Firstly: he doesn't track the RELENG_4_9 branch, he tracks the STABLE branch (RELENG_4 - e.g. the latest of whatever is considered stable for Release 4) - which is more likely to break working stuff than the RELENG_4_9 branch which is FreeBSD 4.9 that has just the updates for security problems. Yes many ppl don't have problems with RELENG_4, but if your job and reputation is on the line - only use it if RELENG_4_9 doesn't work (hardware, required features etc).
Secondly: He skips the mergemaster -p step.
The way I recommend is what's been in the FreeBSD handbook for years: Step 1: Synchronize your source Use cvsup. It's better. And track the RELENG branch. e.g. cvsup mycustomcvsupfile Where mycustomcvsup is like the stable-supfile but with the following tag instead of RELENG_4: *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_4_9
optional step before: cp/etc/defaults/make.conf/etc/make.conf edit/etc/make.conf accordingly (compile options, whether ports openssl/openssh overwrites the base openssl/openssh etc)
Then make buildworld make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELNAME make installkernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELNAME reboot and go to single user mode mergemaster -p (preliminary mergemaster stuff if things are too different between your config and what the new FreeBSD stuff is) make installworld mergemaster (to merge what's new in/etc and stuff to what your local custom config is like) reboot
***multiple machines. Here's where you might do things differently.
Now once you built everything, you don't have to rebuild it on a different machine if you are using a compatible architecture. For example you specify a 686 CPU in your make.conf and kernel config, you can only reuse it on stuff which supports 686 class CPUs.
I didn't bother with the NFS part (not applicable for some situations) - I just did the synchronize of src and ports and did the build on a fast machine with a fast connection.
The default was 4-stable which tracks the current stable source of Release 4. For production machines I recommend tracking RELENG releases and not STABLE.
Then build the kernel and sources. cd/usr/src make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineA make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineB make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineC make buildworld cd/usr/ Then tarball the results: tar -zcvf src.tar.gz src && tar -zcvf obj.tar.gz obj && tar -zcvf ports.tar.gz ports
Then I copied the tarballs (via CDR) to the slow machine which did not have a cvsup connection (not allowed by firewall policy etc)
Then installed the results on the machine. cd/usr rm -rf src obj ports tar -zxvf src.tar.gz && tar -zxvf ports.tar.gz && tar -zxvf obj.tar.gz
Then I ensured that the/etc/make.conf was correct etc. Then: make installkernel KERNCONF=therelevantkernel && make installworld.
Note: to save the trouble of building desired ports software on the slow machine you have to make packages on the fast machine. e.g. cd/usr/ports/blahblah/softwarename make package --- You should also check out freebsd-update.
freebsd-update is more like binary updating of stuff affected by security issues.
Redhat is simpler on one hand and more complex on the other- sure you can ftp all the rpms and run a freshen. But it's harder to be sure everything is really consistent
Actually the world would be a much better place if soldiers actually would use their brains and consciences and refuse to fight wars that are unjustified.
There are so many dictators who are kept in power by soldiers who are "just following orders" or "just doing their duty". Their frigging duty is to protect the country, not allow a greedy psychopath to destroy it.
A single dictator cannot bring a country to ruin if not enough soldiers obey him when he asks them to kill and torture.
Of course there are military leaders who performed coups when things really got out of hand and then actually stood back and allowed free elections to be held. Those are real heroes - made really difficult and risky decisions for the greater good.
How hard is it for soldiers to figure out that their commanders/generals are pretty bad people and doing bad things? It is harder to go wrong following a leader who tons of people love and respect than following a leader who tons of people fear and hate.
There was a study which involved people electrocuting others. When ordered to do so a high percentage of people were willing to increase the electrocution past what they were previously told were dangerous levels - despite the extreme discomfort their victims were obviously experiencing.
Just doing their duty and following orders. Real heroes - all of them.
That's the silly part about Dune. All that is probably so that he can have this hand to hand combat thing.
But the Dune reasoning is flawed. So what if the lasgun blows up? The person firing it doesn't have to be there anymore. You could also use lasguns as pretty effective mines against shield wearing people. Barriers that cut unshielded people and blow up shielded people.
Maybe he should have said the lasgun blows up but the shield doesn't. That'll make lasguns as ranged weapons less useful. Dunno why he didn't do it that way.
lasgun+shield as mininukes would still be viable either way.
Dune's a nice story, have to turn brain off though.
"al-Sadr is a criminal wanted for murder by the Iraqi government."
Yes but he would be one of many.
Why are the US people singling him out for potential martyrdom? He had only a thousand supporters till the US did what they did.
There were and are plenty of other battles. Why did they choose this one?
The US are not letting Iraqis pick their own gov. They just want a puppet gov under US control. And Sadr might be a miscalculation in their machinations (it might not be a miscalc, or might be correctable).
A fair number of people in Iraq oppose the war too and having "American soldiers die" is an important part of their opposition.
Pity not enough US folk opposed the war or called Bush out for his deception.
The WMD reason just smelt a bit fishy to many of us in the rest of the world. Same went for the Saddam reason, regime change reason, Iraq supporting Al-Qaeda reason, saving the Iraqis reason etc. I'm no longer bothering to keep track of the latest reason Bush/US Gov is giving.
But somehow the US people don't seem very angry at Bush.
Sure the US people are angry at Al-Qaeda but if they're angry at Al Qaeda, what's this with letting Bush spend time, billions, resources and lives in Iraq?
How would that reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in the USA? How would that weaken or destroy the Al-Qaeda? Heck, it would seem that Bush is on the Al-Qaeda's side - generating anti-US sentiment.
While he probably believed he was fighting for his country, it's still not certain whether he's actually fighting for his country or not.
That cheapens his sacrifice more.
I mean what is the war about? Is it the WMD, or is it getting rid of Saddam or regime change? Or is it about setting up a puppet gov to get cheap oil? Or is it just about Bush screwing up?
Where's the truth? What are the real reasons for the war vs the various reasons the soldiers and everyone else was given.
So far the reasons the US Gov have given don't have the smell of truth. Rather fishy - esp when they keep mentioning 9-11 in the same breath as Iraq/Saddam.
I find that more disgusting.
Naturally Bush and the US Gov will keep "honouring" the sacrificed soldiers, call them heroes and say politically correct things etc etc.
I dunno about you, but I don't think you honour someone by lying to them so that they fight for your hidden agenda.
Seriously though it's typical for people get more stressed when they're unemployed - esp if they're not in a socialist/nanny state which looks after you.
1) He loves developing websites, but hates the stress and responsibilities that comes with the job.
2) He wonders if he would enjoy working in a less stressful environment.
Solution: Find another job that has sane hours, an acceptable stress level, and a tolerable salary (doubt you'd make big bucks but hey web devs aren't paid that much either).
AND, do the website development stuff as a hobby/for fun. Or even a bit of money on the side - esp if there's no conflict of interest with your day job.
I mean if you have a job with sane hours you'd have most weekends free, and most evenings free.
Even if the job isn't as fun , hey it's a job which allows you time to do the fun stuff AFTER the job, and without linking the fun stuff to stress.
"If you read the security announcements for the OpenSSH vulnerabilities, you'll usually see that OpenBSD is immune."
Examples? I've read the announcements. There's one where OpenBSD is immune (only affects openssh-portable), but the others I read don't indicate that OpenBSD is immune.
So I don't see how OpenBSD is much more secure than FreeBSD.
MySQL was probably the "best" available free "RDBMS" with decent performance during the dotcom times.
msql? Didn't try it, but MySQL appeared to be a superset of msql (not MSSQL).
While more sophisticated, Postgres95 just didn't cut it performancewise- I tried both MySQL and Postgres95. Postgres95 was just too slow for what I wanted to do. Was slow for reads, was slow for writes even with fsync off.
Things changed dramatically with Postgresql 6.5.3 (ok for reads still slow for writes) then 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 etc.
Now I have far fewer reasons to use MySQL over Postgresql 7.3 or 7.4.
MySQL's new licensing scheme doesn't help either. Too much trouble to figure out when it is GPL and when it isn't, or whether that sort of thing is even valid.
For network servers or personal machines I don't see FreeBSD being much less secure than OpenBSD. Dunno much about NetBSD except that it runs on tons of things and the NetBSD devs are pretty savvy security-wise.
For machines shared/used by untrusted users perhaps OpenBSD might be more secure, however I personally think that giving untrusted users an account on your machine is almost the same as giving them root. This is true for most popular operating systems and environments.
Show me an O/S that is architecturally secure and it's probably an O/S that doesn't run most of the stuff that people want.
What I like about FreeBSD is 1) Documentation - you can do man wi and you get docs on the wifi driver, do man dc and you get docs on the dec nic driver. Then there's the handbook. 2) Ports/packages. Installing Bugzilla on FreeBSD is mostly just: cd/usr/ports/devel/bugzilla make install Then a bit of configuration.
Whereas on say RH Linux, you have to download bugzilla, various Perl modules, MySQL, and all the other stuff by yourself. FreeBSD's port system downloads all the dependencies.
Same thing goes for other stuff like say squirrelmail.
You could use binary packages if you want to, or even build your own from the ports (to redistribute to machines where CPU is slow or at a premium).
3) IPFW does the stuff I want (netfilter doesn't seem to be able to). And does other stuff I want in simpler ways.
4) Ease of being reasonably sure that a system is fully up to date with the latest stable stuff. With stuff like RH Linux and many other distros (except maybe Gentoo) things could get screwed up - binaries could get overwritten and you are no longer sure if the system is up to a consistent and recent patch level. I suppose with RH you could reinstall all the RPMs - that might fix all binaries.
If you want to compile everything by hand you can. But for FreeBSD, lots of stuff is in the ports.
OpenBSD is supposedly more secure than FreeBSD, but in terms of direct remote root exploits, they're just about the same as FreeBSD- both use Openssh which hasn't had that great a security track record. OpenSSH appears to be developed and maintained by the OpenBSD team. Whether OpenSSH's security/quality is representative of the rest of the OpenBSD team's work is up to you to figure out.
Performance? your mileage may vary. OpenBSD generally doesn't scale as well as FreeBSD/NetBSD or Linux 2.4/2.6. FreeBSD 4.9 is very competitive with Linux 2.4 (IIRC faster in some stuff, slower in others).
Think of how many windows PCs there are, how many GBs of service packs and updates downloaded per day.
If an ISP's customers download the stuff from Akamai clusters located in the ISP, that's much cheaper for the ISP than customers downloading it from Redmond, USA.
ISPs can and do use caching servers, however some stuff could intentionally be noncacheable for various reasons. The content owner then uses Akamai so that even if stuff is noncacheable, they still get what they want.
"It deserved to be chucked into the ashcan with the approach they did."
See, that's exactly what I mean by not objective.
Others (including some reputable scientists) actually did claim to reproduce P&F's results or had at least some interesting results.
But with the P&F screwup and mainstream science pissed off, many reputable scientists had to stop investigating especially the younger ones who had careers to protect.
That's proof enough for me of nonobjectivity. I'm not really surprised it turned out that way, nor expecting it otherwise, just it's a bit of a shame and a waste - a pair of scientists may have discovered something interesting and screw up and delayed investigation of a possibly interesting area of science for years.
It's just like this bubble fusion thingy. This wasn't handled that badly so it's OK, but it could have been worse (and imagine if it happened during the notorious CF times;) ).
I don't agree that every point is equally valid - in fact I'm more inclined to believe that most points are invalid.
What I see is there's sufficient evidence (to me) indicating there is something interesting going on, and whether or not it is cold fusion is a different matter.
I mean look at heatpipes - no new physics, but it actually ends up very useful. So even if you don't get more energy, someone could think up a use for it esp if people understand it better (and can make it more efficient/effective).
The version iostat I have on RH Linux doesn't give you disk IO in bytes/s or MB/s. Have to work it out from the blocks/sec. Where the man says a block is of indeterminate size.
Haven't figured out how to use netstat or some other built-in command to check the bandwidth usage for each network interface. I had to write a little snippet of perl to do that. Any suggestions?
Seems a lot easier to do stuff like that on FreeBSD or even Windows 2000.
That's why you don't just rely on your security check software to tell you if something is fixed. You need brains and experience as well.
It looks like either your network minders or your security software need some updating. Or maybe just call someone else to do the security audits. What security software are you guys using anyway?
They can't label something 3.6 if it isn't 3.6. If it's a patch to 3.5 then they do stuff like labeling it 3.5-1.
Because 3.6 may have added features or changed other things. Software works with 3.5 could break with 3.6.
OR there could be software that requires 3.6 and can't work on 3.5, do you want to be the one to lie about the version?
I agree you for the cases when they keep the version numbers (esp the reported version numbers) the same. Maybe they have to keep some numbers the same because some other broken but important software relies on it being a particular format - e.g. "1.2.3" and 1.2.4 is already taken as next release.
BTW are you really sure about your OpenSSL version and code? Are you sure it means what you think it means?
Given that background? Not very objective - that background isn't even _focusing_ on the scientific stuff, more on P and F.
If some confirmed some parts and some other parts, it doesn't prove the phenomena isn't there.
It just indicates that it might be difficult to reproduce.
The scientific community did the equivalent of chucking the whole thing into the trash (including related stuff). Not objective.
Heck on the same terms I could say man-made hot fusion has been proven not to be viable - given the difficulty of reproducing "breakeven". BILLIONS and decades spent.
That said, one has to know one's weaknesses and also look at the larger scheme of things.
e.g. if playing golf too often brings out the worst in you, you may have to consider either improving yourself (hard) or giving up golf for a time (maybe not as hard). It doesn't mean other people shouldn't play golf.
As for the larger scheme of things: if you are a famous evangelist, if you are wise and careful you may choose not to do some things that are actually OK. Apparently Billy Graham makes it a policy never to be alone in a room with a woman not his wife. Even if everything is above board things may be misconstrued or worse manipulated. Or not be a good example to others.
Lastly - if you believe in the christian version of heaven, it is likely all this physical stuff won't be around there (analogues may exist - dunno), whereas the people will still be. You can help bring people (friends, relatives etc) to heaven but you can't bring money etc there. Well even if you could eternity is a very long time to spend playing with money by yourself without friends. Eternity and imperfection don't go together very well. Maybe that's hell.
Re:Have to wonder
on
SimChurch
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually since Christians believe in life after death, it doesn't make sense to say that only "interactions in the 'real' life" are valid.
Jesus said plenty about the thoughts being as significant as the deed. Look at a woman lustfully = committing adultery with her in your heart. Be angry with your brother = subject to judgement.
In fact what Jesus talks about has become even more applicable as time goes on - technology exists to allow people to have virtual sex with each other without physical contact. Errant husbands can't say it isn't adultery coz it's not "real" by Jesus's terms.
With the brain chips they've tested on monkeys and are testing on the paralyzed, soon people may even be able to kill others without even moving a finger - just thinking about it would be enough. Previously you had to speak or press a key or click on a mouse.
There are only a few requirements to be a Christian - believe in Jesus and take him as Lord and Saviour.
But there are billions of different people out there with different needs and interests. And those needs and interests change.
Find a church where you can help and be helped.
As for idiosyncracies - in my church we stand to sing and sit down to pray. Since everyone is regarded as a priest - anyone can call for a song to be sung or choose to read a verse from the bible or pray. Except that women aren't supposed to preach/teach during the worship (but some of the sharing/prayers/verse readings sometimes get pretty close to teaching;) ).
Of course this method of worship may not scale as well for larger churches (you can't have thousands in the same "collision domain").
Also the "anyone can pick a song" makes it a bit more stressful for the musicians as compared to "led worship" where the songs are chosen in advance by a worship leader... But the musicians sure get pretty good:).
As for judging - let God do the judging of nonbelievers. You can actually judge other Christians, while necessary sometimes (for the sake/benefit of the Church), it is a responsibility I wouldn't take lightly.
Personally I think there's some interesting phenomenom in at least some of that "cold fusion" stuff (see the Wired article on it). Whether or not it is cold fusion, there's evidence that there's something interesting enough that's worth at least a few millions to be pumped in.
The hot fusion folk have spent billions so what's a fraction of that to investigate something new and interesting?
Sure Pons and Fleischman screwed up - but it seems like the scientific community was not very objective about it - rather emotional in fact.
"Increasing the cost of fuel makes the true cost apparant to the comsumer"
Reducing the amount of sunlight a tropical rainforest gets will wipe out many species and those that rely on them. Vast numbers will die off.
While polar bears and killer whales are marvels of efficiency there sure are a lot fewer species in terms of numbers and diversity in the Arctic.
I'm not in the USA but there are reasons why the US can sustain all those companies making silly stuff like USD400 yoyos, fringe plastic toys. Low energy costs is one of them - you can ship junk further and still make money - larger potential market.
Why is the US in Iraq? Why are they _installing_ some outsiders as Government? Why are they _actively_ creating chaos? They're not that stupid (they're arrogant though given the half-baked lies they spout - don't even bother to make up good reasons).
Slashdot Mirror
The article is actually riskier IMO.
/etc/defaults/make.conf /etc/make.conf /etc/make.conf accordingly (compile options, whether ports openssl/openssh overwrites the base openssl/openssh etc)
/etc and stuff to what your local custom config is like)
/usr/src /usr/
/usr
/etc/make.conf was correct etc.
/usr/ports/blahblah/softwarename
Firstly: he doesn't track the RELENG_4_9 branch, he tracks the STABLE branch (RELENG_4 - e.g. the latest of whatever is considered stable for Release 4) - which is more likely to break working stuff than the RELENG_4_9 branch which is FreeBSD 4.9 that has just the updates for security problems. Yes many ppl don't have problems with RELENG_4, but if your job and reputation is on the line - only use it if RELENG_4_9 doesn't work (hardware, required features etc).
Secondly: He skips the mergemaster -p step.
The way I recommend is what's been in the FreeBSD handbook for years:
Step 1: Synchronize your source Use cvsup. It's better. And track the RELENG branch.
e.g. cvsup mycustomcvsupfile
Where mycustomcvsup is like the stable-supfile but with the following tag instead of RELENG_4:
*default release=cvs tag=RELENG_4_9
Step 2: Building and Installing world
optional step before:
cp
edit
Then
make buildworld
make buildkernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELNAME
make installkernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELNAME
reboot and go to single user mode
mergemaster -p
(preliminary mergemaster stuff if things are too different between your config and what the new FreeBSD stuff is)
make installworld
mergemaster
(to merge what's new in
reboot
***multiple machines.
Here's where you might do things differently.
Read this for some background: tracking for multiple machines
Now once you built everything, you don't have to rebuild it on a different machine if you are using a compatible architecture. For example you specify a 686 CPU in your make.conf and kernel config, you can only reuse it on stuff which supports 686 class CPUs.
I didn't bother with the NFS part (not applicable for some situations) - I just did the synchronize of src and ports and did the build on a fast machine with a fast connection.
The default was 4-stable which tracks the current stable source of Release 4. For production machines I recommend tracking RELENG releases and not STABLE.
Then build the kernel and sources.
cd
make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineA
make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineB
make buildkernel KERNCONF=kernelformachineC
make buildworld
cd
Then tarball the results: tar -zcvf src.tar.gz src && tar -zcvf obj.tar.gz obj && tar -zcvf ports.tar.gz ports
Then I copied the tarballs (via CDR) to the slow machine which did not have a cvsup connection (not allowed by firewall policy etc)
Then installed the results on the machine.
cd
rm -rf src obj ports
tar -zxvf src.tar.gz && tar -zxvf ports.tar.gz && tar -zxvf obj.tar.gz
Then I ensured that the
Then: make installkernel KERNCONF=therelevantkernel && make installworld.
Note: to save the trouble of building desired ports software on the slow machine you have to make packages on the fast machine.
e.g.
cd
make package
---
You should also check out freebsd-update.
freebsd-update is more like binary updating of stuff affected by security issues.
Redhat is simpler on one hand and more complex on the other- sure you can ftp all the rpms and run a freshen. But it's harder to be sure everything is really consistent
Actually the world would be a much better place if soldiers actually would use their brains and consciences and refuse to fight wars that are unjustified.
There are so many dictators who are kept in power by soldiers who are "just following orders" or "just doing their duty". Their frigging duty is to protect the country, not allow a greedy psychopath to destroy it.
A single dictator cannot bring a country to ruin if not enough soldiers obey him when he asks them to kill and torture.
Of course there are military leaders who performed coups when things really got out of hand and then actually stood back and allowed free elections to be held. Those are real heroes - made really difficult and risky decisions for the greater good.
How hard is it for soldiers to figure out that their commanders/generals are pretty bad people and doing bad things? It is harder to go wrong following a leader who tons of people love and respect than following a leader who tons of people fear and hate.
There was a study which involved people electrocuting others. When ordered to do so a high percentage of people were willing to increase the electrocution past what they were previously told were dangerous levels - despite the extreme discomfort their victims were obviously experiencing.
Just doing their duty and following orders. Real heroes - all of them.
The world sure needs such heroes eh?
"wonder if they also blow up if hit by a lasgun"
That's the silly part about Dune. All that is probably so that he can have this hand to hand combat thing.
But the Dune reasoning is flawed. So what if the lasgun blows up? The person firing it doesn't have to be there anymore. You could also use lasguns as pretty effective mines against shield wearing people. Barriers that cut unshielded people and blow up shielded people.
Maybe he should have said the lasgun blows up but the shield doesn't. That'll make lasguns as ranged weapons less useful. Dunno why he didn't do it that way.
lasgun+shield as mininukes would still be viable either way.
Dune's a nice story, have to turn brain off though.
"al-Sadr is a criminal wanted for murder by the Iraqi government."
Yes but he would be one of many.
Why are the US people singling him out for potential martyrdom? He had only a thousand supporters till the US did what they did.
There were and are plenty of other battles. Why did they choose this one?
The US are not letting Iraqis pick their own gov. They just want a puppet gov under US control. And Sadr might be a miscalculation in their machinations (it might not be a miscalc, or might be correctable).
A fair number of people in Iraq oppose the war too and having "American soldiers die" is an important part of their opposition.
Pity not enough US folk opposed the war or called Bush out for his deception.
The WMD reason just smelt a bit fishy to many of us in the rest of the world. Same went for the Saddam reason, regime change reason, Iraq supporting Al-Qaeda reason, saving the Iraqis reason etc. I'm no longer bothering to keep track of the latest reason Bush/US Gov is giving.
But somehow the US people don't seem very angry at Bush.
Sure the US people are angry at Al-Qaeda but if they're angry at Al Qaeda, what's this with letting Bush spend time, billions, resources and lives in Iraq?
How would that reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in the USA? How would that weaken or destroy the Al-Qaeda? Heck, it would seem that Bush is on the Al-Qaeda's side - generating anti-US sentiment.
Doh.
You're missing a bigger point.
While he probably believed he was fighting for his country, it's still not certain whether he's actually fighting for his country or not.
That cheapens his sacrifice more.
I mean what is the war about? Is it the WMD, or is it getting rid of Saddam or regime change? Or is it about setting up a puppet gov to get cheap oil? Or is it just about Bush screwing up?
Where's the truth? What are the real reasons for the war vs the various reasons the soldiers and everyone else was given.
So far the reasons the US Gov have given don't have the smell of truth. Rather fishy - esp when they keep mentioning 9-11 in the same breath as Iraq/Saddam.
I find that more disgusting.
Naturally Bush and the US Gov will keep "honouring" the sacrificed soldiers, call them heroes and say politically correct things etc etc.
I dunno about you, but I don't think you honour someone by lying to them so that they fight for your hidden agenda.
Stereotypically: the part involving privates usually comes after the beer.
haha :).
.
Seriously though it's typical for people get more stressed when they're unemployed - esp if they're not in a socialist/nanny state which looks after you.
1) He loves developing websites, but hates the stress and responsibilities that comes with the job.
2) He wonders if he would enjoy working in a less stressful environment.
Solution: Find another job that has sane hours, an acceptable stress level, and a tolerable salary (doubt you'd make big bucks but hey web devs aren't paid that much either)
AND, do the website development stuff as a hobby/for fun. Or even a bit of money on the side - esp if there's no conflict of interest with your day job.
I mean if you have a job with sane hours you'd have most weekends free, and most evenings free.
Even if the job isn't as fun , hey it's a job which allows you time to do the fun stuff AFTER the job, and without linking the fun stuff to stress.
"If you read the security announcements for the OpenSSH vulnerabilities, you'll usually see that OpenBSD is immune."
Examples? I've read the announcements. There's one where OpenBSD is immune (only affects openssh-portable), but the others I read don't indicate that OpenBSD is immune.
So I don't see how OpenBSD is much more secure than FreeBSD.
Some pointers would be helpful.
I'd mod you up if I didn't post already.
She looks OK. Nothing spectacular tho. And not my type in the looks department.
You can sell the PS2 if you find it just doesn't suit you or you get tired of it.
Heck, sell the PS2 on eBay in a "proven hotter than a bachelorette" auction. You might make a bit more.
Then you can use the money to subsidize a date with a girl who is actually interested in dating you rather than being forced by circumstances etc.
MySQL was probably the "best" available free "RDBMS" with decent performance during the dotcom times.
msql? Didn't try it, but MySQL appeared to be a superset of msql (not MSSQL).
While more sophisticated, Postgres95 just didn't cut it performancewise- I tried both MySQL and Postgres95. Postgres95 was just too slow for what I wanted to do. Was slow for reads, was slow for writes even with fsync off.
Things changed dramatically with Postgresql 6.5.3 (ok for reads still slow for writes) then 7.0, 7.1, 7.2 etc.
Now I have far fewer reasons to use MySQL over Postgresql 7.3 or 7.4.
MySQL's new licensing scheme doesn't help either.
Too much trouble to figure out when it is GPL and when it isn't, or whether that sort of thing is even valid.
For network servers or personal machines I don't see FreeBSD being much less secure than OpenBSD. Dunno much about NetBSD except that it runs on tons of things and the NetBSD devs are pretty savvy security-wise.
/usr/ports/devel/bugzilla
For machines shared/used by untrusted users perhaps OpenBSD might be more secure, however I personally think that giving untrusted users an account on your machine is almost the same as giving them root. This is true for most popular operating systems and environments.
Show me an O/S that is architecturally secure and it's probably an O/S that doesn't run most of the stuff that people want.
What I like about FreeBSD is
1) Documentation - you can do man wi and you get docs on the wifi driver, do man dc and you get docs on the dec nic driver. Then there's the handbook.
2) Ports/packages. Installing Bugzilla on FreeBSD is mostly just:
cd
make install
Then a bit of configuration.
Whereas on say RH Linux, you have to download bugzilla, various Perl modules, MySQL, and all the other stuff by yourself. FreeBSD's port system downloads all the dependencies.
Same thing goes for other stuff like say squirrelmail.
You could use binary packages if you want to, or even build your own from the ports (to redistribute to machines where CPU is slow or at a premium).
3) IPFW does the stuff I want (netfilter doesn't seem to be able to). And does other stuff I want in simpler ways.
4) Ease of being reasonably sure that a system is fully up to date with the latest stable stuff. With stuff like RH Linux and many other distros (except maybe Gentoo) things could get screwed up - binaries could get overwritten and you are no longer sure if the system is up to a consistent and recent patch level. I suppose with RH you could reinstall all the RPMs - that might fix all binaries.
If you want to compile everything by hand you can. But for FreeBSD, lots of stuff is in the ports.
OpenBSD is supposedly more secure than FreeBSD, but in terms of direct remote root exploits, they're just about the same as FreeBSD- both use Openssh which hasn't had that great a security track record. OpenSSH appears to be developed and maintained by the OpenBSD team. Whether OpenSSH's security/quality is representative of the rest of the OpenBSD team's work is up to you to figure out.
Performance? your mileage may vary. OpenBSD generally doesn't scale as well as FreeBSD/NetBSD or Linux 2.4/2.6. FreeBSD 4.9 is very competitive with Linux 2.4 (IIRC faster in some stuff, slower in others).
Exactly. Akamai saves ISPs bandwidth costs.
Think of how many windows PCs there are, how many GBs of service packs and updates downloaded per day.
If an ISP's customers download the stuff from Akamai clusters located in the ISP, that's much cheaper for the ISP than customers downloading it from Redmond, USA.
ISPs can and do use caching servers, however some stuff could intentionally be noncacheable for various reasons. The content owner then uses Akamai so that even if stuff is noncacheable, they still get what they want.
Why?
There are a few possible interpretations of your statement.
The sentence misuses disposition.
"It deserved to be chucked into the ashcan with the approach they did."
;) ).
See, that's exactly what I mean by not objective.
Others (including some reputable scientists) actually did claim to reproduce P&F's results or had at least some interesting results.
But with the P&F screwup and mainstream science pissed off, many reputable scientists had to stop investigating especially the younger ones who had careers to protect.
That's proof enough for me of nonobjectivity. I'm not really surprised it turned out that way, nor expecting it otherwise, just it's a bit of a shame and a waste - a pair of scientists may have discovered something interesting and screw up and delayed investigation of a possibly interesting area of science for years.
It's just like this bubble fusion thingy. This wasn't handled that badly so it's OK, but it could have been worse (and imagine if it happened during the notorious CF times
I don't agree that every point is equally valid - in fact I'm more inclined to believe that most points are invalid.
What I see is there's sufficient evidence (to me) indicating there is something interesting going on, and whether or not it is cold fusion is a different matter.
I mean look at heatpipes - no new physics, but it actually ends up very useful. So even if you don't get more energy, someone could think up a use for it esp if people understand it better (and can make it more efficient/effective).
The version iostat I have on RH Linux doesn't give you disk IO in bytes/s or MB/s. Have to work it out from the blocks/sec. Where the man says a block is of indeterminate size.
Haven't figured out how to use netstat or some other built-in command to check the bandwidth usage for each network interface. I had to write a little snippet of perl to do that. Any suggestions?
Seems a lot easier to do stuff like that on FreeBSD or even Windows 2000.
That's why you don't just rely on your security check software to tell you if something is fixed. You need brains and experience as well.
It looks like either your network minders or your security software need some updating. Or maybe just call someone else to do the security audits. What security software are you guys using anyway?
They can't label something 3.6 if it isn't 3.6. If it's a patch to 3.5 then they do stuff like labeling it 3.5-1.
Because 3.6 may have added features or changed other things. Software works with 3.5 could break with 3.6.
OR there could be software that requires 3.6 and can't work on 3.5, do you want to be the one to lie about the version?
I agree you for the cases when they keep the version numbers (esp the reported version numbers) the same. Maybe they have to keep some numbers the same because some other broken but important software relies on it being a particular format - e.g. "1.2.3" and 1.2.4 is already taken as next release.
BTW are you really sure about your OpenSSL version and code? Are you sure it means what you think it means?
Given that background? Not very objective - that background isn't even _focusing_ on the scientific stuff, more on P and F.
If some confirmed some parts and some other parts, it doesn't prove the phenomena isn't there.
It just indicates that it might be difficult to reproduce.
The scientific community did the equivalent of chucking the whole thing into the trash (including related stuff). Not objective.
Heck on the same terms I could say man-made hot fusion has been proven not to be viable - given the difficulty of reproducing "breakeven". BILLIONS and decades spent.
Yeah I believe both examples are valid.
That said, one has to know one's weaknesses and also look at the larger scheme of things.
e.g. if playing golf too often brings out the worst in you, you may have to consider either improving yourself (hard) or giving up golf for a time (maybe not as hard). It doesn't mean other people shouldn't play golf.
As for the larger scheme of things: if you are a famous evangelist, if you are wise and careful you may choose not to do some things that are actually OK. Apparently Billy Graham makes it a policy never to be alone in a room with a woman not his wife. Even if everything is above board things may be misconstrued or worse manipulated. Or not be a good example to others.
Lastly - if you believe in the christian version of heaven, it is likely all this physical stuff won't be around there (analogues may exist - dunno), whereas the people will still be. You can help bring people (friends, relatives etc) to heaven but you can't bring money etc there. Well even if you could eternity is a very long time to spend playing with money by yourself without friends. Eternity and imperfection don't go together very well. Maybe that's hell.
Actually since Christians believe in life after death, it doesn't make sense to say that only "interactions in the 'real' life" are valid.
Jesus said plenty about the thoughts being as significant as the deed. Look at a woman lustfully = committing adultery with her in your heart. Be angry with your brother = subject to judgement.
See: Matthew Chapter 5
In fact what Jesus talks about has become even more applicable as time goes on - technology exists to allow people to have virtual sex with each other without physical contact. Errant husbands can't say it isn't adultery coz it's not "real" by Jesus's terms.
With the brain chips they've tested on monkeys and are testing on the paralyzed, soon people may even be able to kill others without even moving a finger - just thinking about it would be enough. Previously you had to speak or press a key or click on a mouse.
There are only a few requirements to be a Christian - believe in Jesus and take him as Lord and Saviour.
;) ).
:).
But there are billions of different people out there with different needs and interests. And those needs and interests change.
Find a church where you can help and be helped.
As for idiosyncracies - in my church we stand to sing and sit down to pray. Since everyone is regarded as a priest - anyone can call for a song to be sung or choose to read a verse from the bible or pray. Except that women aren't supposed to preach/teach during the worship (but some of the sharing/prayers/verse readings sometimes get pretty close to teaching
Of course this method of worship may not scale as well for larger churches (you can't have thousands in the same "collision domain").
Also the "anyone can pick a song" makes it a bit more stressful for the musicians as compared to "led worship" where the songs are chosen in advance by a worship leader... But the musicians sure get pretty good
As for judging - let God do the judging of nonbelievers. You can actually judge other Christians, while necessary sometimes (for the sake/benefit of the Church), it is a responsibility I wouldn't take lightly.
Personally I think there's some interesting phenomenom in at least some of that "cold fusion" stuff (see the Wired article on it). Whether or not it is cold fusion, there's evidence that there's something interesting enough that's worth at least a few millions to be pumped in.
The hot fusion folk have spent billions so what's a fraction of that to investigate something new and interesting?
Sure Pons and Fleischman screwed up - but it seems like the scientific community was not very objective about it - rather emotional in fact.
"Increasing the cost of fuel makes the true cost apparant to the comsumer"
Reducing the amount of sunlight a tropical rainforest gets will wipe out many species and those that rely on them. Vast numbers will die off.
While polar bears and killer whales are marvels of efficiency there sure are a lot fewer species in terms of numbers and diversity in the Arctic.
I'm not in the USA but there are reasons why the US can sustain all those companies making silly stuff like USD400 yoyos, fringe plastic toys. Low energy costs is one of them - you can ship junk further and still make money - larger potential market.
Why is the US in Iraq? Why are they _installing_ some outsiders as Government? Why are they _actively_ creating chaos? They're not that stupid (they're arrogant though given the half-baked lies they spout - don't even bother to make up good reasons).
Cheap energy.