>Actually, it's not the whole system that has to be inviolate, just the kernel. There are projects to produce a provable L4 microkernel, for example.
*Ahem* The kernel, the compiler and the CPU!
>Capability based systems are a default deny environment, but you are free to give away as much as you want to a program of your choice.
And if the system nag too much the user about 'not enough right to execute' his shiny new toy, users will get used to assign all the rights to everything they install, reducing the security to nothing (as what is currently happening on the web with certificates).
False, it just means that Linux/Unix security isn't good enough: a screensaver should only be able to do very limited things: -display images -bring up a login prompt (but not access it) -access only some specific directories
If the OS allow a screensaver to do anything else, then the OS security isn't good enough..
Smart design? I've heard that everything is in the same process so if one widget fail it can crash the desktop, I don't think that's an improvement over the previous sturdy design 'one process per tool'.
He is talking about the need to version protocols to simplify future change, you're talking about code refactoring which usually don't change the interface..
I've needed worked on a project where we used 'versionned protocols' though:-(
IMHO the engage/disengage part is the tricky part! They probably have solved the 'train lane' part (easy) but I wonder how you can engage/desengage safely in this kind of the 'train', especially as the lane next to the 'train lane' is used by manually driven cars..
>what If I say something sensitive, and some guy invited the wrong person?
Even if you had control on Wave itself, what could prevent the same guy taking screenshots and putting them on the web? That said having control on the one who can reply to a wave is a good idea, to prevent trolls.
>Bots sould have a special way to be identified from humans,
It's probably a good default but those who want 'anonymous bots' will find a way to make them (not too hard: script the client) so I don't think it's a big issue.
A kill switch needs external communication to be activated which can be quite impossible to implement in many case but radars are basically radio receivers so a specific sequence of radio impulsion at a given frequency could activate the kill switch.. Interesting.
I'm French and IMHO the major point isn't so much that there is either a COS guy or a corrupted guy in the administration or even that the COS was able to get off lightly, the major point is: why do the politics talk about a copy/paste error instead of 1) making a serious inquiry to find the guy and send him to jail (he and his briber of course) and 2) do the appropriate change in the law-making process so that there's much less risk than this happen again?
Making a mistake isn't a big issue, but refusing to admit that there was a mistake and trying to ensure that this won't happen again is a big issue..
The paper was a bit over my head, I find the subject very interesting.. I was thinking that it would perhaps be possible to use a MMO game as a way to hide communications, using the MMO's servers to bypass the filter. The company hosting the MMO game wouldn't even necessarily be upset by this if the CPU&bandwith used are payed by the monthly subscription fee.. except of course in the case where the country choose to filter access to the MMO game when it becomes known that you can use the MMO like this.
>>Secure, anonymous access to the web via Tor on Android is now a reality > >People should really stop using the word secure with Tor. Anonymous, sure
Not even anonymous in some situations! Let's think about China: they control the network so they can easily know *who* is using Tor (by monitor Tor's access gateways) and even though they don't know what you're doing with Tor, they know that you're trying to bypass the filtering.. Now it depends on the number of Tor users, if they are numerous, you're safe, otherwise using Tor, you risk to draw government's attention to you: it's not a very good kind of anonymity..
Your point doesn't make sense: >>Sun wanted Apple to share development and maintenance costs. Apple wanted some long-term guarantees that Sun wouldn't stop development and would also help Apple to solve problems of ZFS under Mac OS X.
So instead of paying for a share of the development&maintenance of ZFS, now Apple has to spend the whole development and maintenance cost of their own solution..
I smell more an ego clash or something, because from a money POV it can only be more expensive..
What is weird is that Fedora and Ubuntu have two totally different goals: Fedora is the testbed for RHEL so it's expected to run on the bleeding edge and having issue whereas Ubuntu is supposed to be the Linux's desktop for every users, but given all the issue I hear about Ubuntu and PulseAudio and other, they're not very good at providing a stable desktop.. Sad..
I'm not surprised, that they are capable of doing this: what I'm surprised is that they are doing it instead of passively monitoring who is sending packets to the Tor access gateways and then identifying those who are trying to subvert the firewall (easy, they have access to ISP logs and even mandate those who use internet cafe to show their ID).
The biggest problem of those who wants to bypass a filter is not the bypass itself but bypassing while staying anonymous even when the governement controls the network, Tor doesn't solve this..
As far as I understand, given that there's no invisibility cloaks working for those frequency and that this is a variation on these device, I doubt the experimenter's claim that they'll be able to build an optical black hole soon..
Sure both failed but the author I was responding to claimed that they failed "because Microsoft was able to position it to the point where it didn't have to sell it", that's the point I was answering to for BeOS.
>OS/2 and BeOS were complete failures... they had their chance and got beaten down. And its not because they were inferior products, its because they just couldn't sell themselves. Windows succeeded not because it was better, but because Microsoft was able to position it to the point where it didn't have to sell it.
Agreed for OS/2, disagreed for BeOS: at least one PC manufacter (Hitachi) wanted to install it (in dual-boot configuration) but Microsoft prevented them to do it, using its monopoly as a leverage..
AFAIK (never used it) the only thing that OS/2 had that the Windows didn't have was its robustness, now Windows XP or Linux are quite robust, so yes OS/2 isn't interesting anymore..
The main reason why I and other regrets BeOS is because it was really responsive; Linux and Windows are still not responsive enough..
My GF laptop with Vista is slow as a dog, I wonder if this is caused by the laptop having a slow HDD or is-it caused by Vista itself? Is Vista slow on a Core 2 Duo on a desktop?
I do perceive the Linux 'desktop variety OSs' to be bloated [inefficient] when I compare them to what BeOS did: - BeOS applications felt very reactive, Linux applications don't. - BeOS booted very fast, only now there's some effort in Linux to do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
>Actually, it's not the whole system that has to be inviolate, just the kernel. There are projects to produce a provable L4 microkernel, for example.
*Ahem* The kernel, the compiler and the CPU!
>Capability based systems are a default deny environment, but you are free to give away as much as you want to a program of your choice.
And if the system nag too much the user about 'not enough right to execute' his shiny new toy, users will get used to assign all the rights to everything they install, reducing the security to nothing (as what is currently happening on the web with certificates).
Uh? A man wrote a book while being in the same state.
Slow vertical movement of the eyes are enough for Yes / No answers..
False, it just means that Linux/Unix security isn't good enough: a screensaver should only be able to do very limited things:
-display images
-bring up a login prompt (but not access it)
-access only some specific directories
If the OS allow a screensaver to do anything else, then the OS security isn't good enough..
Smart design?
I've heard that everything is in the same process so if one widget fail it can crash the desktop, I don't think that's an improvement over the previous sturdy design 'one process per tool'.
>It's a lose on performance. It's a lose on code density.
More importantly it's a loss of ISA compatibility, as x86 has shown what backward compatibility is important..
He is talking about the need to version protocols to simplify future change, you're talking about code refactoring which usually don't change the interface..
I've needed worked on a project where we used 'versionned protocols' though :-(
IMHO the engage/disengage part is the tricky part!
They probably have solved the 'train lane' part (easy) but I wonder how you can engage/desengage safely in this kind of the 'train', especially as the lane next to the 'train lane' is used by manually driven cars..
>So why are they working on building these devices when if all they want is a cheap Panasonic Toughbook?
Probably because being rugged isn't good enough for their need and they also want to have laptops which are: low power and readable outdoor..
>what If I say something sensitive, and some guy invited the wrong person?
Even if you had control on Wave itself, what could prevent the same guy taking screenshots and putting them on the web?
That said having control on the one who can reply to a wave is a good idea, to prevent trolls.
>Bots sould have a special way to be identified from humans,
It's probably a good default but those who want 'anonymous bots' will find a way to make them (not too hard: script the client) so I don't think it's a big issue.
Funny but I like a lot* Google Chrome and you classify it as 'crapware'..
*: I would use it if only it had a working flash blocker.
Yeah, because discussions with 'normal' religious people are sooo productive!
Are you a masochist?
A kill switch needs external communication to be activated which can be quite impossible to implement in many case but radars are basically radio receivers so a specific sequence of radio impulsion at a given frequency could activate the kill switch..
Interesting.
I'm French and IMHO the major point isn't so much that there is either a COS guy or a corrupted guy in the administration or even that the COS was able to get off lightly, the major point is: why do the politics talk about a copy/paste error instead of
1) making a serious inquiry to find the guy and send him to jail (he and his briber of course) and
2) do the appropriate change in the law-making process so that there's much less risk than this happen again?
Making a mistake isn't a big issue, but refusing to admit that there was a mistake and trying to ensure that this won't happen again is a big issue..
The paper was a bit over my head, I find the subject very interesting.. .. except of course in the case where the country choose to filter access to the MMO game when it becomes known that you can use the MMO like this.
I was thinking that it would perhaps be possible to use a MMO game as a way to hide communications, using the MMO's servers to bypass the filter.
The company hosting the MMO game wouldn't even necessarily be upset by this if the CPU&bandwith used are payed by the monthly subscription fee
>>Secure, anonymous access to the web via Tor on Android is now a reality
>
>People should really stop using the word secure with Tor. Anonymous, sure
Not even anonymous in some situations!
Let's think about China: they control the network so they can easily know *who* is using Tor (by monitor Tor's access gateways) and even though they don't know what you're doing with Tor, they know that you're trying to bypass the filtering..
Now it depends on the number of Tor users, if they are numerous, you're safe, otherwise using Tor, you risk to draw government's attention to you: it's not a very good kind of anonymity..
Your point doesn't make sense:
>>Sun wanted Apple to share development and maintenance costs. Apple wanted some long-term guarantees that Sun wouldn't stop development and would also help Apple to solve problems of ZFS under Mac OS X.
So instead of paying for a share of the development&maintenance of ZFS, now Apple has to spend the whole development and maintenance cost of their own solution..
I smell more an ego clash or something, because from a money POV it can only be more expensive..
What is weird is that Fedora and Ubuntu have two totally different goals: Fedora is the testbed for RHEL so it's expected to run on the bleeding edge and having issue whereas Ubuntu is supposed to be the Linux's desktop for every users, but given all the issue I hear about Ubuntu and PulseAudio and other, they're not very good at providing a stable desktop.. Sad..
I'm not surprised, that they are capable of doing this: what I'm surprised is that they are doing it instead of passively monitoring who is sending packets to the Tor access gateways and then identifying those who are trying to subvert the firewall (easy, they have access to ISP logs and even mandate those who use internet cafe to show their ID).
The biggest problem of those who wants to bypass a filter is not the bypass itself but bypassing while staying anonymous even when the governement controls the network, Tor doesn't solve this..
As far as I understand, given that there's no invisibility cloaks working for those frequency and that this is a variation on these device, I doubt the experimenter's claim that they'll be able to build an optical black hole soon..
I'm not sure whats your point.
Sure both failed but the author I was responding to claimed that they failed "because Microsoft was able to position it to the point where it didn't have to sell it", that's the point I was answering to for BeOS.
>OS/2 and BeOS were complete failures... they had their chance and got beaten down. And its not because they were inferior products, its because they just couldn't sell themselves. Windows succeeded not because it was better, but because Microsoft was able to position it to the point where it didn't have to sell it.
Agreed for OS/2, disagreed for BeOS: at least one PC manufacter (Hitachi) wanted to install it (in dual-boot configuration) but Microsoft prevented them to do it, using its monopoly as a leverage..
AFAIK (never used it) the only thing that OS/2 had that the Windows didn't have was its robustness, now Windows XP or Linux are quite robust, so yes OS/2 isn't interesting anymore..
The main reason why I and other regrets BeOS is because it was really responsive; Linux and Windows are still not responsive enough..
>security increases and bloat is kept out.
Functionnality vs bloat: choose, does QNX supports virtualisation? Accelerated 3D rendering?
>> Nothing is slow on a Core 2 Duo.
> Vista is.
My GF laptop with Vista is slow as a dog, I wonder if this is caused by the laptop having a slow HDD or is-it caused by Vista itself?
Is Vista slow on a Core 2 Duo on a desktop?
>I don't perceive Linux to be bloated.
I do perceive the Linux 'desktop variety OSs' to be bloated [inefficient] when I compare them to what BeOS did:
- BeOS applications felt very reactive, Linux applications don't.
- BeOS booted very fast, only now there's some effort in Linux to do the same thing.