You aren't being biblical enough. [Charlton Heston voice]
And thus the Lord, who is our God, the God of Israel, spake, saying " Woe unto him and unto his seventh generation, he who puts his window decorations on the left side, for they are an abomination unto Me. Thou shalt offer burnt sacrifices as guilt offering to atone for your sin and then henceforth always have your window decorations on the right" and thus it was written
Actually you do have the right to distribute your modified version of Firefox, you just can't call it Firefox I could say the same thing about Linux, if you wanted you could fork your own Linux kernel and modify it to your heart's content, you just can't call it Linux or use a slightly rotund penguin as a mascot. You are still perfectly free to use the code as you wish, you just can't use the IMAGE attached to a particular party's version of the code. That was the difference I was trying to point out.
Is is sad that the first thing that comes to my mind reading this is "huh, sounds like a problem from my parallel processing class"? Incidentally, I wonder what the parallel speedup is over sequential execution (i.e. just one poor bastard grading everything)? In your analysis please remember to factor in locking over red pens and doritos. Dining philosophers eat your hearts out!:-D (yes I still sometimes get handwritten comments on code I turn in)
No, the name and icon are not closed-source, they are trademarked. There is a difference between the two. Linux is trademarked by Linus Torvalds, but to claim that makes it closed-source is patently ridiculous. Trademark only means that other parties cannot use your brand to advance their own products without permission, aka diluting your brand. The fact that you can point to Libre derivative forks of Firefox disproves your claim that Firefox is closed-source.
But doesn't that eliminate one of the primary reasons of threading, that you can have multiple executable processes share the same memory within a program? Also, to have each thread keep its own copy of everything is extremely wasteful and stands a good chance of introducing concurrency bugs (e.g. thread A's copy of var foo = 3, but thread B's copy of var foo = 5, hilarity and core dumps ensue)
Android 2.1 has both -- proud user of a hacked HTC Magic running OpenEclair (the open-source version of Android 2.1 for the unassimilated, ps resistance is futile:-P)
[pedant] Technically speaking, you are referring to coal with the ancient trees reference, oil comes from dead plankton. obligatory Wikipedia link [/pedant]
I know self-replies are considered bad form here but fsck it. You are also aware that many if not all of the crypto-systems you use daily online are publicly known right? SSH, SSL, AES, RSA, PGP, _ALL_ of those are publicly known. All of them have been subjected to independent objective (aka peer) review. All of them have been found to be very secure.
So by independent objective review do you mean allowing other crypto-analysts to look at your algorithm and find ways to break it and thus weed out flawed designs? That's peer review. Trusting a black box crypto system is foolish, obscurity is NOT security; Microsoft's and Apple's security records are ample testaments to that.
so your response is to bend over that desk and try to enjoy the ride because theres "nothing you can do about it"...no thank you. Also, using peer reviewed crypto systems IS the smart thing to do, look up Kerckhoff's principle (link for the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_principle)
Some security is better than none at all....FALSE....as some security lends a false sense of security. There is no such thing as "good enough" in security. Take physical security systems for example, if you make sure all the doors are locked but don't bother with security guards or cameras, yes it'll work...until someone swipes a key or kicks in a door after hours...computer security is no different, complex passwords aren't worth a damn if they are being transmitted in cleartext. (naturally, the reverse is true as well, the most secure crypto system in the world is useless if your users use "12345" as a password)
Re:Ubuntu influence on marketing materials
on
Fedora 12 Released
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Im just being a silly git here but I thought Fedora's main competencies were being on the bleeding-edge, security, and virtualization. In fact, the release notes include a blurb about lowering a lot of process and file permissions to lock things down tigher.
Or...as an alternative, perhaps we could finally get off the oil schtick once and for all so we no longer have to deal with NIMBY-wingnuts or politically unstable/unsavoury despots, tyrants, and dictators from halfway across the globe. Just a thought...
One small problem with that feature request, how would Google securely store said passwords? (Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely)
Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage (using some form of cryptographic identification (eg private/public key pairs) would be nice but it would never happen (stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild)) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper, or leverage a botnet to do the work for him.
I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters:
1 crack some sap's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses
2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs
Not to troll here but refutations are in order...
Drivers - You are aware that most currently-available netbooks run on an Intel 950 GMA, which last I checked, has closed source binary drivers that break on recent kernels, right??? And don't even get me started on the state of wireless on Linux...
Games - There are plenty of people who like playing peggle and bookworm, both of which would easily be supported by the hardware in a netbook.
Photoshop - People don't know or care that their cute little netbook cannot properly run Photoshop, they will still want it anyways.
I might be off-base here but if I remember correctly, in one of the ssh config files, there is a section where you can specify what crypto systems your server would accept. That said, i never knew there was such a thing as "too secure", besides, these days a lot of chips include at least some hardware crypto functions to speed things up because crypto is so integral to online communication.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this just drives home how much suckage there will be if that were to ever come to pass.
You aren't being biblical enough.
[Charlton Heston voice]
And thus the Lord, who is our God, the God of Israel, spake, saying " Woe unto him and unto his seventh generation, he who puts his window decorations on the left side, for they are an abomination unto Me. Thou shalt offer burnt sacrifices as guilt offering to atone for your sin and then henceforth always have your window decorations on the right" and thus it was written
Now that's biblical
That may indeed be true but how many release-quality products do you think ship with that code turned off for performance reasons?
Actually you do have the right to distribute your modified version of Firefox, you just can't call it Firefox I could say the same thing about Linux, if you wanted you could fork your own Linux kernel and modify it to your heart's content, you just can't call it Linux or use a slightly rotund penguin as a mascot. You are still perfectly free to use the code as you wish, you just can't use the IMAGE attached to a particular party's version of the code. That was the difference I was trying to point out.
Is is sad that the first thing that comes to my mind reading this is "huh, sounds like a problem from my parallel processing class"? Incidentally, I wonder what the parallel speedup is over sequential execution (i.e. just one poor bastard grading everything)? In your analysis please remember to factor in locking over red pens and doritos. Dining philosophers eat your hearts out! :-D (yes I still sometimes get handwritten comments on code I turn in)
No, the name and icon are not closed-source, they are trademarked. There is a difference between the two. Linux is trademarked by Linus Torvalds, but to claim that makes it closed-source is patently ridiculous. Trademark only means that other parties cannot use your brand to advance their own products without permission, aka diluting your brand. The fact that you can point to Libre derivative forks of Firefox disproves your claim that Firefox is closed-source.
Shouldn't it be "++reading_comprehension" as I would assume you would want to increment the value before evaluating it?
But doesn't that eliminate one of the primary reasons of threading, that you can have multiple executable processes share the same memory within a program? Also, to have each thread keep its own copy of everything is extremely wasteful and stands a good chance of introducing concurrency bugs (e.g. thread A's copy of var foo = 3, but thread B's copy of var foo = 5, hilarity and core dumps ensue)
Android 2.1 has both -- proud user of a hacked HTC Magic running OpenEclair (the open-source version of Android 2.1 for the unassimilated, ps resistance is futile :-P)
[pedant] Technically speaking, you are referring to coal with the ancient trees reference, oil comes from dead plankton. obligatory Wikipedia link [/pedant]
You mean like this one did? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachi_worm
Only an idiot would want their desktop OS ported to a device that is clearly NOT a desktop device.
You mean like most people looking to buy netbooks these days?
I know self-replies are considered bad form here but fsck it. You are also aware that many if not all of the crypto-systems you use daily online are publicly known right? SSH, SSL, AES, RSA, PGP, _ALL_ of those are publicly known. All of them have been subjected to independent objective (aka peer) review. All of them have been found to be very secure.
So by independent objective review do you mean allowing other crypto-analysts to look at your algorithm and find ways to break it and thus weed out flawed designs? That's peer review. Trusting a black box crypto system is foolish, obscurity is NOT security; Microsoft's and Apple's security records are ample testaments to that.
so your response is to bend over that desk and try to enjoy the ride because theres "nothing you can do about it"...no thank you. Also, using peer reviewed crypto systems IS the smart thing to do, look up Kerckhoff's principle (link for the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_principle)
Some security is better than none at all....FALSE....as some security lends a false sense of security. There is no such thing as "good enough" in security. Take physical security systems for example, if you make sure all the doors are locked but don't bother with security guards or cameras, yes it'll work...until someone swipes a key or kicks in a door after hours...computer security is no different, complex passwords aren't worth a damn if they are being transmitted in cleartext. (naturally, the reverse is true as well, the most secure crypto system in the world is useless if your users use "12345" as a password)
[citation needed]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=tqT&q=--inurl%3A+porn&aq=f&oq=&aqi= 215M hits for porn, so you were saying?
Maybe Im just being a silly git here but I thought Fedora's main competencies were being on the bleeding-edge, security, and virtualization. In fact, the release notes include a blurb about lowering a lot of process and file permissions to lock things down tigher.
Or...as an alternative, perhaps we could finally get off the oil schtick once and for all so we no longer have to deal with NIMBY-wingnuts or politically unstable/unsavoury despots, tyrants, and dictators from halfway across the globe. Just a thought...
But I already have plenty of Japanese tentacle por...crap, can I have a do-over here?
But I already have plenty of...ummm...mp3s, yeah, that's it, mp3s....
I'd trust a local encrypted password file that I can import and export, but I wouldn't trust a third party with my passwords.
One small problem with that feature request, how would Google securely store said passwords? (Whether or not you would WANT Google to have access to your passwords is a different discussion entirely)
Presumably Google will password-protect your password storage (using some form of cryptographic identification (eg private/public key pairs) would be nice but it would never happen (stupid users either lose the private key or accidentally leak their private key into the wild)) but that just means a potential attacker needs to know how to use a password cracking tool like THC-Hydra or JohnTheRipper, or leverage a botnet to do the work for him.
I could see this becoming a major target for botnet masters:
1 crack some sap's password-sync using botnet to distribute lockouts over several hundred IP addresses
2 grab any banking or finance-related password pairs
3 drain 'em dry
4 ???
5 profit.
6 GOTO 1
Not to troll here but refutations are in order... Drivers - You are aware that most currently-available netbooks run on an Intel 950 GMA, which last I checked, has closed source binary drivers that break on recent kernels, right??? And don't even get me started on the state of wireless on Linux... Games - There are plenty of people who like playing peggle and bookworm, both of which would easily be supported by the hardware in a netbook. Photoshop - People don't know or care that their cute little netbook cannot properly run Photoshop, they will still want it anyways.
I might be off-base here but if I remember correctly, in one of the ssh config files, there is a section where you can specify what crypto systems your server would accept. That said, i never knew there was such a thing as "too secure", besides, these days a lot of chips include at least some hardware crypto functions to speed things up because crypto is so integral to online communication.