Thats basically what I've done. I'm not entirely comfortable with it yet, as the AT&T "tech" said that they'd begin shuffling them around once a week, starting the beginning of this month. It hasn't happened, but I don't really trust it yet.
Although, he did manage to convince me in other conversational topics that he didn't have a clue, so I'll wait and see.
Also, Tahoe is in the mountains, where a probable total of 10 people use cablemodem service. So assuming they don't cancel it entirely due to lack of customer base, I'm hoping things won't get too bad. =) -- Paranoid
I've used way too many @Home providers. I've moved around a bit... Comcast@Home in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA. Cox@Home in San Diego, CA. Currently I'm using AT&T@Home in South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Comcast@Home only went down once in the half-year I used them... their stability is definately acceptable. In Orange County, my connection limits were 15k/sec outgoing, 500k/sec incoming. The basic service is a static IP setup, which never changed.
Cox@Home only went down once in the half-year I used them... their service is definately acceptable as well. In San Diego, my connection limits were 35k/sec outgoing, 400k/sec incoming. The basic service is a static IP setup, which never changed.
I've had AT&T@Home service for 2 months now. I've had two outages so far. I'm not sure if its their fault, as Tahoe wiring tends to end up being shredded and turned into squirrel nesting. They do NOT offer static IPs, period. Nor do they offer higher grades of connection... the base-level consumer cablemodem is the only form of network access they provide. I checked, I hate DHCP. Right now, my connection limits are 15k/sec outgoing, probably 500k/sec incoming, but I have yet to see over 320k/sec. They also have these inexplicable patches of half-connectivity where 50% of packets are dropped, causing pretty much everything to pause. These last probably 30 seconds, occur all the time, and I have no idea whats causing them. A tree farted, or something. No idea if its their fault or not - local conditions are occasionally harsh.
Of the three, Cox had the best service. I wish more broadband providers would run their service like Cox does. Its simply astounding how much those extra 20k/sec (outgoing) matter. Many protocols have tons of ACKs, and both Comcast and AT&T don't really allow enough outgoing bandwidth to make the most of the incoming. Plus, for some reason, Cox doesn't slow down when you're uploading a file to someone else... it simply drops packets instead of keeping 100k of queue and incurring 10 second ping replies. Which makes for a more useable connection, overall. I wonder if broadband providers will ever realize this, or if they even care (hey, they're beating 56k, what else does the customer want).
Overall, I hope this goes through and we switch to Comcast. That is, assuming they're still using the same setup and they're able to provide the same level of service. In addition, Comcast's techs actually knew what they were doing, unlike AT&T's.
In any case, I'm glad I haven't been subjected to PPPoE (yet).
Disclaimer: Comcast may be run by evil tribbels from Venus's core who enjoy eating peoples faces and blowing things up. AT&T may be On A Mission From God. I could just be an extreme outlier, my experience unique and completely different from the average. Or I could be from Alpha Centuari (I'm not, as far as I know).
I would skip the filesystem layer and run off of partitions (or/dev/md devices?) directly. Although I've only had 10Gb at a time going under it, and on actual partition devices, not RAID devices, (I am resource-underprivelaged, unfortunately), Adabas/D handles this very well. I'm sure other commercial databases would as well, if they are truly supporting linux rather than just paying it lip service =)
I see absolutely no issues with pushing Adabas/D farther than I have, it has not had any issues with it whatsoever. Of course, if you used files on ext2 or reiserfs or whatever, you would have unnecessary slowdown and potential instability, use disk partitions. -- Paranoid
Doesn't this go against a lot of the philosophy behind OSS?
I know that theres a big deal to be made of the difference between Free Speech and Free Beer, but thats not the point. Anyone can download most (if not all) of any popular distro from FTP sites around the globe; mainly because its GPL, not because of marketing. The fact that vendors GPL-ise their own addons may be marketing, but thats not the point. The point is, if a particular distro gets a bad review, does anyone really think that they're going to stop giving out CDs of it and making the distro available via anonymous FTP and such? They can't do that, commercial distributions NEED to give out CDs as an easy way to gain market penetration.
I personally just think this is complete nonsense; I bought a RedHat (5.0) CD a couple of years back, and have since switched to Debian (getting it completely over the net). If someone says that Debian is buggy (for the record, I am not saying it is; I love it), people may herd like sheep to other distros, but Debian will not remove their entire distribution from the public because of it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that truly Free Software isn't subject to media bias, just because the writers of such reviews can get whatever it may be for free regardless of what they say about it.
Distros in general are solely judgeable on the quality of the linux system you end up with (in terms of options/features/optimizations packages are compiled with, and the arrangement and customizability/modularity of the filesystem as a whole) and whatever addons they may have added. Almost all of this is free anyway (I can only think of 2 examples of propriatary bundles: RH used to bundle Metro-X, and Corel probably bundles WP Office, both of which are available seperately, and both distros can function perfectly well without these components), so is it really fair to judge (read: FUD) a distro just because you get a beer coaster with the distro's logo printed on it?
I don't see how completely free distributions would be affected at all by bias of this sort; when I say Debian RULES, its because Debian RULES, not because I'm trying to secure free copies of Debian in the future. Keep up the good work guys! =)
Thank you for that wonderful piece of flamebait. This is a flame that I'm sure you won't read, given the level of maturity you've already expressed.
Rather than trying to express your pitiful self in such an annoying way, here are a couple other ideas for you.
1. Learn to use it. Linux is great, but not for the ignorant (which this sort of behavior proves you are).
2. How about surfing elsewhere? If you have used linux, and don't like it, use something else. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. And since so much stuff here is about linux, and you don't like linux, you have no reason to be here. Attracting flames in this way serves absolutely no purpose, other than possibly inflating your poor misguided ego. (Oh look! I can click on "Reply" and add to the stuff people read! I'm "3>Tr3/\/\3lY 3le3T" now for finding this "Reply" button! I think I'll be ANNOYING and send a message that does absolutely nothing but prove my own trollness and get sentient life-forms to yell at me! Yeah cool!) -- Paranoid
I'm surprised I haven't heard of Apple doing anything negative with the patent in an attempt to hurt Microsoft, considering how often they're used in Windows... -- Paranoid
(this is more petty bickering than anything worth reading)
NT has preemptive multithreading, and IIS uses NT's threading to do it's work (including getting requests, and assigning them to a thread). You won't see a problem with what you're talking about. That's the whole point of threading, and why NT is faster than Linux.
Excuse me, but unless you're running apache from inetd (which is stupid for ANY amount of traffic), apache uses the Linux kernel to accept connections, and passes the connections to its child processes (subservers), which takes advantage of Linux's preemptive multitasking. This is exactly what you were claiming NT does that makes it better than linux. And if the question is one of multitasking vs. multithreading, I don't see why moving all the children into a single multithreaded process would add any performance gain, and would make the apache code much more complicated, because it would have to deal with mutexes and locks and all that un-fun stuff.
It's more likely that Linux is guilty of what you say (certainly, we know that the ip stack of linux is guilty of this). And the performance of linux on SMPs shows how guilty it is of pending other tasks because of it's lack of threading (or use of).
Linux has a much lower per-process overhead than NT does, therefore making multithreading within the same process merely an alternative to multi-process multitasking (which was WRITTEN for this kind of thing, and places no constraints on explicit process code to take advantage of it) as opposed to a necessity (as is the case in NT).
Hmmm. That thought is just disgusting enough to actually be worrysome. Judging from past experience, they are VERY likely to do something like that. Funk dat.:( -- Paranoid
(drop one if this is repeated... wtf is 'Cat got your tongue'?) Call me a weirdo, but I fail to see the advantage of doing this. Microsoft is attempting to combat Linux by cutting down hardware costs? Excuse me, but one of the major beauties of Linux is its ability to make supported hardware (e.g. less expensive older hardware) run at its full potential. Stripping off a little fat and making it run (stride? mope?) on a smaller processor isn't going to help. Its going to create another area in which Linux shines. If I'm not mistaken, this box is basically a PC minus video and keyboard.
Hmmm.
/me looks at the Linux 386 mail/dns-cache/IRC server sitting over in his closet with *AHEM* no video or keyboard *AHEM*...
To me it seems rediculously easy to install linux and apache on one of these suckers... Even with no video and keyboard, its gotta be possible. And it could be a major selling point of Linux... I mean, they're going to put gobs and gobs of RAM in the thing to ensure that Microsoft doesn't constantly swap. The box will have pretty much all the hardware a small-to-medium-sized webserver needs.
So, is it just me or will this completely and utterly fail to yield an advantage to Microsoft? And, btw, what does Intel care? The majority (afaik) of linux users use their architecture anyway... -- Paranoid
I'm aware of the differences between a 'breakup' and a 'reorganization', but I have a question.
Though the press has been invariably calling it an anti-trust suit, I think 'anti-monopoly' fits the situation better. Microsoft isn't a trust (group of companies working closely together to (most commonly) drive prices up and prevent an open market), its a single company (corporation, whatever). However, if they DO break up (willingly or by force), it seems to me they would fail to learn (judging from their current track record) and we'd just be hearing about anti-trust suits instead of anti-monopoly suits 6 months to a year from now. I could be wrong, but it seems they'd work together as much as possible even if they were diced into seperate companies... I'd hate to see a world where PC's aren't sold unless they are bundled with MS#1 Windows 2000 (tm), MS#5 Internet Explorer (tm), MS#3 Office (tm) and MS#2 Visual Studio 2000 (tm). -- Paranoid
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read her article. Be honest: How many Windows users out there have ever even seen the Windows installation process, much less installed it themselves? Sure, Linux takes a little PC knowledge to install, but no more than Windows does (to install from scratch). This is truly one of the most annoying types of FUD.
Interesting that you'd mention it...
I've only had one bit of experience installing win95. It was on a friends computer which was so virus-ridden I decided to just wipe it all and start it over. And guess what. Getting it to use the CD-ROM was hell. It was kinda funny even... I would chuck the floppy in the drive, it would start doing its installation stuff, it would read the CD, write a bunch of the stuff to disk, try to reboot and not be able to read the CD-ROM. Because it didn't install enough drivers to complete its own install process. I ended up having to make another boot floppy, and add CD-ROM stuff to the config.sys and autoexec.bat right smack in the middle of the install. And before I installed linux, people kept asking me why I hadn't upgraded my win3.1 box. Nowadays everyone knows better:P -- Paranoid
Wow. Following the link, I've never seen someone so blatently ignorant in my life. I know he won't be reading this but this piece of flamebait is WAY too smelly not to say something...
Assume you wrote an application from scratch. How many ways can I modify your program so that it fails? One way? Two ways? Fifty ways? A million ways? Endless ways.
Yeah. And if I had access to your autoexec.bat I could do the same thing.
You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack. You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack when they have the code you used to build your last version.
Thats what root passwords are for. And thats also what putting a # in front of the in.telnetd line of/etc/inetd.conf is for. Compared to back-oriface or any of the seemingly endless java/IE/ActiveX/virii/whatever exploits, this seems a bit easier to do.
Who is the attacker? The guy you hired to build it. The keeper of the code.
Wow. What a pleasant thought. Linus Torvalds is going to h4x0r r0oT.
On Windows, if you don't want a virus, don't run unscanned programs. On opensource, if you don't want to get a backdoor (which are very few and far-between, as far as I've seen), don't run it. This is why I at least lightly glance over stuff as I'm compiling it. That and seeing what possible features I can make use of.
And I'd just as rather the 'keeper of the code' NOT be Microsoft. That way they might do a halfway intelligent job of 'keeping the code', not increasingly breaking it with each new release for the sake of forcing people to upgrade.
One possible solution is to not have the source code available. No source code means that attacks that come from having the source no longer exist.
This sort of development model, in my humble opinion, has more bad sides than good ones. My poor box saw windows for quite a few years, and while I was temporarily involved in coding for a mud, I was amazed by how efficiently and easily new features could be added and old bugs squashed. This is why I originally tried Linux, and this continues to be why I've never looked back.
Besides, if someone DOES manage to sneak a trojan onto a 'trusted site' (which I've heard of happening only once), people tend to notice. Doesn't take very long either. Besides, having the source code means trojans are much easier to see, and people ARE looking. Try busting out a hex editor on an.exe and telling me if its infected with a virus. -- Paranoid
The whole point of Linux is open source. Meaning that peoples ideas are shared freely, which is pretty much the opposite of IP, afaik. And, all OS-wars aside, Linux is obviously not dead. The system works, and the reason people add to the collective pool of knowledge (embodied in source code) is simply because they want to see the system do a certain thing. I'm pretty sure thats why most (probably close to all) GPL'd packages are created to begin with.
And the Linux phenomenon is so much fun because it WORKS. Even Linux's competitors admit this. -- Paranoid
I've never seen an alpha in my life. I've heard various (all good) things about them... from what I've heard they are THE BOMB. Anyone who has one, can they point me to a good link for info on the hardware?
The things I heard that really struck me as cool is the lack of CPU fan and the lack of IRQs (devices are referred to by slot?). -- Paranoid
Umm, no. I'm actually proud of that phrase. I consider linux good (but not, of course, the only) proof that there is Life After Microsoft. Everything commercialized about computers tends to piss me off (including web banners).
And good show about yer serial port. When I installed linux 1.4 years ago, it took me two weeks to figure out how to get the dang thing to dial. Though Red Hat had a nifty GUI tool to make this easier, it wasn't clearly marked, and then of course theres the problem of making the GUI work (which I succeeded in one week later). I've since learned a lot and ditched the dialup. The learning curve is steep but I have no problem with accepting that, seeing how powerful the system as a whole can be:) -- Paranoid
Yeah, and I have a wireless satellite-dish feed, which is technically a cable modem (if anything it adds a step or two) with 56k outgoing bandwidth. This adds a couple more steps and probably a whole new dimension of interference, yet the only problem I have is the adfu banner not loading, and thats no problem as I hate ads anyway. (and is NS 4.x specific?)
And within the last week, I've read slashdot at each of the 24 hours a day contains.
I think, IBM is afraid of LINUX as a potential competitor for AIX.
I agree with the posters who have already said that IBM probably doesn't give a damn about Linux competing with AIX. I believe that the reason they're offering Linux as an option is because of the unbelieveably huge amount of publicity and hype that has recently been thrown around the OS.
(I personally believe that most of the publicity and hype is well-deserved, but that is of course just an opinion) -- Paranoid
Re: Linux is Hype and Buzzwords?
on
Linux on CNN
·
· Score: 1
Wow. Thats probably one of the truest things I've ever heard said. Thank you, dear AC, for helping me to SEE THE LIGHT! I have been enlightened! (and I use e too)
Slashdot Mirror
Thats basically what I've done. I'm not entirely comfortable with it yet, as the AT&T "tech" said that they'd begin shuffling them around once a week, starting the beginning of this month. It hasn't happened, but I don't really trust it yet.
Although, he did manage to convince me in other conversational topics that he didn't have a clue, so I'll wait and see.
Also, Tahoe is in the mountains, where a probable total of 10 people use cablemodem service. So assuming they don't cancel it entirely due to lack of customer base, I'm hoping things won't get too bad. =)
--
Paranoid
I've used way too many @Home providers. I've moved around a bit... Comcast@Home in Newport Beach, Orange County, CA. Cox@Home in San Diego, CA. Currently I'm using AT&T@Home in South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Comcast@Home only went down once in the half-year I used them... their stability is definately acceptable. In Orange County, my connection limits were 15k/sec outgoing, 500k/sec incoming. The basic service is a static IP setup, which never changed.
Cox@Home only went down once in the half-year I used them... their service is definately acceptable as well. In San Diego, my connection limits were 35k/sec outgoing, 400k/sec incoming. The basic service is a static IP setup, which never changed.
I've had AT&T@Home service for 2 months now. I've had two outages so far. I'm not sure if its their fault, as Tahoe wiring tends to end up being shredded and turned into squirrel nesting. They do NOT offer static IPs, period. Nor do they offer higher grades of connection... the base-level consumer cablemodem is the only form of network access they provide. I checked, I hate DHCP. Right now, my connection limits are 15k/sec outgoing, probably 500k/sec incoming, but I have yet to see over 320k/sec. They also have these inexplicable patches of half-connectivity where 50% of packets are dropped, causing pretty much everything to pause. These last probably 30 seconds, occur all the time, and I have no idea whats causing them. A tree farted, or something. No idea if its their fault or not - local conditions are occasionally harsh.
Of the three, Cox had the best service. I wish more broadband providers would run their service like Cox does. Its simply astounding how much those extra 20k/sec (outgoing) matter. Many protocols have tons of ACKs, and both Comcast and AT&T don't really allow enough outgoing bandwidth to make the most of the incoming. Plus, for some reason, Cox doesn't slow down when you're uploading a file to someone else... it simply drops packets instead of keeping 100k of queue and incurring 10 second ping replies. Which makes for a more useable connection, overall. I wonder if broadband providers will ever realize this, or if they even care (hey, they're beating 56k, what else does the customer want).
Overall, I hope this goes through and we switch to Comcast. That is, assuming they're still using the same setup and they're able to provide the same level of service. In addition, Comcast's techs actually knew what they were doing, unlike AT&T's.
In any case, I'm glad I haven't been subjected to PPPoE (yet).
Disclaimer: Comcast may be run by evil tribbels from Venus's core who enjoy eating peoples faces and blowing things up. AT&T may be On A Mission From God. I could just be an extreme outlier, my experience unique and completely different from the average. Or I could be from Alpha Centuari (I'm not, as far as I know).
--
Paranoid
I would skip the filesystem layer and run off of partitions (or /dev/md devices?) directly. Although I've only had 10Gb at a time going under it, and on actual partition devices, not RAID devices, (I am resource-underprivelaged, unfortunately), Adabas/D handles this very well. I'm sure other commercial databases would as well, if they are truly supporting linux rather than just paying it lip service =)
I see absolutely no issues with pushing Adabas/D farther than I have, it has not had any issues with it whatsoever. Of course, if you used files on ext2 or reiserfs or whatever, you would have unnecessary slowdown and potential instability, use disk partitions.
--
Paranoid
Doesn't this go against a lot of the philosophy behind OSS?
I know that theres a big deal to be made of the difference between Free Speech and Free Beer, but thats not the point. Anyone can download most (if not all) of any popular distro from FTP sites around the globe; mainly because its GPL, not because of marketing. The fact that vendors GPL-ise their own addons may be marketing, but thats not the point. The point is, if a particular distro gets a bad review, does anyone really think that they're going to stop giving out CDs of it and making the distro available via anonymous FTP and such? They can't do that, commercial distributions NEED to give out CDs as an easy way to gain market penetration.
I personally just think this is complete nonsense; I bought a RedHat (5.0) CD a couple of years back, and have since switched to Debian (getting it completely over the net). If someone says that Debian is buggy (for the record, I am not saying it is; I love it), people may herd like sheep to other distros, but Debian will not remove their entire distribution from the public because of it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that truly Free Software isn't subject to media bias, just because the writers of such reviews can get whatever it may be for free regardless of what they say about it.
Distros in general are solely judgeable on the quality of the linux system you end up with (in terms of options/features/optimizations packages are compiled with, and the arrangement and customizability/modularity of the filesystem as a whole) and whatever addons they may have added. Almost all of this is free anyway (I can only think of 2 examples of propriatary bundles: RH used to bundle Metro-X, and Corel probably bundles WP Office, both of which are available seperately, and both distros can function perfectly well without these components), so is it really fair to judge (read: FUD) a distro just because you get a beer coaster with the distro's logo printed on it?
I don't see how completely free distributions would be affected at all by bias of this sort; when I say Debian RULES, its because Debian RULES, not because I'm trying to secure free copies of Debian in the future. Keep up the good work guys! =)
--
Paranoid
How much do you want to bet that the prize goes to whoever incorporates FIRE into their artwork?
--
Paranoid
Thank you for that wonderful piece of flamebait. This is a flame that I'm sure you won't read, given the level of maturity you've already expressed.
Rather than trying to express your pitiful self in such an annoying way, here are a couple other ideas for you.
1. Learn to use it. Linux is great, but not for the ignorant (which this sort of behavior proves you are).
2. How about surfing elsewhere? If you have used linux, and don't like it, use something else. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. And since so much stuff here is about linux, and you don't like linux, you have no reason to be here. Attracting flames in this way serves absolutely no purpose, other than possibly inflating your poor misguided ego. (Oh look! I can click on "Reply" and add to the stuff people read! I'm "3>Tr3/\/\3lY 3le3T" now for finding this "Reply" button! I think I'll be ANNOYING and send a message that does absolutely nothing but prove my own trollness and get sentient life-forms to yell at me! Yeah cool!)
--
Paranoid
I'm surprised I haven't heard of Apple doing anything negative with the patent in an attempt to hurt Microsoft, considering how often they're used in Windows...
--
Paranoid
(this is more petty bickering than anything worth reading)
NT has preemptive multithreading, and IIS uses NT's threading to do it's work (including getting requests, and assigning them to a thread). You won't see a problem with what you're talking about. That's the whole point of threading, and why NT is faster than Linux.
Excuse me, but unless you're running apache from inetd (which is stupid for ANY amount of traffic), apache uses the Linux kernel to accept connections, and passes the connections to its child processes (subservers), which takes advantage of Linux's preemptive multitasking. This is exactly what you were claiming NT does that makes it better than linux. And if the question is one of multitasking vs. multithreading, I don't see why moving all the children into a single multithreaded process would add any performance gain, and would make the apache code much more complicated, because it would have to deal with mutexes and locks and all that un-fun stuff.
It's more likely that Linux is guilty of what you say (certainly, we know that the ip stack of linux is guilty of this). And the performance of linux on SMPs shows how guilty it is of pending other tasks because of it's lack of threading (or use of).
Linux has a much lower per-process overhead than NT does, therefore making multithreading within the same process merely an alternative to multi-process multitasking (which was WRITTEN for this kind of thing, and places no constraints on explicit process code to take advantage of it) as opposed to a necessity (as is the case in NT).
--
Paranoid
I got here a bit late and as a result almost noone will read this, but I hafta say it anyway.
:)
It has been suggested often, and seems logical, that those kids did what they did to get attention for the situation they were in.
They seem to have gotten it. So, now that everyone is paying attention, is anyone going to do anything intelligent about it?
I doubt it. If you have proof otherwise, love to hear it.
--
Paranoid
Hmmm. That thought is just disgusting enough to actually be worrysome. Judging from past experience, they are VERY likely to do something like that. Funk dat. :(
--
Paranoid
(drop one if this is repeated... wtf is 'Cat got your tongue'?)
Call me a weirdo, but I fail to see the advantage of doing this. Microsoft is attempting to combat Linux by cutting down hardware costs? Excuse me, but one of the major beauties of Linux is its ability to make supported hardware (e.g. less expensive older hardware) run at its full potential. Stripping off a little fat and making it run (stride? mope?) on a smaller processor isn't going to help. Its going to create another area in which Linux shines. If I'm not mistaken, this box is basically a PC minus video and keyboard.
Hmmm.
/me looks at the Linux 386 mail/dns-cache/IRC server sitting over in his closet with *AHEM* no video or keyboard *AHEM*...
To me it seems rediculously easy to install linux and apache on one of these suckers... Even with no video and keyboard, its gotta be possible. And it could be a major selling point of Linux... I mean, they're going to put gobs and gobs of RAM in the thing to ensure that Microsoft doesn't constantly swap. The box will have pretty much all the hardware a small-to-medium-sized webserver needs.
So, is it just me or will this completely and utterly fail to yield an advantage to Microsoft? And, btw, what does Intel care? The majority (afaik) of linux users use their architecture anyway...
--
Paranoid
I'm aware of the differences between a 'breakup' and a 'reorganization', but I have a question.
Though the press has been invariably calling it an anti-trust suit, I think 'anti-monopoly' fits the situation better. Microsoft isn't a trust (group of companies working closely together to (most commonly) drive prices up and prevent an open market), its a single company (corporation, whatever). However, if they DO break up (willingly or by force), it seems to me they would fail to learn (judging from their current track record) and we'd just be hearing about anti-trust suits instead of anti-monopoly suits 6 months to a year from now. I could be wrong, but it seems they'd work together as much as possible even if they were diced into seperate companies... I'd hate to see a world where PC's aren't sold unless they are bundled with MS#1 Windows 2000 (tm), MS#5 Internet Explorer (tm), MS#3 Office (tm) and MS#2 Visual Studio 2000 (tm).
--
Paranoid
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read her article. Be honest: How many Windows users out there have ever even seen the Windows installation process, much less installed it themselves? Sure, Linux takes a little PC knowledge to install, but no more than Windows does (to install from scratch). This is truly one of the most annoying types of FUD.
:P
Interesting that you'd mention it...
I've only had one bit of experience installing win95. It was on a friends computer which was so virus-ridden I decided to just wipe it all and start it over. And guess what. Getting it to use the CD-ROM was hell. It was kinda funny even... I would chuck the floppy in the drive, it would start doing its installation stuff, it would read the CD, write a bunch of the stuff to disk, try to reboot and not be able to read the CD-ROM. Because it didn't install enough drivers to complete its own install process. I ended up having to make another boot floppy, and add CD-ROM stuff to the config.sys and autoexec.bat right smack in the middle of the install. And before I installed linux, people kept asking me why I hadn't upgraded my win3.1 box. Nowadays everyone knows better
--
Paranoid
Wow. Following the link, I've never seen someone so blatently ignorant in my life. I know he won't be reading this but this piece of flamebait is WAY too smelly not to say something...
/etc/inetd.conf is for. Compared to back-oriface or any of the seemingly endless java/IE/ActiveX/virii/whatever exploits, this seems a bit easier to do.
.exe and telling me if its infected with a virus.
Assume you wrote an application from scratch. How many ways can I modify your program so that it fails? One way? Two ways? Fifty ways? A million ways? Endless ways.
Yeah. And if I had access to your autoexec.bat I could do the same thing.
You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack. You have to do something to minimize the chance of attack when they have the code you used to build your last version.
Thats what root passwords are for. And thats also what putting a # in front of the in.telnetd line of
Who is the attacker? The guy you hired to build it. The keeper of the code.
Wow. What a pleasant thought. Linus Torvalds is going to h4x0r r0oT.
On Windows, if you don't want a virus, don't run unscanned programs. On opensource, if you don't want to get a backdoor (which are very few and far-between, as far as I've seen), don't run it. This is why I at least lightly glance over stuff as I'm compiling it. That and seeing what possible features I can make use of.
And I'd just as rather the 'keeper of the code' NOT be Microsoft. That way they might do a halfway intelligent job of 'keeping the code', not increasingly breaking it with each new release for the sake of forcing people to upgrade.
One possible solution is to not have the source code available. No source code means that attacks that come from having the source no longer exist.
This sort of development model, in my humble opinion, has more bad sides than good ones. My poor box saw windows for quite a few years, and while I was temporarily involved in coding for a mud, I was amazed by how efficiently and easily new features could be added and old bugs squashed. This is why I originally tried Linux, and this continues to be why I've never looked back.
Besides, if someone DOES manage to sneak a trojan onto a 'trusted site' (which I've heard of happening only once), people tend to notice. Doesn't take very long either. Besides, having the source code means trojans are much easier to see, and people ARE looking. Try busting out a hex editor on an
--
Paranoid
And less than a week after that comes the lpr-emulation-redirecting-to-ipp conversion daemon.
--
Paranoid
Don't read this, my logic is probably flawed. :)
The whole point of Linux is open source. Meaning that peoples ideas are shared freely, which is pretty much the opposite of IP, afaik. And, all OS-wars aside, Linux is obviously not dead. The system works, and the reason people add to the collective pool of knowledge (embodied in source code) is simply because they want to see the system do a certain thing. I'm pretty sure thats why most (probably close to all) GPL'd packages are created to begin with.
And the Linux phenomenon is so much fun because it WORKS. Even Linux's competitors admit this.
--
Paranoid
Hmmm... I thought OEMing was what Compaq mainly DID...
--
Paranoid
I've never seen an alpha in my life. I've heard various (all good) things about them... from what I've heard they are THE BOMB. Anyone who has one, can they point me to a good link for info on the hardware?
The things I heard that really struck me as cool is the lack of CPU fan and the lack of IRQs (devices are referred to by slot?).
--
Paranoid
does anyone else find this phrase disturbing?
:)
Umm, no. I'm actually proud of that phrase. I consider linux good (but not, of course, the only) proof that there is Life After Microsoft. Everything commercialized about computers tends to piss me off (including web banners).
And good show about yer serial port. When I installed linux 1.4 years ago, it took me two weeks to figure out how to get the dang thing to dial. Though Red Hat had a nifty GUI tool to make this easier, it wasn't clearly marked, and then of course theres the problem of making the GUI work (which I succeeded in one week later). I've since learned a lot and ditched the dialup. The learning curve is steep but I have no problem with accepting that, seeing how powerful the system as a whole can be
--
Paranoid
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:P
Damn, I forgot to log in anonymously
(For the clue-deficient, this is a joke)
--
Paranoid
Yeah, and I have a wireless satellite-dish feed, which is technically a cable modem (if anything it adds a step or two) with 56k outgoing bandwidth. This adds a couple more steps and probably a whole new dimension of interference, yet the only problem I have is the adfu banner not loading, and thats no problem as I hate ads anyway. (and is NS 4.x specific?)
And within the last week, I've read slashdot at each of the 24 hours a day contains.
Seriously, check your own setup.
--
Paranoid
This statement shocks me. If they ran linux (which nmap confirms), why would they have such a crappy linux port of realplayer?
Those people piss me off.
--
Paranoid
I think, IBM is afraid of LINUX as a potential competitor for AIX.
I agree with the posters who have already said that IBM probably doesn't give a damn about Linux competing with AIX. I believe that the reason they're offering Linux as an option is because of the unbelieveably huge amount of publicity and hype that has recently been thrown around the OS.
(I personally believe that most of the publicity and hype is well-deserved, but that is of course just an opinion)
--
Paranoid
Wow. Thats probably one of the truest things I've ever heard said. Thank you, dear AC, for helping me to SEE THE LIGHT! I have been enlightened! (and I use e too)
--
Paranoid
(from the link given by Rob) The technology will also help take the ?film? out of ?Lucasfilm,?
Am I the only one who gets extremely pissed off by cheap html-generators' question marks?
--
Paranoid