It may well be that this group is "starting with Minix" because that's what they know best. I have not looked into this to know how much of the code for Minix3 is shared with prior versions. But Tannenbaum et al. know it inside out, so for them it is probably the best sandbox for these new ideas. They may already have done some work, and that was part of their argument in the funding proposal.
My hero is G. H. Hardy, the number theorist who loved his field because it had no practical application. He would never have guessed that his concepts would be vital for public-key encryption and other things which are used by millions of people every day.
The whole idea is utterly futile, except possibly if the code or the concepts can be reused with another system later on.
That is exactly the point of academic research. Toy systems that introduce new concepts are rarely used widely, but the concepts are borrowed for use in other systems later on.
I'm curious: it seems easy enough to exclude other protocols by only including the DLL for Jabber, but is there a straightforward way to ensure that the client (as installed) can only connect to a certain server? (That is, the server that the OP sets up on his LAN.) A number of people have mentioned a similar solution using Pidgin, but with the same shortcoming. With the solution you describe, I can't log in to AIM directly, but I could log in to Google Talk, or for that matter, I could log in to a Jabber server which has a transport for AIM.
I know that the easy answer is the firewall; I'm asking about the Miranda client, specifically.:c)
The users are at workstations, chatting, and apparently accessing medical records. OP writes:
Transmission of Protected Health Information is a sensitive issue
Thus, the people chatting must have access to medical records, otherwise, this wouldn't be a concern. So the workstations have access to the server with medical records. OP also writes:
It is preferred that the client not support outside protocols such as AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc.
meaning that OP only wants users to chat using the service OP sets up, not with other services where they may have an account outside. This would only be a concern if the client workstations have access to the Internet.
The clients are on the same network as the medical record servers, and the clients are on a network that has access to the Internet. The two networks could conceivably be partitioned somehow, but they have these workstations in common, so it is by no means certain.
I've never tried it, but I don't know of a way to do client-to-client jabber, and I can't name any IM systems that do this (though they probably exist). However, one should easily be able to run the server program on any of the existing computers. There is no reason that you need seperate, dedicated server hardware to run a jabber server. OpenFire is written in Java, so it should run on most operating systems. Just choose a computer and install the server software, then aim each person's client at that computer.
If I recollect, that's how Eisenhower ended up in the White House. It took a lot to persuade him to accept the nomination for president, because he didn't think that the executive branch should be populated with (ex-)military.
The point is that YouTube does not want to serve the videos, because they lose more money in royalties than they gain in British viewings. They are boycotting the RPS tax.
This reminds me of The Machine, by Joey Comeau. It's a short story about a world where a historian has made a machine which records the position of every molecule on earth, continuously. One can go back and view historical events. It gets awkwardly recursive, though, when you go back to view times when you were viewing previous times.
Suppose, for instance, that you are trying to put together that thing you just took apart, and a spring flies off. You can't find it, so you rewind to see whether it flew off to the left or the right. At that point, though, you were looking at the video -- which was playing backwards -- of yourself taking the thing apart in the first place! How confusing could it get?
I think that most people choose to pay others to change their oil because, for new cars, it may be covered by a service contract they signed, and changing the oil themselves may affect the warranty. Aside from that, their time and cleanliness may be more valuable to them than the money spent for the service or the equipment (jack stands / ramps) to to it safely.
I do not think that the parent was talking about economic investment at all. They spoke of friends and pictures, meaning investment of time and energy spent identifying people and uploading content. A couple of analogies:
For social connections, imagine the US cell phone network before customers were guaranteed the priviledge of migrating phone numbers from carrier to carrier. If you switched your phone service, you'd have to go to all kinds of trouble to appraise your contacts of your new number. With Facebook, this is an even greater pain because, if you want your friends to contact you on the new network, you must persuade them to open up an account over there, as well.
For content, suppose you are part of an association that maintains a scrapbook about the events that are put on. Many people contribute to it, and periodically look through it to remind themselves of the good times that were had. One day, it is stolen or destryed in a fire. How many people will be let down because this resource is no longer available?
In both cases, there is a kind of investment very seperate from the kind of monetary and technological investment that you cite. This is an investment aggregated over a period of time, which would take concentrated effort to recreate, if it can be recreated at all. I claim that the investment of voluntary and not-explicitly-requested time is still very significant. To some people, it is more significant than money.
In any case, we are talking about things which are valued primarily by the user. Facebook may need content to do any number of nefarious things, but they couldn't care less about the particular content of any one of 99.999% of their users. If I could somehow delete the note I wrote last week in a manner to make it irretrieveable, they would not give a fig, because that note and the rest of the content I have added is replaceable by that of other users. On my end, though, if I choose to migrate to a new social network I must needs migrate that note – along with anything else I think is worth moving – to the new network. That is what represents my investment: The time it takes to recreate my presence in Facebook or any other network.
This is what I'm always saying! Growing up, arithmetic with sets always seemed so natural. There are so few symbols! Nothing but beauty in equations like
The first time I saw someone write out i + iii = iv, it threw me for a loop. When you get past eight, there were even more symbols to remember! I could not see why so many people were starting to adopt addition.
Sometimes I wonder if it really is an issue. If the post needs to be modded, I would expect that (at least 90% of the time) the other moderators will set the moderation aright. That's the whole point of a mass moderating system.
Fair point. I suppose that what I was latching onto in turbidostato's comment was his assertion that,
The reason [developers] didn't wanted ASAP patches is simply because *they broke things*.
And I trust that there are cases where patches were introduced in such a way that the developers' code would not even compile. I am not a developer and I don't have anedotes, so I'm just guessing. I did overlook the fact that broken security falls in that class of offenses. And I definitely agree that a more obvious failure would have been vastly preferable.
However, as I think about it, this OpenSSL vulnerability was not a Debian security update, so far as I know. When it was introduced, they were simply packaging up a new version of OpenSSL, same as when any other piece of software is updated by its developers. The package maintainer simply made an extremely unfortunate decision about the distro-specific patch.
The associated (high-priority) security update did not happen until 20 months later. And it did not break a thing. (So far as we know...!)
No, the current version of Ubuntu is "Jaunty Jackalope Alpha 3", and it can be found in the "Test Releases" section of their webpages [...]
How can you call that their current version? The only version mentioned on their home page is 8.04 LTS, and that is in the link to a press release. On their downloads page they list 8.04 and 8.10, and call the latter "the latest version".
There is no way you can call Jaunty the current version if it is linked neither from their home page nor their downloads page.
Slashdot Mirror
It may well be that this group is "starting with Minix" because that's what they know best. I have not looked into this to know how much of the code for Minix3 is shared with prior versions. But Tannenbaum et al. know it inside out, so for them it is probably the best sandbox for these new ideas. They may already have done some work, and that was part of their argument in the funding proposal.
My hero is G. H. Hardy, the number theorist who loved his field because it had no practical application. He would never have guessed that his concepts would be vital for public-key encryption and other things which are used by millions of people every day.
The whole idea is utterly futile, except possibly if the code or the concepts can be reused with another system later on.
That is exactly the point of academic research. Toy systems that introduce new concepts are rarely used widely, but the concepts are borrowed for use in other systems later on.
Type with your nose.
I'm curious: it seems easy enough to exclude other protocols by only including the DLL for Jabber, but is there a straightforward way to ensure that the client (as installed) can only connect to a certain server? (That is, the server that the OP sets up on his LAN.) A number of people have mentioned a similar solution using Pidgin, but with the same shortcoming. With the solution you describe, I can't log in to AIM directly, but I could log in to Google Talk, or for that matter, I could log in to a Jabber server which has a transport for AIM.
I know that the easy answer is the firewall; I'm asking about the Miranda client, specifically. :c)
The users are at workstations, chatting, and apparently accessing medical records. OP writes:
Transmission of Protected Health Information is a sensitive issue
Thus, the people chatting must have access to medical records, otherwise, this wouldn't be a concern. So the workstations have access to the server with medical records. OP also writes:
It is preferred that the client not support outside protocols such as AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc.
meaning that OP only wants users to chat using the service OP sets up, not with other services where they may have an account outside. This would only be a concern if the client workstations have access to the Internet.
The clients are on the same network as the medical record servers, and the clients are on a network that has access to the Internet. The two networks could conceivably be partitioned somehow, but they have these workstations in common, so it is by no means certain.
I've never tried it, but I don't know of a way to do client-to-client jabber, and I can't name any IM systems that do this (though they probably exist). However, one should easily be able to run the server program on any of the existing computers. There is no reason that you need seperate, dedicated server hardware to run a jabber server. OpenFire is written in Java, so it should run on most operating systems. Just choose a computer and install the server software, then aim each person's client at that computer.
Maybe nowadays, but this kind of thing is endemic to recent Windows versions; it was not as common in Windows 95.
If I recollect, that's how Eisenhower ended up in the White House. It took a lot to persuade him to accept the nomination for president, because he didn't think that the executive branch should be populated with (ex-)military.
The point is that YouTube does not want to serve the videos, because they lose more money in royalties than they gain in British viewings. They are boycotting the RPS tax.
This reminds me of The Machine , by Joey Comeau. It's a short story about a world where a historian has made a machine which records the position of every molecule on earth, continuously. One can go back and view historical events. It gets awkwardly recursive, though, when you go back to view times when you were viewing previous times.
Suppose, for instance, that you are trying to put together that thing you just took apart, and a spring flies off. You can't find it, so you rewind to see whether it flew off to the left or the right. At that point, though, you were looking at the video -- which was playing backwards -- of yourself taking the thing apart in the first place! How confusing could it get?
Yes, I admit to pirating films, but you'll be pleased to know that I bought Transformers on Blu-ray.
You're an example to us all.
$ cat query | sed -e 's/encryption/a knife/' | google-search
I think that most people choose to pay others to change their oil because, for new cars, it may be covered by a service contract they signed, and changing the oil themselves may affect the warranty. Aside from that, their time and cleanliness may be more valuable to them than the money spent for the service or the equipment (jack stands / ramps) to to it safely.
You must not live in Phoenix, Arozona.
And then there's Eclipse! The whole thing is Java, not just the GUI, and it is a huge IDE for developing...
Oh, wait.
I do not think that the parent was talking about economic investment at all. They spoke of friends and pictures, meaning investment of time and energy spent identifying people and uploading content. A couple of analogies:
For social connections, imagine the US cell phone network before customers were guaranteed the priviledge of migrating phone numbers from carrier to carrier. If you switched your phone service, you'd have to go to all kinds of trouble to appraise your contacts of your new number. With Facebook, this is an even greater pain because, if you want your friends to contact you on the new network, you must persuade them to open up an account over there, as well.
For content, suppose you are part of an association that maintains a scrapbook about the events that are put on. Many people contribute to it, and periodically look through it to remind themselves of the good times that were had. One day, it is stolen or destryed in a fire. How many people will be let down because this resource is no longer available?
In both cases, there is a kind of investment very seperate from the kind of monetary and technological investment that you cite. This is an investment aggregated over a period of time, which would take concentrated effort to recreate, if it can be recreated at all. I claim that the investment of voluntary and not-explicitly-requested time is still very significant. To some people, it is more significant than money.
In any case, we are talking about things which are valued primarily by the user. Facebook may need content to do any number of nefarious things, but they couldn't care less about the particular content of any one of 99.999% of their users. If I could somehow delete the note I wrote last week in a manner to make it irretrieveable, they would not give a fig, because that note and the rest of the content I have added is replaceable by that of other users. On my end, though, if I choose to migrate to a new social network I must needs migrate that note – along with anything else I think is worth moving – to the new network. That is what represents my investment: The time it takes to recreate my presence in Facebook or any other network.
This is what I'm always saying! Growing up, arithmetic with sets always seemed so natural. There are so few symbols! Nothing but beauty in equations like
{Ø} + {Ø, {Ø}, {Ø, {Ø}}} = {Ø, {Ø}, {Ø, {Ø}}, {Ø, {Ø}, {Ø, {Ø}}}}!
The first time I saw someone write out i + iii = iv, it threw me for a loop. When you get past eight, there were even more symbols to remember! I could not see why so many people were starting to adopt addition.
Sometimes I wonder if it really is an issue. If the post needs to be modded, I would expect that (at least 90% of the time) the other moderators will set the moderation aright. That's the whole point of a mass moderating system.
My bad! I must be new here.
Fair point. I suppose that what I was latching onto in turbidostato's comment was his assertion that,
The reason [developers] didn't wanted ASAP patches is simply because *they broke things*.
And I trust that there are cases where patches were introduced in such a way that the developers' code would not even compile. I am not a developer and I don't have anedotes, so I'm just guessing. I did overlook the fact that broken security falls in that class of offenses. And I definitely agree that a more obvious failure would have been vastly preferable.
However, as I think about it, this OpenSSL vulnerability was not a Debian security update, so far as I know. When it was introduced, they were simply packaging up a new version of OpenSSL, same as when any other piece of software is updated by its developers. The package maintainer simply made an extremely unfortunate decision about the distro-specific patch.
The associated (high-priority) security update did not happen until 20 months later. And it did not break a thing. (So far as we know...!)
I am not a Debian developer or maintainer.
That opened up a security hole, but it never stopped a computer in its tracks.
Browser + MP3 player + IM app = "oh, shit, can't open Email."
Hotmail + MSN Messenger + Office Live + Your Zune ;c) = still two local app slots open.
There, fixed that for you.
This is emacs, with JavaScript instead of lisp. Maybe the EU Commission could require emacs to be bundled, too!
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of virtualized Windows 7 Starter Edition workstations! Then I could get some real computing done!
I wonder how many applications Cygwin would count for on this hypothetical edition of Windows?
The current version of Ubuntu is 8.10.
No, the current version of Ubuntu is "Jaunty Jackalope Alpha 3", and it can be found in the "Test Releases" section of their webpages [...]
How can you call that their current version? The only version mentioned on their home page is 8.04 LTS, and that is in the link to a press release. On their downloads page they list 8.04 and 8.10, and call the latter "the latest version".
There is no way you can call Jaunty the current version if it is linked neither from their home page nor their downloads page.