The belief system is completely separate of Linux. Any logical person would use and make free programs because the best programmers program for fun. The entire belief system that surrounds the Linux is just a bunch of religious bigotry that hurts what Linux really is, a great piece of work created by the community to the betterment of everyone.
The general community around Linux does not reflect the core of what Linux is. Most interviews of core developers are level and logical, but you get the Linux zealots and any chance of a discussion it thrown out the window.
No one "needs" a distribution platform, it just makes it nicer to manage games. Not to mention coordinating with your friends, seeing what they're doing, etc.
If you're the kind of person who likes to play solo games and doesn't have the internet/friends, then yes, Steam is a waste.
A car without a road is useless. Until someone points the time into having some standard base libraries, you can't do much. Plus, with everyone re-inventing the wheel, there's bound to be a lot of bugs.
They're too busy trying to figure out how to spend that on hookers and blow. The first step is to find a store that will break a $1tril coin. Legal tenner, take it!
Sounds like a bad college. When I went to college, I went from dreading school to loving it. I felt like I was learning and understood how to apply what I learned in nearly every course, even history.
I was going to say. My $30 network printer and Linux firewall can resolve local devices based on some standard broadcast name resolution. My firewall lists by device name+IP+MAC. If the local broadcast domain is working, name resolution should be working.
He wasn't lazy, just bored. Most smart people that I know do horrible in school. My brother was failing 9th grade math, so my mom went and complained and got him put into 12th grade AP math and he got As.. Go figure.
I am very similar. I can't keep concentration on boring stuff unless I drug myself up with ADD meds, but then I lose my creative ability to problem solve, which seems to stem from my ADD.
I've had some fun talks with the Dr who gave me my ADD meds in college. He had a PHD in that kind of stuff and he told me it is very common for people with ADD to do poorly in boring stuff, but do extremely well in that which interests them.
Different people have different abilities and boys tend to vary a lot more than girls. Teaching processes that are good for girls tend to be bad for boys. Boys need more interaction.
Next thing you know is they'll start giving boys estrogen birth control and wonder why it doesn't do the same thing as it does in girls. One size doesn't fit all.
You mean how Google is required by law to comply when ordered by a judge or that Google is one of the few corps that actively try to not only notify the end user that the government is requesting data on them, but Google has actually used its own time and money to fight judges who attempted to seal requests, keeping Google from notifying the end user of such requests.
Yeah, bad bad Google. Not to say they're flawless, but they're not conspiring.
My Grammar teacher would have killed me for that run-on.
Sharing a resource, not matter how you spin it, will cause contention. The only way to scale a resource that is both read and write heavy is to scale horizontally. This is where NOSQL takes the crown. This is just a prime example, but not the only.
From a species perspective, we need some people to head out at some point. We can't always just live on Earth. I'm sure there are some people out there who are willing. As much as they're going to possibly Darwin themselves, we need to support them the best we can.
I've seen some good review on Vipre anti-virus on how it loads applications into an extremely lightweight vm that monitors calls to certain system-modifying APIs and uses heuristics to detect "unknown" malware based on malicious patterns, which it then quickly cuts off access of the VM and the malware is rendered useless.
Of the few reviews I read many years back, Vipre had in the upper 80% detection rates for unknown malware while all of the others were more in the 20%-30% ranges, and Vipre had the least resource sapping performance.
I've been starting to notice that outside of the Linux kernel(Linus is quite strict at keeping things decent), most distros and userland tends to be semi-chaotically designed and slapped together. BSDs tend to be more designed by engineers and Linux distros tend to be more like some hobby project. Not to say Linux is bad, but it's not "Great" because of its disorganization and lack of standards.
Another way I look at it is the Linux community has this like of "evolutionary" feel to it instead of "engineered" feel. My guess is BSD's tend to be strict on creating new features or making changes to existing ones unless it is a requirement, then they make sure it's "done right" the first time.
UEFI has been called UEFI since Intel created it while trying to solve in inadequacies of BIOS's ability to handle newer hardware. And Intel, Dell, and IBM created SecureBoot. Blame them, MS is just making use of a standard.
Thought I may point out that your link shows how Win8's security can be by-passed by disabling SecureBoot prior to loading a bootkit. Every OS ever and ever will be, can be defeated this way.
More like any time some troll comes in to the FreeBSD forums and smack talks about how great Linux is and how bad BSD is, it turns into a "Linux is teh awesomeest!!!!!1!" and "FreeBSD works well for us"
Secure Boot has a definite bias towards Windows, Microsoft implemented the whole thing.
From what I've read in the past Intel, IBM, and Dell designed SecureBoot and MS only jumped on the wagon when they decided it looked interesting enough to use.
Intel created UEFI on their own and made it a collaborative effort once they decided UEFI was mature enough to open up to the industry. You make it sound like MS is the sole pusher and has been doing so from the very beginning to force SecureBoot on everyone, when actually MS has been more of an end user of SecureBoot and has been giving feedback to the real designers. Maybe OpenSource needs better social connections so they can give feedback during design processes instead of reacting after 5+ years of work had been put into an industry standard.
I understand that it could also be that the industry isn't playing well with OpenSource, but I just don't see Intel and IBM leaving Linux out of the picture since they have so much vested money.
If the industry is being mean to OpenSource, then maybe we need an official group to represent OpenSource as a whole and some sort of political push to make sure this group is included on industry decisions. I am all for this, but some times I feel that OpenSource as a whole doesn't try, then cries after standards are created.
I am just giving my opinion of what I've seen over the years. I personally love the whole OpenSource "movement" and hope to make Linux and *BSD part of my life.
SecureBoot is a standard that allows the end user to limit their system to only booting signed code. Next thing you'll be complaining about SSL and how it can also limit the end user from working with untrusted sources.
If you don't like it, disable it. You can also add your own certs. This applies to most motherboards and I can almost guarantee, all servers. Ever work in the real world? IT has A TON of custom boot code that won't work with default SecureBoot. Any hardware manufacturer that targets Servers/Enterprise/Enthusiast, WILL have at least a way to disable SecureBoot and at best a way to manage certs.
Commonly used tools in IT that WILL break based on your flawed understanding:
PXE Boot
Memtest
NSA Secure Erase Linux Distro
Bart PE
Norton Ghost
Firmware Updates
Win7
WinXP
Any hardware manufacturer that ruined the above would be committing business suicide.
If IT needs to manage, test, or fix it, SecureBoot will have to be configurable.
MS has pulled some pretty underhanded things, so I don't fully trust them, but this is what I'm seeing.
1) SecureBoot has no bias towards Windows or OpenSource. The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.
2) SecureBoot was ratified over 4 years ago. Why did they take so long to complain?
3) SecureBoot is just a dumb system that makes sure the executing boot code has a trusted signature.
4) Linux seems to have bad relations with BIOS makers. Linux was having ACPI issues and eventually MS has to step in and help them by showing the work-aroundw that MS figured out because hardware manufactures not following the specs. MS learned that companies don't always follow specs.
I keep hearing extreme opinions from the OpenSource group. Am I missing something, because I just don't see it.
CoreBoot may be better and I don't mind that, but I want to hear a real argument against SecureBoot other than "omg, SecureBoot!"
So if the Application or OS code isn't secure (which it won't be) then SecureBoot is pointless.
SecureBoot is about booting securely, anything after the boot is up to the OS to handle.
I hear the OS/Apps can be by exploited, so no point in using a firewall.
SecureBoot can protect you against against physical access.
I am not saying SecureBoot is the best implementation, but the basic idea of it is good. We need some form of DRM system that the user can manage to protect their system from physical access or general boot exploits.
Slashdot Mirror
The belief system is completely separate of Linux. Any logical person would use and make free programs because the best programmers program for fun. The entire belief system that surrounds the Linux is just a bunch of religious bigotry that hurts what Linux really is, a great piece of work created by the community to the betterment of everyone.
The general community around Linux does not reflect the core of what Linux is. Most interviews of core developers are level and logical, but you get the Linux zealots and any chance of a discussion it thrown out the window.
No one "needs" a distribution platform, it just makes it nicer to manage games. Not to mention coordinating with your friends, seeing what they're doing, etc.
If you're the kind of person who likes to play solo games and doesn't have the internet/friends, then yes, Steam is a waste.
A car without a road is useless. Until someone points the time into having some standard base libraries, you can't do much. Plus, with everyone re-inventing the wheel, there's bound to be a lot of bugs.
Which platform is that? C# is supported on 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, and RT.
They're too busy trying to figure out how to spend that on hookers and blow. The first step is to find a store that will break a $1tril coin. Legal tenner, take it!
Sounds like a bad college. When I went to college, I went from dreading school to loving it. I felt like I was learning and understood how to apply what I learned in nearly every course, even history.
I was going to say. My $30 network printer and Linux firewall can resolve local devices based on some standard broadcast name resolution. My firewall lists by device name+IP+MAC. If the local broadcast domain is working, name resolution should be working.
He wasn't lazy, just bored. Most smart people that I know do horrible in school. My brother was failing 9th grade math, so my mom went and complained and got him put into 12th grade AP math and he got As.. Go figure.
I am very similar. I can't keep concentration on boring stuff unless I drug myself up with ADD meds, but then I lose my creative ability to problem solve, which seems to stem from my ADD.
I've had some fun talks with the Dr who gave me my ADD meds in college. He had a PHD in that kind of stuff and he told me it is very common for people with ADD to do poorly in boring stuff, but do extremely well in that which interests them.
Different people have different abilities and boys tend to vary a lot more than girls. Teaching processes that are good for girls tend to be bad for boys. Boys need more interaction.
Next thing you know is they'll start giving boys estrogen birth control and wonder why it doesn't do the same thing as it does in girls. One size doesn't fit all.
Require proper Unit Tests. That will force someone to reduce the amount of code-paths in a method.
You mean how Google is required by law to comply when ordered by a judge or that Google is one of the few corps that actively try to not only notify the end user that the government is requesting data on them, but Google has actually used its own time and money to fight judges who attempted to seal requests, keeping Google from notifying the end user of such requests.
Yeah, bad bad Google. Not to say they're flawless, but they're not conspiring.
My Grammar teacher would have killed me for that run-on.
Sharing a resource, not matter how you spin it, will cause contention. The only way to scale a resource that is both read and write heavy is to scale horizontally. This is where NOSQL takes the crown. This is just a prime example, but not the only.
There is evidence that violent video games make violent people more violent, but on average, makes people less violent.
Who cares about the average, when a corner case proves out point!
From a species perspective, we need some people to head out at some point. We can't always just live on Earth. I'm sure there are some people out there who are willing. As much as they're going to possibly Darwin themselves, we need to support them the best we can.
G+ lets me choose who gets to see what. Kind of nice. I can even preview as if I am another person to see what all they get to see.
I've seen some good review on Vipre anti-virus on how it loads applications into an extremely lightweight vm that monitors calls to certain system-modifying APIs and uses heuristics to detect "unknown" malware based on malicious patterns, which it then quickly cuts off access of the VM and the malware is rendered useless.
Of the few reviews I read many years back, Vipre had in the upper 80% detection rates for unknown malware while all of the others were more in the 20%-30% ranges, and Vipre had the least resource sapping performance.
Again, not first-hand, but based on reviews.
Too drunk to remember
EFNet is where I used to get my warez and anime... that took forever on a 14.4k modem.
I've been starting to notice that outside of the Linux kernel(Linus is quite strict at keeping things decent), most distros and userland tends to be semi-chaotically designed and slapped together. BSDs tend to be more designed by engineers and Linux distros tend to be more like some hobby project. Not to say Linux is bad, but it's not "Great" because of its disorganization and lack of standards.
Another way I look at it is the Linux community has this like of "evolutionary" feel to it instead of "engineered" feel. My guess is BSD's tend to be strict on creating new features or making changes to existing ones unless it is a requirement, then they make sure it's "done right" the first time.
UEFI has been called UEFI since Intel created it while trying to solve in inadequacies of BIOS's ability to handle newer hardware. And Intel, Dell, and IBM created SecureBoot. Blame them, MS is just making use of a standard.
Thought I may point out that your link shows how Win8's security can be by-passed by disabling SecureBoot prior to loading a bootkit. Every OS ever and ever will be, can be defeated this way.
More like any time some troll comes in to the FreeBSD forums and smack talks about how great Linux is and how bad BSD is, it turns into a "Linux is teh awesomeest!!!!!1!" and "FreeBSD works well for us"
I can access Youtube, Facebook, ./, etc from work, but only 1,000 employees.
Secure Boot has a definite bias towards Windows, Microsoft implemented the whole thing.
From what I've read in the past Intel, IBM, and Dell designed SecureBoot and MS only jumped on the wagon when they decided it looked interesting enough to use.
Intel created UEFI on their own and made it a collaborative effort once they decided UEFI was mature enough to open up to the industry. You make it sound like MS is the sole pusher and has been doing so from the very beginning to force SecureBoot on everyone, when actually MS has been more of an end user of SecureBoot and has been giving feedback to the real designers. Maybe OpenSource needs better social connections so they can give feedback during design processes instead of reacting after 5+ years of work had been put into an industry standard.
I understand that it could also be that the industry isn't playing well with OpenSource, but I just don't see Intel and IBM leaving Linux out of the picture since they have so much vested money.
If the industry is being mean to OpenSource, then maybe we need an official group to represent OpenSource as a whole and some sort of political push to make sure this group is included on industry decisions. I am all for this, but some times I feel that OpenSource as a whole doesn't try, then cries after standards are created.
I am just giving my opinion of what I've seen over the years. I personally love the whole OpenSource "movement" and hope to make Linux and *BSD part of my life.
SecureBoot is a standard that allows the end user to limit their system to only booting signed code. Next thing you'll be complaining about SSL and how it can also limit the end user from working with untrusted sources.
If you don't like it, disable it. You can also add your own certs. This applies to most motherboards and I can almost guarantee, all servers. Ever work in the real world? IT has A TON of custom boot code that won't work with default SecureBoot. Any hardware manufacturer that targets Servers/Enterprise/Enthusiast, WILL have at least a way to disable SecureBoot and at best a way to manage certs.
Commonly used tools in IT that WILL break based on your flawed understanding:
PXE Boot
Memtest
NSA Secure Erase Linux Distro
Bart PE
Norton Ghost
Firmware Updates
Win7
WinXP
Any hardware manufacturer that ruined the above would be committing business suicide.
If IT needs to manage, test, or fix it, SecureBoot will have to be configurable.
MS has pulled some pretty underhanded things, so I don't fully trust them, but this is what I'm seeing.
1) SecureBoot has no bias towards Windows or OpenSource. The only "issue" is how to manage the certs.
2) SecureBoot was ratified over 4 years ago. Why did they take so long to complain?
3) SecureBoot is just a dumb system that makes sure the executing boot code has a trusted signature.
4) Linux seems to have bad relations with BIOS makers. Linux was having ACPI issues and eventually MS has to step in and help them by showing the work-aroundw that MS figured out because hardware manufactures not following the specs. MS learned that companies don't always follow specs.
I keep hearing extreme opinions from the OpenSource group. Am I missing something, because I just don't see it.
CoreBoot may be better and I don't mind that, but I want to hear a real argument against SecureBoot other than "omg, SecureBoot!"
So if the Application or OS code isn't secure (which it won't be) then SecureBoot is pointless.
SecureBoot is about booting securely, anything after the boot is up to the OS to handle.
I hear the OS/Apps can be by exploited, so no point in using a firewall.
SecureBoot can protect you against against physical access.
I am not saying SecureBoot is the best implementation, but the basic idea of it is good. We need some form of DRM system that the user can manage to protect their system from physical access or general boot exploits.