Looks like I stand corrected on a couple file formats, but docs on a 5 year old version of Word are useless. Unless info is provided for current versions of software, it's not documented IMHO.
The existence of a tool to examine source does not an exploit make.
My point stands.
Go ahead, run the tool on the 47 suid apps in redhat. If it finds VERIFIABLE EXPLIOTABLE PROBLEMS, then that's a good thing, and I will stand corrected. Until then, perhaps you should see a therapist about your anger. It's misdirected.
On my debian system: # find / -perm +u+s -uid 0 -ls | wc -l
27
And on Redhat 7.3, 42
Hundreds. Bah. Please do some research before you spread FUD.
Chroot apps are heavilly scrutinized for security issues. Many even give up root permission after doing whatever they absolutely need to do as root.
You would have to find a chroot app that had an exploitable buffer overflow problem to begin with. The virus would have to specifically be written to exploit that particular bug in that particular application. This is non-trivial.
From Semantec: "So far Symantec has not received any submissions of this virus from customers."
So how did symantec find the virus? Who had it? How did they get it? How is it spreading?
Many people have suspected for YEARS that virus companies manufacture viruses to sell their products. I'm not saying they are, but this smells VERY fishy. I'd like some answers.
It seems perfectly reasonable that they want to keep lead, mercury and all the other nasties out of their groundwater.
Hmm. Considering how much of the electronics being sent to china was manufactured there in the first place, it seems fair. Doesn't it?
Frankly, it would be a lot more cost effective to just create a massive dump in the desert in nevada. There is no ground water so no problems. It's silly to ship this stuff overseas.
Stereotyping again.... Yes, ALL Americans are politically right, and ALL canadians are left. All american's are for war. Not ONE of us can POSSIBLY be against it. Those anti-war protests you see on TV are just actors - it's a hollywood stunt paid for by the government in a secret plot. American's are all the same (melting pot.) We are mutt's. There are no ethnic communities anywhere. Everyone speaks english. Nobody speaks spanish, russian, japaneese, chinese, vietnamese, french, german, or any other language.
Give me a break, troll. You obviously know NOTHING about America or Americans.
Um, just use a very quiet fan.Don't go really small as they seem to make more noise. Search for one with the lowest dB number. It will probably have a lower RPM and less severe pitch angle on the blades (which means thinner too.) A squirlcage style fan can be very quiet.
I'm also confused about the "heatsink under the heatsink" comment. Do you have stacked heatsinks????? WTF?
On some old (Micron) pentiums, they were using Massive heatsinks instead of fans. You would want to make sure that the fins are oriented vertically. Have vent holes in the bottom and top of the case (heat rises ya know..) If you are using a really small case, you may need a fan just due to the density inside the box. The samller cases had problems with heat buildup.
Exactly. One only has to look at apps like acrobat reader, oracle, the java JDK / JRE, netscape, realplayer, etc. Anyone claiming that they can't develope apps due to fragmentation is full of crap. History proves this.
God no. What you do is shitcan rpm and go to deb's / apt where the dependancies are installed for you. What you are suggesting is that every app would contain the same libraries / etc. (their dependancies.) So I download mozilla, which comes with an extra 300M worth of libraries. Oh, I heard galeon is better. OK, Galeon depends on gnome and mozilla which depends on a particular version of glibc, etc and I have another 500M download, 300M worth being redundant. See the problem here??? Your dependancies are much of what is included in a distribution. Much of what you don't actually need.
So while your idea sounds good on the surface, it's not viable when you think it through.
I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done.
I'll conceed on a couple points. Windows has some apps that I like: visio for example. All the current structured drawing tools on linux SUCK big time.
HOWEVER: while some config options are "just a few dialog boxes away" and it's convienient seems nice for a quick little change, configuring something like Exchange through a GUI is a TOTAL pain in the ass. You also have some options burried in the registry that are not available through the standard tools. That's just not user friendly. What MS has done is sacrafice the command-line in favor of the gui which was a MAJOR bozo move IMHO. Give me a command line so I can script things such as adding 2000 mailboxes, 150 distribution lists, etc. Making wholesale changes across hundreds of servers or thousands of clients is MUCH easier with any version of unix. Period. It's an enterprise thing. Unix also handles the variable hardware problem much better (think having "ghost" images of 40 "standard" hardware configurations.) Patch management is another issue where unix wins due to scriptability. The convienience of a GUI becomes a liability as your network grows.
So for a very small network, I hear ya. The GUI is nice. Non-techies can maintain their own boxes (for the most part.) It just doesn't scale. Note that more and more Linux boxes can be maintained via GUI as well. RedHat 7.3 is quite nice in that regard - install is gui and maintenance is gui. The argument that Windows is easier because of the gui is starting to become a non-issue. For distributions / products like the Cobalt (Sun), it has NEVER been an issue since they were completely GUI since day one.
Hmm. What "unified linux" looks like to me is the reference base in which application developers need to test against. If it passes, the app will run on any distro that uses "unified" as it base (suse, turbo, etc.)
This is a good thing. This is what adobe, oracle, and others have been clammoring for. The lack of a common base is THE largest obstacle that application developers have been facing when trying to support linux.
Being open source, there is nothing prohibiting ANY other distro from supporting "unified linux" either. I would be surprised if RH, debian, slackware, gentoo, and others didn't join in the fun.
Competition will be in the form of add-on's and support - the "value add". RH has a number of products in their portfolio due to acquisitions of cygnus (gnupro stuff) c2net (apache stronghold) etc. as well as internally developed technologies and services (up2date).
Supporting "unified" is in EVERYONE's best interest.
Hmm. Maybe that's because redhat has traditionally enabled services rather than diable them. It also installs too much bloat requiring more to be locked down.The install is just too coarse - you don't have the fine-grained control over installs that's really needed.
I have been a long-time RH user and still use it (including 7.3) on a couple of my machines.
HOWEVER, I'm a recent debian convert. Debian rocks. Apt rocks. up2date is lame. Redhat is going out the door.
I don't know what UL is planning to use for package management, but I sure hope they consider apt. It's the best system linux has. "apt-get dist-upgrade" is just awesome, and you don't even need a super high-speed net connection to do it.
You also have to keep in mind that mozilla is not just a browser - it's a framework that can be used to develop multi-platform applications. Everything is done through an abstraction layer so you never touch the underlying OS specific way of doing things. Moz is so customizable that you can make it look and feel like a native app on virtually any platform.
The 900M / 2.4G freqs have too much crap on them now. I can't even use all the equpment I have now due to one interfering with another. Yah, digital, spread rectum and all, doesn't matter. Sometimes, simple tech is better. This is one of those times. Go FM 87-108.
Gourmet cereals? Ha! Now there's an oxymoron for ya. Fortune 500 running linux on the desktop? Metacity saved your business? Whoo boy... Whatcha been smokin? I want some.
Xinerama really needs both monitors to have the same resolution (docs claim it's mandatory, but it isn't.) I have a 15" flat screen (1024x768) as my #2 and a sony 21" at 1600x1200 as my main. While I have gotten it to work, it's buggy and you end up with "screen space" you can't see.
Multihead support in Xfree86 is lame, and needs lots of work. For programming, multihead is REALLY nice to have.
Of course it will work. I've done this before. Get yourself one of those cheap FM transmitters that transmits in the normal 88-107Mhz band (it's low power). I think radioshack even carries them (or they used to...) Searching google works too. Then get a cheap AM/FM "walkman". I have a freebee from some tradeshow that's only about 1/2" thick, 1-1/2" square, with a belt clip. Works great.
Sun spots... Good grief. They guy is going to be a few feet from the transmitter. All sources of interference except from his computer will be a non-issue.
The problem with the current scheme is patch hell. MS has service packs and hot fixes. What admins have frequently found is that hot fixes can break your system. Patches depend on other patches and service packs requiring a very specific installation sequence. Maintaining all these patches on hundreds of servers is a nightmare.
What MS does NOT do often enough is roll-up patches into a new service pack. The last service pack for Win2000 was over a year ago. There are DOZENS of patches since then. There is NO excuse for this.
Writting code that interprets untrusted, unknown code (HTML, javascript, etc.) in a secure fashion is HARD. I don't have a problem with the fact that IE has bugs, I have a problem with MS's attitude. I have a problem with "security by obscurity", and the response that the lack of security is due to customer demand.
I REALLY have a problem with outlook's vulnerability to viruses. MS's response to that has always been that customers demand the ability to auto-execute email content. Pah. MS has always shipped software with all features (security holes) enabled by default, requiring customers to do massive hardening of a new system (which most consumers and MCSE's don't have the brainpower to do.)
The statement is, and always has been "we fix what we know about, if it wont break too much other stuff".
Hmm. The problem is that they KNOW the code is broken, yet they are only fixing the stuff other people find. That statement is therefore a lie. To know that your code sucks and to do nothing until someone else find out about a problem violates the very essence of the "trustworthy computing" initiative. Why should we trust the software when MS says it's crap?
Dude, you are confusing "open source" with "free software". You can have an open source product that requires a license for certain uses. There are lots of cases where you have software that's free for eval only, or maybe personal use only, educational use, etc. Just because you provide source doesn't prohibit you from making money on it, restricting distribution, etc.
One of the problems we have today is the definition of "open source." Some people feel that it needs to have a GPL like license, others think BSD is OK, others think that it just means that source is available to anyone that wants to look at it. This variety of definitions causes much confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like I stand corrected on a couple file formats, but docs on a 5 year old version of Word are useless. Unless info is provided for current versions of software, it's not documented IMHO.
The existence of a tool to examine source does not an exploit make.
My point stands.
Go ahead, run the tool on the 47 suid apps in redhat. If it finds
VERIFIABLE EXPLIOTABLE PROBLEMS, then that's a good thing, and I will stand corrected. Until then, perhaps you should see a therapist about your anger. It's misdirected.
Hundreds? Not hardly.
On my debian system:
# find / -perm +u+s -uid 0 -ls | wc -l
27
And on Redhat 7.3, 42
Hundreds. Bah. Please do some research before you spread FUD.
Chroot apps are heavilly scrutinized for security issues. Many even give up root permission after doing whatever they absolutely need to do as root.
You would have to find a chroot app that had an exploitable buffer overflow problem to begin with. The virus would have to specifically be written to exploit that particular bug in that particular application. This is non-trivial.
From Semantec: "So far Symantec has not received any submissions of this virus from customers."
So how did symantec find the virus? Who had it? How did they get it? How is it spreading?
Many people have suspected for YEARS that virus companies manufacture viruses to sell their products. I'm not saying they are, but this smells VERY fishy. I'd like some answers.
...But the specs for quark, MS Word (.doc), framemaker, flash, shockwave, etc. are not.
It's the formats that are NOT documented that are a problem which is what this whole discussion is about.
It seems perfectly reasonable that they want to keep lead, mercury and all the other nasties out of their groundwater.
Hmm. Considering how much of the electronics being sent to china was manufactured there in the first place, it seems fair. Doesn't it?
Frankly, it would be a lot more cost effective to just create a massive dump in the desert in nevada. There is no ground water so no problems. It's silly to ship this stuff overseas.
Stereotyping again.... Yes, ALL Americans are politically right, and ALL canadians are left. All american's are for war. Not ONE of us can POSSIBLY be against it. Those anti-war protests you see on TV are just actors - it's a hollywood stunt paid for by the government in a secret plot. American's are all the same (melting pot.) We are mutt's. There are no ethnic communities anywhere. Everyone speaks english. Nobody speaks spanish, russian, japaneese, chinese, vietnamese, french, german, or any other language.
Give me a break, troll. You obviously know NOTHING about America or Americans.
Most catholic's practice. They just arn't very good at it.
:-) ] Piracy is bad in Islam but killing infidel women and children is OK. Right? Or am I missing something here...
(rimshot)
But seriously [
I don't think I will ever understand religious stuff.
Um, just use a very quiet fan.Don't go really small as they seem to make more noise. Search for one with the lowest dB number. It will probably have a lower RPM and less severe pitch angle on the blades (which means thinner too.) A squirlcage style fan can be very quiet.
I'm also confused about the "heatsink under the heatsink" comment. Do you have stacked heatsinks????? WTF?
On some old (Micron) pentiums, they were using Massive heatsinks instead of fans. You would want to make sure that the fins are oriented vertically. Have vent holes in the bottom and top of the case (heat rises ya know..) If you are using a really small case, you may need a fan just due to the density inside the box. The samller cases had problems with heat buildup.
Exactly. One only has to look at apps like acrobat reader, oracle, the java JDK / JRE, netscape, realplayer, etc. Anyone claiming that they can't develope apps due to fragmentation is full of crap. History proves this.
God no. What you do is shitcan rpm and go to deb's / apt where the dependancies are installed for you. What you are suggesting is that every app would contain the same libraries / etc. (their dependancies.) So I download mozilla, which comes with an extra 300M worth of libraries. Oh, I heard galeon is better. OK, Galeon depends on gnome and mozilla which depends on a particular version of glibc, etc and I have another 500M download, 300M worth being redundant. See the problem here??? Your dependancies are much of what is included in a distribution. Much of what you don't actually need.
So while your idea sounds good on the surface, it's not viable when you think it through.
I'll conceed on a couple points. Windows has some apps that I like: visio for example. All the current structured drawing tools on linux SUCK big time.
HOWEVER: while some config options are "just a few dialog boxes away" and it's convienient seems nice for a quick little change, configuring something like Exchange through a GUI is a TOTAL pain in the ass. You also have some options burried in the registry that are not available through the standard tools. That's just not user friendly. What MS has done is sacrafice the command-line in favor of the gui which was a MAJOR bozo move IMHO. Give me a command line so I can script things such as adding 2000 mailboxes, 150 distribution lists, etc. Making wholesale changes across hundreds of servers or thousands of clients is MUCH easier with any version of unix. Period. It's an enterprise thing. Unix also handles the variable hardware problem much better (think having "ghost" images of 40 "standard" hardware configurations.) Patch management is another issue where unix wins due to scriptability. The convienience of a GUI becomes a liability as your network grows.
So for a very small network, I hear ya. The GUI is nice. Non-techies can maintain their own boxes (for the most part.) It just doesn't scale. Note that more and more Linux boxes can be maintained via GUI as well. RedHat 7.3 is quite nice in that regard - install is gui and maintenance is gui. The argument that Windows is easier because of the gui is starting to become a non-issue. For distributions / products like the Cobalt (Sun), it has NEVER been an issue since they were completely GUI since day one.
Hmm. What "unified linux" looks like to me is the reference base in which application developers need to test against. If it passes, the app will run on any distro that uses "unified" as it base (suse, turbo, etc.)
This is a good thing. This is what adobe, oracle, and others have been clammoring for. The lack of a common base is THE largest obstacle that application developers have been facing when trying to support linux.
Being open source, there is nothing prohibiting ANY other distro from supporting "unified linux" either. I would be surprised if RH, debian, slackware, gentoo, and others didn't join in the fun.
Competition will be in the form of add-on's and support - the "value add". RH has a number of products in their portfolio due to acquisitions of cygnus (gnupro stuff) c2net (apache stronghold) etc. as well as internally developed technologies and services (up2date).
Supporting "unified" is in EVERYONE's best interest.
Hmm. Maybe that's because redhat has traditionally enabled services rather than diable them. It also installs too much bloat requiring
more to be locked down.The install is just too coarse - you don't have the fine-grained control over installs that's really needed.
I have been a long-time RH user and still use it (including 7.3) on a couple of my machines.
HOWEVER, I'm a recent debian convert. Debian rocks. Apt rocks. up2date is lame. Redhat is going out the door.
I don't know what UL is planning to use for package management, but I sure hope they consider apt. It's the best system linux has. "apt-get dist-upgrade" is just awesome, and you don't even need a super high-speed net connection to do it.
You also have to keep in mind that mozilla is not just a browser - it's a framework that can be used to develop multi-platform applications. Everything is done through an abstraction layer so you never touch the underlying OS specific way of doing things. Moz is so customizable that you can make it look and feel like a native app on virtually any platform.
Get yourself adzap and squid. Solves this problem.
You need a real proxy, like squid, running filtering like adzap. JB is pathetic.
The 900M / 2.4G freqs have too much crap on them now. I can't even use
all the equpment I have now due to one interfering with another. Yah, digital, spread rectum and all, doesn't matter. Sometimes, simple tech is better. This is one of those times. Go FM 87-108.
Gourmet cereals? Ha! Now there's an oxymoron for ya. Fortune 500 running linux on the desktop? Metacity saved your business? Whoo boy... Whatcha been smokin? I want some.
Xinerama really needs both monitors to have the same resolution (docs claim it's mandatory, but it isn't.)
I have a 15" flat screen (1024x768) as my #2 and a sony 21" at 1600x1200 as my main. While I have gotten it to work, it's buggy and you end up with "screen space" you can't see.
Multihead support in Xfree86 is lame, and needs lots of work. For programming, multihead is REALLY nice to have.
Of course it will work. I've done this before. Get yourself one of those cheap FM transmitters that transmits in the normal 88-107Mhz band (it's low power). I think radioshack even carries them (or they used to...) Searching google works too. Then get a cheap AM/FM "walkman". I have a freebee from some tradeshow that's only about 1/2" thick, 1-1/2" square, with a belt clip. Works great.
Sun spots... Good grief. They guy is going to be a few feet from the transmitter. All sources of interference except from his computer will be a non-issue.
That's ONE GROUP'S definition. My point stands.
Hmm. Insightful. Hmm.
The problem with the current scheme is patch hell. MS has service packs and hot fixes. What admins have frequently found is that hot fixes can break your system. Patches depend on other patches and service packs requiring a very specific installation sequence. Maintaining all these patches on hundreds of servers is a nightmare.
What MS does NOT do often enough is roll-up patches into a new service pack. The last service pack for Win2000 was over a year ago. There are DOZENS of patches since then. There is NO excuse for this.
Writting code that interprets untrusted, unknown code (HTML, javascript, etc.) in a secure fashion is HARD. I don't have a problem with the fact that IE has bugs, I have a problem with MS's attitude. I have a problem with "security by obscurity", and the response that the lack of security is due to customer demand.
I REALLY have a problem with outlook's vulnerability to viruses. MS's response to that has always been that customers demand the ability to auto-execute email content. Pah. MS has always shipped software with all features (security holes) enabled by default, requiring customers to do massive hardening of a new system (which most consumers and MCSE's don't have the brainpower to do.)
Hmm. The problem is that they KNOW the code is broken, yet they are only fixing the stuff other people find. That statement is therefore a lie. To know that your code sucks and to do nothing until someone else find out about a problem violates the very essence of the "trustworthy computing" initiative. Why should we trust the software when MS says it's crap?
Dude, you are confusing "open source" with "free software". You can have an open source product that requires a license for certain uses. There are lots of cases where you have software that's free for eval only, or maybe personal use only, educational use, etc. Just because you provide source doesn't prohibit you from making money on it, restricting distribution, etc.
One of the problems we have today is the definition of "open source." Some people feel that it needs to have a GPL like license, others think BSD is OK, others think that it just means that source is available to anyone that wants to look at it. This variety of definitions causes much confusion.