The problem is that almost no one actually needs to run a public resolver.
Your ISP provides a DNS server to you that is recursive (usually), so they can use ACLs to make sure only their clients are using them.
Domain owners provide DNS servers that are authoritative, but only for their own domain, so it limits the scope of the problem as well.
The problem is when domain owners provide DNS servers authoritative for their domain, but -also- allowing other people to use them as public recursive servers. There's usually no reason for this other than the server administrator's competence.
There are legit uses for open recursors, you mention Google DNS and OpenDNS as an example. These guys have to use rate limiting and defeat the attacks themselves, there's no easy solution.
I see why you're confused. You took my post out of context at the very beginning. My first reply wasn't to you, it was to the AC seemed to be bitching about version numbers. If I had wanted to talk about Firefox bugs, I would've quoted you.
Obviously the bug reports in Bugzilla are real, nobody tried saying otherwise. You're making up points that I never even brought up so you can agree with yourself about them.
It cannot possibly be "obvious" that I'm white knighting Firefox because I'm not.
Do you suffer from severe memory loss? I mentioned it because you were talking about stability issues. I shared my experience because it was in stark contrast with yours, basing on the beta tester statement.
Firefox has had bugs worth mentioning since the beginning, and remote exploits are fairly common. Some bugs are more than 5 years old - critical bugs even! Take a look at their cutesy Bugzilla bug tracker if you don't believe me.
No need to act like a complete idiot.
What I mean is that I haven't had Firefox crashes, profile corruption, bookmarks being lost, badly rendered pages, etc. You know, bugs. I had problems occasionally before, I haven't had them since FF4. When I get a bug, I file a bug report. It's not hard. I haven't had to do it for the past 14 versions, so that makes it hard to agree with someone who thinks the product is unusable and bug filled.
I'm not saying there are no bugs in Firefox because that's nonsense. I'm surprised even someone like you could think that.
so go down for a nap, have a puddin pop, and get happy!
Why not do that yourself, you're getting riled up for no reason. Go fat yourself up and sleep over it.
You're really taking this way too seriously if you think anyone is white knighting here.
It's not so much as a "release cycle" as it is a "oh we got a compile that is somewhat stable, here you go you ignorant hapless uninformed beta testers."
I've quite honestly have had no bugs worth mentioning since about FF4, so I'm sorry I can't change your sentiment on that. I hope you file bug reports though, however long it takes for them to be fixed.
Plus there's no reason for you to be such a cock-sucker. Did somebody take a shit in your corn flakes this morning? Mommy didn't let you have one more puddin pop?
It gets tiring, obviously I don't get literally angry at this. I'm sorry if mommy still feeds you but that's not my case.
Which is better than the multiple security vulnerabilities that have yet to be encountered in the no name, piece of shit PDF viewers that no one wants to use.
How many of you stupid fucks still do not realize that Firefox's release cycle is the same as Chrome's? And that they have an enterprise version with slightly longer time between updates so that if you don't want the new features, you can have the security fixes?
'When we were planning this degree, our advisers from the commercial space industry said they couldn't wait to hire our graduates.'"
So the course wasn't even fully designed yet, not a single fucking graduate has yet to come out of that university, and they ALREADY want them working on projects headed to one of the most hostile environment we're aware of?
Whatever. I'm not here to argue which standard is stupid and which one isn't, just the fact that in C99 and above it works that way. Either way it's ridiculous trivia because most applications will have a return statement regardless of what standard you use.
It's also defined as the only function that if you reach the end without a return statement, it is implicitly "return 0;"
Did they carry that over to C as well? In C89, it definitely wasn't the case. But then, it wouldn't be the only thing from C++ which made its way into C.
Do any other C functions have a reserved return type? No? Then it's not exactly an intuitive conclusion to jump to if one has never programmed in C, is it?
I don't understand what you're getting at. I read dimeglio's post as a condescending one towards HeckRuler as if putting "int" was the wrong thing to do (thus making him a "brogrammer" who doesn't know what he's doing)
I'm not saying it's intuitive (AC is being harsh here), but if he's going to diss someone for it, he should know what the heck he's talking about.
As for the whole convention thing, that was a reply to you personally. I was being a bit pedant, pointing out that it's not a "convention" but rather the only proper return type for main.
I don't know if you got confused by the people here who are completely ignorant of that part of the C standard, but there's no "convention" here.
main is defined to have a return type of int. It's also defined as the only function that if you reach the end without a return statement, it is implicitly "return 0;"
dimeglio is just a victim of cargo cult programming.
So you rely primarily on security thru obscurity and hope that genuine bad guys would never scan you? That's pretty scary.
No actually you made up that part entirely. Here's what he actually said:
Seriously, don't run Acunetix or Retina scans or whatever on other people's systems. It looks like you are probing for vulnerabilities because, well, that's exactly what it's doing.
And if I'm a sys-admin, I'm going to see that and think you're an attacker. From my point of view, you've just cased the joint. That's what I'm going to report up, and from there everything gets ugly.
Most people reach CEGEP at 18, sometimes very rarely at 17. Not that it matters, because if you had bothered to read the fucking article you'd notice that the first sentence of the second paragraph states he is 20.
Not that I agree with that ledow idiot, but this isn't the US where you're allowed to kill people in other countries three years before you can buy a six pack. He's legal to buy alcohol in Quebec.
Slashdot Mirror
So you mean the kernel that every single Debian Wheezy box happens to run by default doesn't exist? okay.
The problem is that almost no one actually needs to run a public resolver.
Your ISP provides a DNS server to you that is recursive (usually), so they can use ACLs to make sure only their clients are using them.
Domain owners provide DNS servers that are authoritative, but only for their own domain, so it limits the scope of the problem as well.
The problem is when domain owners provide DNS servers authoritative for their domain, but -also- allowing other people to use them as public recursive servers. There's usually no reason for this other than the server administrator's competence.
There are legit uses for open recursors, you mention Google DNS and OpenDNS as an example. These guys have to use rate limiting and defeat the attacks themselves, there's no easy solution.
I see why you're confused. You took my post out of context at the very beginning. My first reply wasn't to you, it was to the AC seemed to be bitching about version numbers. If I had wanted to talk about Firefox bugs, I would've quoted you.
Obviously the bug reports in Bugzilla are real, nobody tried saying otherwise. You're making up points that I never even brought up so you can agree with yourself about them.
It cannot possibly be "obvious" that I'm white knighting Firefox because I'm not.
Do you suffer from severe memory loss? I mentioned it because you were talking about stability issues. I shared my experience because it was in stark contrast with yours, basing on the beta tester statement.
That's been at the same place since Firefox 4, right-click one of your active tabs.
Firefox has had bugs worth mentioning since the beginning, and remote exploits are fairly common. Some bugs are more than 5 years old - critical bugs even! Take a look at their cutesy Bugzilla bug tracker if you don't believe me.
No need to act like a complete idiot.
What I mean is that I haven't had Firefox crashes, profile corruption, bookmarks being lost, badly rendered pages, etc. You know, bugs. I had problems occasionally before, I haven't had them since FF4. When I get a bug, I file a bug report. It's not hard. I haven't had to do it for the past 14 versions, so that makes it hard to agree with someone who thinks the product is unusable and bug filled.
I'm not saying there are no bugs in Firefox because that's nonsense. I'm surprised even someone like you could think that.
so go down for a nap, have a puddin pop, and get happy!
Why not do that yourself, you're getting riled up for no reason. Go fat yourself up and sleep over it.
You're really taking this way too seriously if you think anyone is white knighting here.
It's not so much as a "release cycle" as it is a "oh we got a compile that is somewhat stable, here you go you ignorant hapless uninformed beta testers."
I've quite honestly have had no bugs worth mentioning since about FF4, so I'm sorry I can't change your sentiment on that. I hope you file bug reports though, however long it takes for them to be fixed.
Plus there's no reason for you to be such a cock-sucker. Did somebody take a shit in your corn flakes this morning? Mommy didn't let you have one more puddin pop?
It gets tiring, obviously I don't get literally angry at this. I'm sorry if mommy still feeds you but that's not my case.
Agree with that, but most posts like these just comment about the version number and nothing else. A lot of them are quite serious about it too.
No, most of them are actually dead serious. And if it makes you mad I don't know what to say.
Which is better than the multiple security vulnerabilities that have yet to be encountered in the no name, piece of shit PDF viewers that no one wants to use.
How many of you stupid fucks still do not realize that Firefox's release cycle is the same as Chrome's? And that they have an enterprise version with slightly longer time between updates so that if you don't want the new features, you can have the security fixes?
No, but I've watched The Wire. Does that count? :)
'When we were planning this degree, our advisers from the commercial space industry said they couldn't wait to hire our graduates.'"
So the course wasn't even fully designed yet, not a single fucking graduate has yet to come out of that university, and they ALREADY want them working on projects headed to one of the most hostile environment we're aware of?
What a bunch of clowns.
Whatever. I'm not here to argue which standard is stupid and which one isn't, just the fact that in C99 and above it works that way. Either way it's ridiculous trivia because most applications will have a return statement regardless of what standard you use.
Did they carry that over to C as well? In C89, it definitely wasn't the case. But then, it wouldn't be the only thing from C++ which made its way into C.
Correct, C89 didn't have it but C99 and C11 do.
Alright, glad we agree :)
Ok.
Do any other C functions have a reserved return type? No? Then it's not exactly an intuitive conclusion to jump to if one has never programmed in C, is it?
I don't understand what you're getting at. I read dimeglio's post as a condescending one towards HeckRuler as if putting "int" was the wrong thing to do (thus making him a "brogrammer" who doesn't know what he's doing)
I'm not saying it's intuitive (AC is being harsh here), but if he's going to diss someone for it, he should know what the heck he's talking about.
As for the whole convention thing, that was a reply to you personally. I was being a bit pedant, pointing out that it's not a "convention" but rather the only proper return type for main.
I don't know if you got confused by the people here who are completely ignorant of that part of the C standard, but there's no "convention" here.
main is defined to have a return type of int. It's also defined as the only function that if you reach the end without a return statement, it is implicitly "return 0;"
dimeglio is just a victim of cargo cult programming.
I'll interpret it the way you should: if anything Quebec and Montreal are MORE open than the rest of Canada.
It's Quebec, not the U.S. We refer to Arabs as Arabs and Islamists as Islamists, not to both of them as terrorists.
So you rely primarily on security thru obscurity and hope that genuine bad guys would never scan you? That's pretty scary.
No actually you made up that part entirely. Here's what he actually said:
Seriously, don't run Acunetix or Retina scans or whatever on other people's systems. It looks like you are probing for vulnerabilities because, well, that's exactly what it's doing.
And if I'm a sys-admin, I'm going to see that and think you're an attacker. From my point of view, you've just cased the joint. That's what I'm going to report up, and from there everything gets ugly.
Most people reach CEGEP at 18, sometimes very rarely at 17. Not that it matters, because if you had bothered to read the fucking article you'd notice that the first sentence of the second paragraph states he is 20.
Not that I agree with that ledow idiot, but this isn't the US where you're allowed to kill people in other countries three years before you can buy a six pack. He's legal to buy alcohol in Quebec.