the places that sell CDs in town are closed? Or what if you want to take your CDs with you on vacation (laptop -vs- lugging 200 CDs)?
I don't feel anytime soon (read: next 200 years) that movies, books and audio will be available strictly in digital format. Why? Because there is a higher cost of entry as opposed to the "hard copy" forms. Want to watch a VHS tape? Buy a $50 VCR. Want to watch a movie in ASF or MPG? Buy a $1500 computer. There's even more of a case with books. It costs me only the cost of the book to purchase and read it, but if the book was only available in electronic form, I would also have to buy a $1,500 PC as well. Put simply, it isn't worth it to publishers; it makes the entry level higher for consumers.
Put simply, I like having both mediums available. I usually choose hard copy (books, CDs, DVDs, etc) over their digital counterparts, but having them in both forms allows more of an "on demand" type of viewing/listening/reading.
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees.
Actually, it's more "contrary to the uninformed person's belief" rather than "contrary to popular belief". Anyone who's read a Bill Gates biography or a history of Microsoft that's more than 5 pages (ie: not some article on the web) would know that Microsoft has been good to their employees for years (heck, I guess I could almost even say "decades"). Free Coke (ahem, the liquid not the powder), all company retreats (I'm unsure if they still do this, but they used to) and how many millionaires has Microsoft made with it's stock?
It is under such scrutiny that is can't afford not to.
As you've seen from my above paragraph, this didn't start recently. I mean, come on! Do you really think Uncle Bill was a whip bearing slave driver until the DOJ came along? I think not, and as a matter of fact, I know not.
You have a good example (the Pioneer/Ford thing), but it's totally different that the current case that the DOJ is involved in with Microsoft.
In your example, you speak of a third party company wanting to make an addition to a product. That's great. That's the way things should (and sometimes do) work.
However, this is hardly the case in the Microsoft trial. This is a company putting their own browser in with their own OS! Not a third party vendor improving a product. If MS and Netscape got together and decided to bundle Netscape with Windows, then it would be like your example.
In this case (to create another example similar to yours) what if Ford made Ford Radios (TM) and put them into all Fords? The people who purchased Fords could put in another radio, but not remove the one that came with the vehicle.
So, in short 2 companies who wish to work with each other to build a better product is wonderful, but a single company using it's power to force more of it's own products onto the consumer is pretty darn crummy.
I've noticed as of late Intel's processors have had less L2 cache, but running at twice the speed.
Could anyone out there tell me why they just can't put more cache on and make it run at full clock speed? Is there a technical reason, or is Intel just being stingy?
Why not Pentium III's with 512k L2 cache running at full clock speed?
I agree with your statement, I just didn't make myself clear (something I realized after I posted the comment).
Many of the comments here are saying it's the in application scripting language which is the reason Windows viruses spread like mad. I'm saying that Linux has had a built in scripting language for years. True, it's not as automated as Windows (running a shell script as opposed to viewing a document in Word), however the threat of a scripted attack exists with or without scripting languages such as ActiveX or VB Script.
Actually, there was (and still is) something similar to what you're talking about, but not on a distribuited basis. It's called "core wars". People would write programs in assembler and try to have one program kill the other one. Even though I'm not a coder, it sounds like fun.
For a little more info, check out the entry for "core wars" in the Jargon File.
Actually, you're looking too far into it. There are tools available now, and have been for quite some time which allow what I shall call "macro-like" viruses under Linux or *NIX.
What are these may ask?/bin/bash and/usr/bin/perl . Many of the Linux or *NIX viruses I have seen are not viruses at all, but scripts written in perl or shell which are targeted at clueless users running them as root. The only difference is that under Windows 95 or 98, you can target any clueless user since the OS doesn't have any concept of access control. Exactly like a Word or Excel macro virus, but with Linux you have the interperter right on the system by default.
Even though the UNIX security model is much more robust then Windows 95 or 98, they're both vulnerable to scripted attacks, but the difference is that under *NIX you need to have root for anything really nasty to happen unlike 95 or 95 where any scripted attack can do anything to the system regardless of which user you're logged in as.
Because perhaps it would make them a higher profile person, and they more than likely don't need or want that.
An example would be "enemy" agents would just need to watch for people with briefcases chained to their hands, and they would then know that person is in posession on sensitive information, or at least something quite valuable.
Something you might find interesting. At my place of employment, we do some government contracts, and do have what we deem "secure labs" where Classified and even at times Top Secret data is stored. They have procedures for all electronic equipment (such as physically crushing tapes and hard drives for disposal), however a co-worker of my noted "You know what, I bet they don't zero out the RAM when it goes out of the lab.". Ingenius observation!
As you can see here on sCary's Shuga Shack it may be delayed to 2001, but that's the 2001 fiscal year which begins April 1, 2000. Just a small correction.
Excellent insight, I should have used "I" instead of "you".
You're correct, I don't look for warez on the web often, and when I do, I find crap. Oh yes, and the word "completely", I would watch out with that word. That's why I used the word "usually" which means "most of the time, but not all of the time" or "majority of the time". Thus, my statement is not "completely" false, it's actually completely true. I'm willing to bet the majority of warez one would find on the web would not work.
Just because you don't see any "easy" warez out on the web and other places doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I only mentioned the web and FTP (where I know warez are available). I never spoke of "other places". Please refrain from mis-quoting me.
As for IRC, I forgot about that as well.
Oh yes, and "own little world" is registered to you as a trademark? Wow, lucky guy. I'll send you $5 for repeating it.;)
Wrapster joins a growing list of programs allowing the quick, free and wide distribution of illegally copied files.
It seems as though you missed this section of the article. Also, here is the reason it's a "threat"
Napster's ease of use and the huge selection of music available through the system have made it a favorite among college students and other communities with high-speed Internet connections. Thousands of people can frequently be found on the network in the evenings, often sharing nearly a million songs with their peers.
You really don't see a lot of warez on the web, and if you do find some it's usually broken into 50.zip files and doesn't work most of the time. FTP takes some brains to use. The "threat" is that programs such as this are so damn easy to use. In the past, it was only the geeks and tech-savvy folks pirating stuff. Now, almost every college student with a computer and high speed connection can do it without a drop of knowledge.
I don't agreed with what the corporations are saying, however I thought I would at least explain to you what they're trying to say since you seem to have some misinterpertations.
To be quite honest, I put a lot of time and effort into it (all self study, paid for myself). Even though I no longer enjoy Microsoft and their products as much as I once did, I am proud of the hard work it took me to earn my MCSE and some of the basic concepts it taught me. I learned a lot about TCP/IP from the books, and many of the ideas (such as UNIX UIDs and NT's SIDs) helped me learn UNIX much quicker since the same concepts applied to both OSes (unique user identification numbers for each user).
As for what the original poster meant by the statement, why don't we as him or her. Comments original poster? =)
Wow, you throw out MCSEs right away, huh? That's too bad. If you think about it for a moment, perhaps you would realize you're missing some people that have real skills. There is a word for what you do: stereotyping.
I do agree that many MCSEs out there don't know what they're doing, and it is true that a MCSE proves you can only pass tests, but you may or may not have madskilz.
I personally have my MCSE which I obtained in September 1998. After that time I grew bored with the "Microsoft solution" and started looking in to UNIX. The more I read and found out about, the more I enjoyed it, found it's beauty in simplicity, and was then introduced to Linux.
I had used Linux in the past (Slackware), but after I really got into it and installed Red Hat, I've never looked back. Now, rather than going to the NT Server team at my company, I choose to hold off, and I'm now a Sysadmin supporting HP-UX, Solaris, OSF1 and run Linux on 4 of my 5 machines at home. I'm never going back to NT.
Put simply, people can and do change. I don't dispise NT like some people here, but I still won't take a job supporting it. It's a much better idea to keep an open mind and not toss aside people just because they can "pass a few tests". You just might be missing an excellent potential employee.
What I find amusing about this article is Compaq announcing a supercomputer with 2,000 CPUs running at over 1 GHz each and gets very little press (Slashdot non-withstanding).
We have been seeing Intel and AMD press releases about once a week announcing another "breakthough" with a 850 MHz chip and the race to release a 1 GHz chip.
Everyone forgot Digital released a 1 GHz chip long before and x86 platform got anywhere near there. I wish I would have know about the goodness of the Alpha earlier.
Re:Are you sure about the onion?
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 1
I can, sort of.
I was telling my friend about The Onion (the online version) and he was like "Yeah, I read The Onion when they have a copy at Cup-O-Joe's".
I then asked if it was a hard copy type thing, and he said it was. So, I've never really seen one, but I agree with you, it does exist in hard copy.
I agree with Chang and Inoshiro; a non-encrypted datastream is a bad idea. As they stated, sensitive documents, su and gobs of other information can be found by sniffing the connection. If the actual data stream isn't encrypted, anyone with a sniffer can see anything you do.
The reason I like S/Key is because telnet clients are standard on almost any OS you can name. This makes accessing things such as personal (but not too personal!) e-mail easy from any machine on the Internet.
I personally use SSH the vast vast majority of the time, and only resort to S/Key if there isn't an SSH client available or I'm too lazy to download/install one. If I had to choose, it would be SSH hands down, but it's a pain not having the client on every machine (unlike telnet).
petej, the link to the advisory look interesting, however I'll have to check it out after I get home since the clueless IT Security folks here watch for hits on certain web sites (L0pht's being one of them). From my reading, I've seen the term "one time pad" and "one time password" used interchangably (sp?).
Even though I haven't used it often, telnet with S/Key login seems to be a great alternative to vanilla telnet.
From what I understand, it's only vulnerable to TCP hijacking (most things are) and dictionary attacks (which can be easily detected or accounts can be configured to be "locked out" after X bad login attempts).
The best one of these is OPIE which can provide a one time pad for telnet, FTP and even su.
Better yet, OpenBSD comes with this feature built into the OS.
If I have 5 processes using 90% of the CPU, the remaining 10% of the unused CPU is being used by the "idle loop" as you call it (called the "System Ilde Process" under NT and I dunno what the Linux one is called).
So, as you see, unless 100% of the CPU is being used, the statement you made could be made anytime about any OS anytime it crashes.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
I find it entertaining you have a "list" of rogue code for Windows and you can actually name only one program.
I find it even more amusing that you say "but it is a lot longer than the list for Linux and Sun". I find it hard to beleive if you add up all of the general non-OS specific bugs (BIND, Sendmail, ftpd, etc) and OS specific bugs (the Solaris snoop overflow, the Linux lpd bug, etc) the list is longer that the one for NT.
Keep in mind, UNIX in general has been around for a couple of decades, and NT has only been out, what, 8 years now (perhaps less, I don't know for sure)?
As much as people hate Microsoft, you must concede there have been more bugs for Linux and Solaris that NT simply because NT hasn't been out as long as Solaris and Linux and since Linux is OSS, bugs are found, reported and fixed much quicker that NT.
Let's face it, more bugs are found in OSS software due to access to the source code, but this also means they are corrected much more quickly than closed source software which, in the the end, is a good thing.
According to a story on Wired which can be found here, an engineer who's company also uses Global Center as their ISP stated it was due to a misconfiguration, not a DoS.
But, Wired then posted another story about it being a DoS attack.
All I can say to the first paragrph is "bah". Anyone with xDSL or a Cable Modem has a "static" IP address. The DHCP client simply renews the IP it has checked out over and over (or a reservation is made on the server side). I also spoke with a co-worker who worked at an ISP, and when someone would dial in, the ability to log the username, login time, IP address given and phone number they called from (with caller ID) is available.
As for the statement about "Some of the extra bits will identify you as a particular user", I assume you mean "Some of the extra bits will identify which machine you are coming from". If I recall correctly, the MAC address is part of the IPv6 address, but I don't see how each "user" on a machine could have their own IP.
You feel IPv6 is going to be "the end" of being anonymous? It's too late. Give me a server with any kind of half way decent logging turned on, and I'll find ya.;)
I do agree with you that being anonymous is very, very important as well. I certianly enjoy the right to have my opinion posted without fear of tracking me down or retribution. However, I don't feel most "normal" users or users who have yet to come online are concerned with this, but they should be.
Oh yes, and one last thing. Your comment is very well written and thought out. I especially like the sentence "No-one ever said freedom was free, or even cheap." Nicely done!
And second, what kind of architecture - software and hardware -can do for this Internet generation what the Net protocols did for the last one?
I beleive the hardware which will encourage freedom in the "second Internet generation" has to be by far free or very low cost PCs. At the present, there are many people with PCs and Internet access, but still the majority does not have a PC or Internet access (barring public terminals, libraries, etc). I beleive once more people start to get a PC and get onto the Internet, they will begin to realize what is out there for them (on the Internet) and how they will be able to find almost anything they could ever dream of. There are some folks (governments in particular) which wish to limit the free flow of ideas and information on the Internet, and the more people who get on the Internet and find out the limitless amount of ideas, information and content available to them, the more new Internet users (hopefuly) will pay attention to what they have to lose when laws and "innovations" (such as SDMI or UCITA) are introduced.
The software which will help ensure freedom in the "second Internet generation" would be, of course, OSS solutions. Along with my theme of low cost PCs, free, readily available and reliable operating systems (Linux, *BSD, etc) are available at the present. Combine Linux with a low cost PC and Internet access, and consumers could be on the Internet with a $300 PC and $10/month Internet access (or $400 for 3 years of Internet access and a PC from some offers I've seen). $400 is a price I realistically feel many consumers can afford, as opposed to 2 or 3 years ago when consumers would have to spend at least $1500 for a PC with a modem and $25/month for Internet access.
My second answer to the "software" question would be free Intenet access. At the present, most free acess providers are limited in the OSes they support (Windows NT or 9x). However, if free service providers supply Linux clients, not only do they increase their customer base, but help more people discover what this whole "Intenet" thing they've been missing is. If you have a Windows PC and and no Internet access (how are you reading this?!), there are plenty of free access providers available (a good list can be seen here on Yahoo!). Personally, I would rather pay for Inernet access since I can't stand advertising, but if you live with some banners on your screen, it's a splendid deal.
The protocols which will help the second generation Internet thrive will be IP v6. Not only is it an open protocol available for all OSes, vendors and individuals to use, but it also comes with other features such as built in encryption which helps to keep what someone wants to be private, well, private.
One problem with my ideas is that history has shown that the majority of people don't keep up on proposed and new laws, nor do they research what they buy before it's too late. I quick and easy example of this would be the low voter turnout each year.
The other issue is that, as much as we hate to admit it, Linux has a ways to go for usability. I've seen the "My grandma can use Linux!" discussion many times before here on Slashdot, but I feel installation, configuration, GUIs and easy ways to update the OS (to add new features and patch bugs) need to be improved before Linux will be the OS of choice for first time PC users.
So, in summary, PCs, OSes and Internet access which are at low or no cost will help more people to get onto the Internet, see all of the wonders it has to offer, and hopefuly realize what we all have to lose in the future if we do not protect the freedoms we have now.
After reading this article (the first I have ever read about this law), I was at first shocked, but then realized this has good implications for the Open Source movement.
It not only will draw people to GPLed software, but software under the BSD License, Artisic License, LGPL and others as well. All of the licenses mentioned previously have no "We can take this software away from you if you do X" clause in them (to the best of my knowledge). I could care less what kind of restrictions Microsoft, Sun, HP and others could (or some might say "will") put on their operating systems and software. If individuals and companies want to purchase software with these horrid restrictions, let them. I ceritanly don't mind, it's their money being wasted, their risk of getting in trouble with the manufactuer (due to license violations) and their lawyers (or the individual) will have to work overtime to read through these licenses.
I'll choose the license and software that's better, and in the end that's what it's all about: choice.
For me, the choice is clear. Commercial software with a terrible and restrictive license or Open Source software with close to no restrictions? The conclusion isn't too hard to come to for me.
Re:Intrusion Detection - An Analysts' Approach
on
Intrusion Detection
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you would, please tell us which OS you're running and we'll see what we can dig up for you.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one that opposes total electronic distribution of art? I like holding my DVD's, CD's, and books.
Don't worry, you're not the only one.
I also like to read books (the good old fashioned paper kind), watch movies (on DVD or VHS) and listen to music (audio CDs). However, I also like the convience of having these same things available in electronic form. How often have you looked for hours for something in a book when having grep and and electronic form of the book would have take seconds? Or, when have you really wanted to hear a song and all of the places that sell CDs in town are closed? Or what if you want to take your CDs with you on vacation (laptop -vs- lugging 200 CDs)?
I don't feel anytime soon (read: next 200 years) that movies, books and audio will be available strictly in digital format. Why? Because there is a higher cost of entry as opposed to the "hard copy" forms. Want to watch a VHS tape? Buy a $50 VCR. Want to watch a movie in ASF or MPG? Buy a $1500 computer. There's even more of a case with books. It costs me only the cost of the book to purchase and read it, but if the book was only available in electronic form, I would also have to buy a $1,500 PC as well. Put simply, it isn't worth it to publishers; it makes the entry level higher for consumers.
Put simply, I like having both mediums available. I usually choose hard copy (books, CDs, DVDs, etc) over their digital counterparts, but having them in both forms allows more of an "on demand" type of viewing/listening/reading.
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is probably actualy nice to many of its employees.
Actually, it's more "contrary to the uninformed person's belief" rather than "contrary to popular belief". Anyone who's read a Bill Gates biography or a history of Microsoft that's more than 5 pages (ie: not some article on the web) would know that Microsoft has been good to their employees for years (heck, I guess I could almost even say "decades"). Free Coke (ahem, the liquid not the powder), all company retreats (I'm unsure if they still do this, but they used to) and how many millionaires has Microsoft made with it's stock?
It is under such scrutiny that is can't afford not to.
As you've seen from my above paragraph, this didn't start recently. I mean, come on! Do you really think Uncle Bill was a whip bearing slave driver until the DOJ came along? I think not, and as a matter of fact, I know not.
You have a good example (the Pioneer/Ford thing), but it's totally different that the current case that the DOJ is involved in with Microsoft.
In your example, you speak of a third party company wanting to make an addition to a product. That's great. That's the way things should (and sometimes do) work.
However, this is hardly the case in the Microsoft trial. This is a company putting their own browser in with their own OS! Not a third party vendor improving a product. If MS and Netscape got together and decided to bundle Netscape with Windows, then it would be like your example.
In this case (to create another example similar to yours) what if Ford made Ford Radios (TM) and put them into all Fords? The people who purchased Fords could put in another radio, but not remove the one that came with the vehicle.
So, in short 2 companies who wish to work with each other to build a better product is wonderful, but a single company using it's power to force more of it's own products onto the consumer is pretty darn crummy.
I've noticed as of late Intel's processors have had less L2 cache, but running at twice the speed.
Could anyone out there tell me why they just can't put more cache on and make it run at full clock speed? Is there a technical reason, or is Intel just being stingy?
Why not Pentium III's with 512k L2 cache running at full clock speed?
I agree with your statement, I just didn't make myself clear (something I realized after I posted the comment).
Many of the comments here are saying it's the in application scripting language which is the reason Windows viruses spread like mad. I'm saying that Linux has had a built in scripting language for years. True, it's not as automated as Windows (running a shell script as opposed to viewing a document in Word), however the threat of a scripted attack exists with or without scripting languages such as ActiveX or VB Script.
Actually, there was (and still is) something similar to what you're talking about, but not on a distribuited basis. It's called "core wars". People would write programs in assembler and try to have one program kill the other one. Even though I'm not a coder, it sounds like fun.
For a little more info, check out the entry for "core wars" in the Jargon File.
Actually, you're looking too far into it. There are tools available now, and have been for quite some time which allow what I shall call "macro-like" viruses under Linux or *NIX.
/bin/bash and /usr/bin/perl . Many of the Linux or *NIX viruses I have seen are not viruses at all, but scripts written in perl or shell which are targeted at clueless users running them as root. The only difference is that under Windows 95 or 98, you can target any clueless user since the OS doesn't have any concept of access control. Exactly like a Word or Excel macro virus, but with Linux you have the interperter right on the system by default.
What are these may ask?
Even though the UNIX security model is much more robust then Windows 95 or 98, they're both vulnerable to scripted attacks, but the difference is that under *NIX you need to have root for anything really nasty to happen unlike 95 or 95 where any scripted attack can do anything to the system regardless of which user you're logged in as.
Because perhaps it would make them a higher profile person, and they more than likely don't need or want that.
An example would be "enemy" agents would just need to watch for people with briefcases chained to their hands, and they would then know that person is in posession on sensitive information, or at least something quite valuable.
Something you might find interesting. At my place of employment, we do some government contracts, and do have what we deem "secure labs" where Classified and even at times Top Secret data is stored. They have procedures for all electronic equipment (such as physically crushing tapes and hard drives for disposal), however a co-worker of my noted "You know what, I bet they don't zero out the RAM when it goes out of the lab.". Ingenius observation!
As you can see here on sCary's Shuga Shack it may be delayed to 2001, but that's the 2001 fiscal year which begins April 1, 2000. Just a small correction.
Excellent insight, I should have used "I" instead of "you".
;)
You're correct, I don't look for warez on the web often, and when I do, I find crap. Oh yes, and the word "completely", I would watch out with that word. That's why I used the word "usually" which means "most of the time, but not all of the time" or "majority of the time". Thus, my statement is not "completely" false, it's actually completely true. I'm willing to bet the majority of warez one would find on the web would not work.
Just because you don't see any "easy" warez out on the web and other places doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I only mentioned the web and FTP (where I know warez are available). I never spoke of "other places". Please refrain from mis-quoting me.
As for IRC, I forgot about that as well.
Oh yes, and "own little world" is registered to you as a trademark? Wow, lucky guy. I'll send you $5 for repeating it.
Wrapster joins a growing list of programs allowing the quick, free and wide distribution of illegally copied files.
.zip files and doesn't work most of the time. FTP takes some brains to use. The "threat" is that programs such as this are so damn easy to use. In the past, it was only the geeks and tech-savvy folks pirating stuff. Now, almost every college student with a computer and high speed connection can do it without a drop of knowledge.
It seems as though you missed this section of the article. Also, here is the reason it's a "threat"
Napster's ease of use and the huge selection of music available through the system have made it a favorite among college students and other communities with high-speed Internet connections. Thousands of people can frequently be found on the network in the evenings, often sharing nearly a million songs with their peers.
You really don't see a lot of warez on the web, and if you do find some it's usually broken into 50
I don't agreed with what the corporations are saying, however I thought I would at least explain to you what they're trying to say since you seem to have some misinterpertations.
Oh, I'm going to put it on there for sure.
To be quite honest, I put a lot of time and effort into it (all self study, paid for myself). Even though I no longer enjoy Microsoft and their products as much as I once did, I am proud of the hard work it took me to earn my MCSE and some of the basic concepts it taught me. I learned a lot about TCP/IP from the books, and many of the ideas (such as UNIX UIDs and NT's SIDs) helped me learn UNIX much quicker since the same concepts applied to both OSes (unique user identification numbers for each user).
As for what the original poster meant by the statement, why don't we as him or her. Comments original poster? =)
Wow, you throw out MCSEs right away, huh? That's too bad. If you think about it for a moment, perhaps you would realize you're missing some people that have real skills. There is a word for what you do: stereotyping.
I do agree that many MCSEs out there don't know what they're doing, and it is true that a MCSE proves you can only pass tests, but you may or may not have madskilz.
I personally have my MCSE which I obtained in September 1998. After that time I grew bored with the "Microsoft solution" and started looking in to UNIX. The more I read and found out about, the more I enjoyed it, found it's beauty in simplicity, and was then introduced to Linux.
I had used Linux in the past (Slackware), but after I really got into it and installed Red Hat, I've never looked back. Now, rather than going to the NT Server team at my company, I choose to hold off, and I'm now a Sysadmin supporting HP-UX, Solaris, OSF1 and run Linux on 4 of my 5 machines at home. I'm never going back to NT.
Put simply, people can and do change. I don't dispise NT like some people here, but I still won't take a job supporting it. It's a much better idea to keep an open mind and not toss aside people just because they can "pass a few tests". You just might be missing an excellent potential employee.
What I find amusing about this article is Compaq announcing a supercomputer with 2,000 CPUs running at over 1 GHz each and gets very little press (Slashdot non-withstanding).
We have been seeing Intel and AMD press releases about once a week announcing another "breakthough" with a 850 MHz chip and the race to release a 1 GHz chip.
Everyone forgot Digital released a 1 GHz chip long before and x86 platform got anywhere near there. I wish I would have know about the goodness of the Alpha earlier.
I can, sort of.
I was telling my friend about The Onion (the online version) and he was like "Yeah, I read The Onion when they have a copy at Cup-O-Joe's".
I then asked if it was a hard copy type thing, and he said it was. So, I've never really seen one, but I agree with you, it does exist in hard copy.
I agree with Chang and Inoshiro; a non-encrypted datastream is a bad idea. As they stated, sensitive documents, su and gobs of other information can be found by sniffing the connection. If the actual data stream isn't encrypted, anyone with a sniffer can see anything you do.
The reason I like S/Key is because telnet clients are standard on almost any OS you can name. This makes accessing things such as personal (but not too personal!) e-mail easy from any machine on the Internet.
I personally use SSH the vast vast majority of the time, and only resort to S/Key if there isn't an SSH client available or I'm too lazy to download/install one. If I had to choose, it would be SSH hands down, but it's a pain not having the client on every machine (unlike telnet).
petej, the link to the advisory look interesting, however I'll have to check it out after I get home since the clueless IT Security folks here watch for hits on certain web sites (L0pht's being one of them). From my reading, I've seen the term "one time pad" and "one time password" used interchangably (sp?).
Even though I haven't used it often, telnet with S/Key login seems to be a great alternative to vanilla telnet.
From what I understand, it's only vulnerable to TCP hijacking (most things are) and dictionary attacks (which can be easily detected or accounts can be configured to be "locked out" after X bad login attempts).
The best one of these is OPIE which can provide a one time pad for telnet, FTP and even su.
Better yet, OpenBSD comes with this feature built into the OS.
Yes, very. ;)
Yeah, if NT crashes while doing nothing that's terrible. Hardware problem I would hope, but with NT, you never know.
Ah, this shows how little you know.
If I have 5 processes using 90% of the CPU, the remaining 10% of the unused CPU is being used by the "idle loop" as you call it (called the "System Ilde Process" under NT and I dunno what the Linux one is called).
So, as you see, unless 100% of the CPU is being used, the statement you made could be made anytime about any OS anytime it crashes.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.
I find it entertaining you have a "list" of rogue code for Windows and you can actually name only one program.
I find it even more amusing that you say "but it is a lot longer than the list for Linux and Sun". I find it hard to beleive if you add up all of the general non-OS specific bugs (BIND, Sendmail, ftpd, etc) and OS specific bugs (the Solaris snoop overflow, the Linux lpd bug, etc) the list is longer that the one for NT.
Keep in mind, UNIX in general has been around for a couple of decades, and NT has only been out, what, 8 years now (perhaps less, I don't know for sure)?
As much as people hate Microsoft, you must concede there have been more bugs for Linux and Solaris that NT simply because NT hasn't been out as long as Solaris and Linux and since Linux is OSS, bugs are found, reported and fixed much quicker that NT.
Let's face it, more bugs are found in OSS software due to access to the source code, but this also means they are corrected much more quickly than closed source software which, in the the end, is a good thing.
According to a story on Wired which can be found here, an engineer who's company also uses Global Center as their ISP stated it was due to a misconfiguration, not a DoS.
But, Wired then posted another story about it being a DoS attack.
I wonder which is true.
All I can say to the first paragrph is "bah". Anyone with xDSL or a Cable Modem has a "static" IP address. The DHCP client simply renews the IP it has checked out over and over (or a reservation is made on the server side). I also spoke with a co-worker who worked at an ISP, and when someone would dial in, the ability to log the username, login time, IP address given and phone number they called from (with caller ID) is available.
;)
As for the statement about "Some of the extra bits will identify you as a particular user", I assume you mean "Some of the extra bits will identify which machine you are coming from". If I recall correctly, the MAC address is part of the IPv6 address, but I don't see how each "user" on a machine could have their own IP.
You feel IPv6 is going to be "the end" of being anonymous? It's too late. Give me a server with any kind of half way decent logging turned on, and I'll find ya.
I do agree with you that being anonymous is very, very important as well. I certianly enjoy the right to have my opinion posted without fear of tracking me down or retribution. However, I don't feel most "normal" users or users who have yet to come online are concerned with this, but they should be.
Oh yes, and one last thing. Your comment is very well written and thought out. I especially like the sentence "No-one ever said freedom was free, or even cheap." Nicely done!
And second, what kind of architecture - software and hardware -can do for this Internet generation what the Net protocols did for the last one?
I beleive the hardware which will encourage freedom in the "second Internet generation" has to be by far free or very low cost PCs. At the present, there are many people with PCs and Internet access, but still the majority does not have a PC or Internet access (barring public terminals, libraries, etc). I beleive once more people start to get a PC and get onto the Internet, they will begin to realize what is out there for them (on the Internet) and how they will be able to find almost anything they could ever dream of. There are some folks (governments in particular) which wish to limit the free flow of ideas and information on the Internet, and the more people who get on the Internet and find out the limitless amount of ideas, information and content available to them, the more new Internet users (hopefuly) will pay attention to what they have to lose when laws and "innovations" (such as SDMI or UCITA) are introduced.
The software which will help ensure freedom in the "second Internet generation" would be, of course, OSS solutions. Along with my theme of low cost PCs, free, readily available and reliable operating systems (Linux, *BSD, etc) are available at the present. Combine Linux with a low cost PC and Internet access, and consumers could be on the Internet with a $300 PC and $10/month Internet access (or $400 for 3 years of Internet access and a PC from some offers I've seen). $400 is a price I realistically feel many consumers can afford, as opposed to 2 or 3 years ago when consumers would have to spend at least $1500 for a PC with a modem and $25/month for Internet access.
My second answer to the "software" question would be free Intenet access. At the present, most free acess providers are limited in the OSes they support (Windows NT or 9x). However, if free service providers supply Linux clients, not only do they increase their customer base, but help more people discover what this whole "Intenet" thing they've been missing is. If you have a Windows PC and and no Internet access (how are you reading this?!), there are plenty of free access providers available (a good list can be seen here on Yahoo!). Personally, I would rather pay for Inernet access since I can't stand advertising, but if you live with some banners on your screen, it's a splendid deal.
The protocols which will help the second generation Internet thrive will be IP v6. Not only is it an open protocol available for all OSes, vendors and individuals to use, but it also comes with other features such as built in encryption which helps to keep what someone wants to be private, well, private.
One problem with my ideas is that history has shown that the majority of people don't keep up on proposed and new laws, nor do they research what they buy before it's too late. I quick and easy example of this would be the low voter turnout each year.
The other issue is that, as much as we hate to admit it, Linux has a ways to go for usability. I've seen the "My grandma can use Linux!" discussion many times before here on Slashdot, but I feel installation, configuration, GUIs and easy ways to update the OS (to add new features and patch bugs) need to be improved before Linux will be the OS of choice for first time PC users.
So, in summary, PCs, OSes and Internet access which are at low or no cost will help more people to get onto the Internet, see all of the wonders it has to offer, and hopefuly realize what we all have to lose in the future if we do not protect the freedoms we have now.
After reading this article (the first I have ever read about this law), I was at first shocked, but then realized this has good implications for the Open Source movement.
It not only will draw people to GPLed software, but software under the BSD License, Artisic License, LGPL and others as well. All of the licenses mentioned previously have no "We can take this software away from you if you do X" clause in them (to the best of my knowledge). I could care less what kind of restrictions Microsoft, Sun, HP and others could (or some might say "will") put on their operating systems and software. If individuals and companies want to purchase software with these horrid restrictions, let them. I ceritanly don't mind, it's their money being wasted, their risk of getting in trouble with the manufactuer (due to license violations) and their lawyers (or the individual) will have to work overtime to read through these licenses.
I'll choose the license and software that's better, and in the end that's what it's all about: choice.
For me, the choice is clear. Commercial software with a terrible and restrictive license or Open Source software with close to no restrictions? The conclusion isn't too hard to come to for me.
Well, if you would, please tell us which OS you're running and we'll see what we can dig up for you. :)