If Debian ran OpenBSD, this wouldn't have happened! Theo runs a tight ship over there.
I also think that Gentoo would have prevented this tragedy.
Not really. The vast majority of break-ins are through misconfiguration or human error. Gentoo, OpenBSD, nor anything else, can prevent these factors. I would be very surprised if this was due to a security hole or vulnerability. More likely someone wasn't secure enough with their SSH keys or something like that.
I'm not even sure how easy it is to rip music from a DVD
Easy. Heard of 'line in'?;)
Seriously, that's part of the reason why all these 'copy protection' things aren't going to do any more than stopping some people duplicating CDs - *someone*, somewhere on a P2P network, still knows how to use the line in socket to manually rip even copy protected CDs
Ah-hah! You appear to have forgotten, my dear fellow, that any MC related material published by Brook-Taylor is subject to extention, as specified by the cloud release of the 1986 MC comittee rules. Thus, I will pole-vault over Globe Lane with my steak fork, neatly ending in Greenwich. You now have the purple coin with the little hole (the one you can thread on a string for an ultra-fashionable necklace, and that invariably ends up in everyone's coin collection without them knowing how). If memory serves, that may force your hand in your next move. I await it with anticipation.
First, I'd like to point out that I've not read the articles, so I could be completely wrong... but:
I highly suspect that the Microsoft report ends up biasing towards Windows development in a variety of ways. This is just standard marketing practice. When you have someone with an interest in one particlar result directing a study, the study will, of course, be biased.
By the same token, I suspect that the study on linuxdevices.com is similarly biased.
The sad reality is that managers and suchlike are most likely to see (and believe) the Microsoft report, or more likely a tagline from it. The naive techies are most likely to see (and believe) the pro-linux report. The cynical techies among us probably secretly wish that the pro-linux one was true, but really know that the only studies worth considering are independant ones without any hidden goal.
If the GPL is proved invalid in court, then it's undeniably bad for the GPL as a general purpose license, needless to say.
So, let's assume for a moment that the GPL is valid (and I believe the general expectation is that it is). Any commercial distributor whom distributes GPL'ed programs or code has to be aware that the code they're distributing under the GPL may then be further distributed under the GPL. Two points to note here are:
That doesn't mean third parties can then redistribute the same code in their product under a different licence. If you release code under the GPL, anyone else doing stuff with that code has to keep it under the GPL
Releasing the code under the GPL doesn't stop you, the author, also releasing it under a different license as well. I believe this is something done by MySQL inc.
So anyone distributing GPL code should be aware that it will remain under the GPL. But don't forget, not all of a linux distribution is GPL'ed code! Things like the kernel are (which is where this arguement lies; if someone releases a patch for the kernel as GPL code, it will remain GPL code), but things like (e.g.) acrobat reader aren't.
One possibility is that some 'clever' admin has set the 'webmaster' user's home directory to/var/www (or whatever your docroot is) - Then, as well as easy access to the html files, the.bash_* files would be left there too
Seriously, though - multiple helicopters with onboard computers obeying simple rules could quite feasably do useful things like intelligently scouring disaster sites for victims, or evaluating the extent of a fire.
Of course, they could also all coalesce and become Skynet!:)
Someone will have a webserver running in a hovering helicopter... which we can slashdot, yay! Brings new meaning to the phrase "crashing the server". It's pretty impressive that the server's not crashed yet (even though it's not on the actual helicopter), seeing as it's offering avi's on slashdot.
Certainly true. Having a central server for one-on-one conversations is really, really sucky. Without having UPnP NAT boxes, or IPv6, teamspeak is the best solution I've come accross for making VoIP work over a NAT link.
I guess that still makes me a victim of the NAT world - all I was saying was that teamspeak is the best tool I've thus far found of this type to recover from being a victim:)
Just about voicechat - I've been using teamspeak for a while. It's client-server based, and it's pretty easy to make the server work even if it's behind a NAT (with port-forwarding).
It doesn't feel particularly hackey, and it's simple enough for my parents to use to chat to me in University.
True... but then again, why would someone change the HTTP header from an apache server running on linux to pretend to be IIS running on Windows? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
In that case, it sounds like the linux box is being a firewall or load balancer, and passing HTTP requests to windows servers behind it.
As for the AIX one, who knows what's going on there;)
You say that, but I believe that netcraft detects the OS based on responses to queries sent to the webserver.
Nmap, on the other hand, detects the OS based on the random-number sequence generation of TCP packets.
How does this affect things? Well, if you have a load balancer or firewall that forwards the HTTP connection to another webserver somewhere, then nmap will return the OS of the firewall or load balancer, whereas netcraft will return the OS of the final webserver.
Obligatory UserFriendly link
on
.NET for Apache
·
· Score: 1
The object of the game of Mao, if you play it right, is not to 'win'... there's no winning. If you complete things before anyone else, you rejoin the game.
The game is wonderful for two reasons:
1/ You are not told the rules; you work them out.
2/ The rules are never always the same.
Perhaps one place where it might be better to keep things secret it virus scanners...
If those of us who write such things could read the algorithms by which scanners look for virii, they could quite easily avoid those algorithms.
Well, it started with Star Trek. They invented all sorts of gubbins, and the scientists came up with the technology to make it happen (Well, some of it).
It looks, though, like the scientists who invent these things are moving onto something else... Namely, Discworld. Smell-by-colour was being done by werewolves such as Constable Angua long ago (Admittedly in a different universe)
the Specification is provided...for the sole purpose of reviewing the Specification for security analysis.
And later: Microsoft does not grant you any right to implement this Specification.
How exactly is "implement" defined?
Would it not be possible to use something like a packet sniffer, and watch a w2k client doing some negoiation? Then, you could be sure whether or not what microsoft made was actually what they claim to have made...
Then, you could pull a Compaq of reverse-engineering it with hints, maybe?
AI obviously has serious uses as well as the "let's talk to a computer" uses. One use that I've heard a fair bit about in science fiction books and the like is that of "intelligent agents", whereby you ask the computer in natural english [or whatever] (either typed or spoken) to find any sort of information for you, or perform any one of a huge variety of tasks. However, the way that information is represented is changing very quickly; first we had gopher, then plain old text webpages, then graphics all over the place, then shockwave/flash sites, and, no doubt, all sorts of new stuff coming up soon. So, my question is, how fast do you think AI will be able to develop? How long till the development of the "agents" will exceed the speed with which information methods are revised, or are we already there? How long till we can "train" our agents for a new information method within, say, a day? I'd like to be able to say "Find the page that was two links of a slashdot article last year that I was looking at that was about subject X" *grin*
On a related note, just for personal interest, is it better to design agents with the skeleton-work of intelligence (for example, inter-connected "neurons"), as in Creatures, and those cute lil' norns, or is it easier to specify a preset set of rules? I can see advantages in both approaches (adaptibility vs. doesn't potentially break, and user doesn't have to waste time training). Or would it depend on the situation?
P.S. Excuse someone who's not really looked into the field seriously for possibly dumb questions:) )
Slashdot Mirror
If Debian ran OpenBSD, this wouldn't have happened! Theo runs a tight ship over there.
I also think that Gentoo would have prevented this tragedy.
Not really. The vast majority of break-ins are through misconfiguration or human error. Gentoo, OpenBSD, nor anything else, can prevent these factors. I would be very surprised if this was due to a security hole or vulnerability. More likely someone wasn't secure enough with their SSH keys or something like that.
I'm not even sure how easy it is to rip music from a DVD
;)
Easy. Heard of 'line in'?
Seriously, that's part of the reason why all these 'copy protection' things aren't going to do any more than stopping some people duplicating CDs - *someone*, somewhere on a P2P network, still knows how to use the line in socket to manually rip even copy protected CDs
Ah-hah! You appear to have forgotten, my dear fellow, that any MC related material published by Brook-Taylor is subject to extention, as specified by the cloud release of the 1986 MC comittee rules. Thus, I will pole-vault over Globe Lane with my steak fork, neatly ending in Greenwich. You now have the purple coin with the little hole (the one you can thread on a string for an ultra-fashionable necklace, and that invariably ends up in everyone's coin collection without them knowing how). If memory serves, that may force your hand in your next move. I await it with anticipation.
I'll take the classic Klitch opening move of Waterloo. Anyone to follow?
First, I'd like to point out that I've not read the articles, so I could be completely wrong... but:
I highly suspect that the Microsoft report ends up biasing towards Windows development in a variety of ways. This is just standard marketing practice. When you have someone with an interest in one particlar result directing a study, the study will, of course, be biased.
By the same token, I suspect that the study on linuxdevices.com is similarly biased.
The sad reality is that managers and suchlike are most likely to see (and believe) the Microsoft report, or more likely a tagline from it. The naive techies are most likely to see (and believe) the pro-linux report. The cynical techies among us probably secretly wish that the pro-linux one was true, but really know that the only studies worth considering are independant ones without any hidden goal.
Zealots.
I believe you actually can get zealots on linux - Starcraft will run in winex if you ask it nicely.
;)
If the GPL is proved invalid in court, then it's undeniably bad for the GPL as a general purpose license, needless to say.
So, let's assume for a moment that the GPL is valid (and I believe the general expectation is that it is). Any commercial distributor whom distributes GPL'ed programs or code has to be aware that the code they're distributing under the GPL may then be further distributed under the GPL. Two points to note here are:
So anyone distributing GPL code should be aware that it will remain under the GPL. But don't forget, not all of a linux distribution is GPL'ed code! Things like the kernel are (which is where this arguement lies; if someone releases a patch for the kernel as GPL code, it will remain GPL code), but things like (e.g.) acrobat reader aren't.
One possibility is that some 'clever' admin has set the 'webmaster' user's home directory to /var/www (or whatever your docroot is) - Then, as well as easy access to the html files, the .bash_* files would be left there too
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these!
:)
Seriously, though - multiple helicopters with onboard computers obeying simple rules could quite feasably do useful things like intelligently scouring disaster sites for victims, or evaluating the extent of a fire.
Of course, they could also all coalesce and become Skynet!
Someone will have a webserver running in a hovering helicopter... which we can slashdot, yay! Brings new meaning to the phrase "crashing the server".
It's pretty impressive that the server's not crashed yet (even though it's not on the actual helicopter), seeing as it's offering avi's on slashdot.
Certainly true. Having a central server for one-on-one conversations is really, really sucky. Without having UPnP NAT boxes, or IPv6, teamspeak is the best solution I've come accross for making VoIP work over a NAT link.
:)
I guess that still makes me a victim of the NAT world - all I was saying was that teamspeak is the best tool I've thus far found of this type to recover from being a victim
Just about voicechat - I've been using teamspeak for a while. It's client-server based, and it's pretty easy to make the server work even if it's behind a NAT (with port-forwarding).
It doesn't feel particularly hackey, and it's simple enough for my parents to use to chat to me in University.
True... but then again, why would someone change the HTTP header from an apache server running on linux to pretend to be IIS running on Windows? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.
;)
In that case, it sounds like the linux box is being a firewall or load balancer, and passing HTTP requests to windows servers behind it.
As for the AIX one, who knows what's going on there
You say that, but I believe that netcraft detects the OS based on responses to queries sent to the webserver.
Nmap, on the other hand, detects the OS based on the random-number sequence generation of TCP packets.
How does this affect things? Well, if you have a load balancer or firewall that forwards the HTTP connection to another webserver somewhere, then nmap will return the OS of the firewall or load balancer, whereas netcraft will return the OS of the final webserver.
Userfriendly link, especially what Miranda says at the end :)
The object of the game of Mao, if you play it right, is not to 'win'... there's no winning. If you complete things before anyone else, you rejoin the game. The game is wonderful for two reasons:
. txt
1/ You are not told the rules; you work them out.
2/ The rules are never always the same.
I really can't describe it more... "No-one can be... told what Mao is. You have to see it for yourself"
The version we play is explained by example at: http://www.shelluser.net/~kwtam/puz/mao_cambridge
Perhaps one place where it might be better to keep things secret it virus scanners... If those of us who write such things could read the algorithms by which scanners look for virii, they could quite easily avoid those algorithms.
Well, it started with Star Trek. They invented all sorts of gubbins, and the scientists came up with the technology to make it happen (Well, some of it).
It looks, though, like the scientists who invent these things are moving onto something else... Namely, Discworld. Smell-by-colour was being done by werewolves such as Constable Angua long ago (Admittedly in a different universe)
the Specification is provided...for the sole purpose of reviewing the Specification for security analysis.
And later: Microsoft does not grant you any right to implement this Specification.
How exactly is "implement" defined?
Would it not be possible to use something like a packet sniffer, and watch a w2k client doing some negoiation? Then, you could be sure whether or not what microsoft made was actually what they claim to have made...
Then, you could pull a Compaq of reverse-engineering it with hints, maybe?
AI obviously has serious uses as well as the "let's talk to a computer" uses. One use that I've heard a fair bit about in science fiction books and the like is that of "intelligent agents", whereby you ask the computer in natural english [or whatever] (either typed or spoken) to find any sort of information for you, or perform any one of a huge variety of tasks.
:) )
However, the way that information is represented is changing very quickly; first we had gopher, then plain old text webpages, then graphics all over the place, then shockwave/flash sites, and, no doubt, all sorts of new stuff coming up soon.
So, my question is, how fast do you think AI will be able to develop? How long till the development of the "agents" will exceed the speed with which information methods are revised, or are we already there? How long till we can "train" our agents for a new information method within, say, a day?
I'd like to be able to say "Find the page that was two links of a slashdot article last year that I was looking at that was about subject X" *grin*
On a related note, just for personal interest, is it better to design agents with the skeleton-work of intelligence (for example, inter-connected "neurons"), as in Creatures, and those cute lil' norns, or is it easier to specify a preset set of rules? I can see advantages in both approaches (adaptibility vs. doesn't potentially break, and user doesn't have to waste time training). Or would it depend on the situation?
P.S. Excuse someone who's not really looked into the field seriously for possibly dumb questions