Nothing's wrong with using anime characters. Or any other name for that matter.
I have a small network, like yours (four machines in the local area, one in my office at work, and my brother's machine which seems to have a habit of becoming a part of my network every so often). I find that a naming system works. I know exactly what each machine does based on its name. (I also was able to do this based on 3.5" floppy disks.) I even have my own pet names for servers at work ('starlight' and 'vengeance' are two of my favorites).
I'm kinda locked in this system though because two of my machines are nameservers and changing them isn't *that* easy.
The system we use in the office is that each machine has an identification based on its purpose. It's functional and easy to work with in a professional environment (not to mention more professional than having randomly-named servers), but it's not really as much fun.
For a functional naming system for over 2000 computers, you've got me. The local university uses a scheme which is computer lab ID-computer number (e.g. poe216-0001). However, it's not easy to identify the machine and whether or not its Solaris, NT, Linux, Mac, BeOS, or Dreamcast running NetBSD (:) ) without either going to look at the machine in the lab or consulting some high-and-mighty chart in a binder somewhere. But, I guess, for scalable naming conventions with many, many hosts, you lose the ability to have completely unique host IDs that can make sense or are readily recognizeable.
The media seems to be denouncing video games for all that is wrong with kids these days. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not.
Reading over what JonKatz has written here... I have heard every bonus that people get from video games before. In relation to other sorts of games.
Anyone here remember Avalon Hill board games? Especially Third Reich, Russian Campaign, or Panzerblitz?
For those of you who don't know, Avalon Hill was a company that made board games -- in particular, war games. These didn't just encourage independent thinking on the tactical or strategic level -- they required it to win!
Now, I've never heard anyone blame Avalon Hill games for anything...
The other category... Talking about controversial...
Dungeons and Dragons in particular. A discussion on why the media has always disliked it should not be necessary.
Role-playing games with people encourage the same thinking and independence as video games. This was actually proved in a study at some point, but I've forgotten most of the details. (What do you want from me? That was four and a half years ago that I looked it up...)
But the video games are lacking in one aspect.
Wargames and role-playing games also encourage social interaction. You have to have a live opponent in Russian Campaign, or three for Stellar Conquest. And role-playing games have to involve a small group of people. Video games support no such interaction for the most part. Your exceptions tend to be deathmatches in Quake or the like.
Yes, video games are nice. And Squaresoft's stuff is just awesome to behold. ("They can do that?") But give me the interaction in RPGs any day.
And, if you need me, I'll be planning next semester's Amber campaign. --CAE
When I found out that RedHat 7.0 was finally coming out, I basically shrugged and made a note not to go to sunsite for a few days. Now, I'll admit that I did look at some of the 7.0-beta packages, but was dismayed when I found out that I needed to upgrade my version of rpm -- and I did not see a way to upgrade it. (Admittedly, I failed to look in the 6.2 updates directory.)
I'm just going to go on what I have read here and heard otherwise... Apparently, gcc 2.9.6 has issues. Yes, most software has issues, but these seemed to be serious issues.
I'm going to wait on upgrading my version of gcc, it seems. Although my computer was initially an installation of Red Hat Linux (version 5.2, in fact, which had a buggy-as-hell implementation of GNOME on my box), I decided about the time 6.2 went into beta to move away from the rpm system software methodology. Now, if I can't compile the software packages I want to install, then I'm sunk.
I have to agree with those that say that Bob Young's letter was long and pointless. No, Red Hat is not Microsoft. Red Hat will never be Microsoft. It is impossible for Red Hat to become Microsoft without breaking the GPL, which most of the software for Linux is distributed under. It's just not going to happen.
And, for those of you out there who don't realize this, you don't need Red Hat to run Linux. Debian, Slackware, and SuSE are all alternatives if you want major distributions. Or, hey, go hit freshmeat.net for the tarballs and build them yourselves!
I just have a few questions: How long was 7.0 in beta? How many people tried to download the packages? And was gcc 2.9.6 one of the beta packages?
If gcc 2.9.6 was amongst the beta packages and there was a long enough review period, then Red Hat had no reason to use a different version of gcc if they did not receive bug reports or complaints. The purpose of a beta is to iron out the bugs before a gold release. But one cannot fix bugs that one does not know exist.
However, if gcc 2.9.6 was not within the beta packages, the test period was insufficient, or Red Hat ignored the bug reports, then complain, piss, and moan all you want for you are justified.
And, remember, everyone makes mistakes. If you want proof of this, look at some of the changelogs for the 2.4.0 test kernels. (Okay, maybe this is unfair, but it proves a point.)
Linux is an open source, free operating system. Most of its software falls under the GPL, which ensures open source software and whose developers choose to release the programs for free. It is impossible for any one distributor to gain a monopoly over it like Microsoft over Windows.
Linux is a movement; its user base supplies its voice. Yell loud enough and you will be heard.
Well, look at the Linux/Stoag computer virus. It does exactly what we're worrying about in exploit bugs.
Linux as an operating system is, in actuality, a lot more insecure than we'd like to admit. To prove my point, look at RedHat's Linux 6.1 Security Advisories page. How many of these packages were fixed to prevent root exploits? Five of thirteen. But look at how common some of these five are!
Malicious people can use lprof all things! Another famous example: bind. Or how about wu_ftpd? Those two, alone, are present alone on how much of the linux community?
Honestly, were it not for freshmeat.net, I probably would not have discovered the existance of the new packages. (I don't check RedHat's site often. And I don't signup for mailing lists either... So this is my fault.)
There are script kiddies out there who can manipulate the overflows in bind. (Please, for the love of God, if you haven't updated to bind 8.2.2_P3, go do so!) If a script kiddie can find a way to do that, then some coder worth his paycheck can probably figure out a way to have a program manipulate itself into root that way.
I mean, all some perverse (or highly bored) programmer has to do is write a program to manipulate those bugs to get root... And then run rm -rf/ to kill your machine. (There are, of course, nastier things one could do, but the less ideas I generate for others, the better.)
By no means, are we safe. Linux virii will eventually be created and released into the wild. (There are even some that claim that MicroSoft will be the origin for the epidemic.)
The only way we can keep ourselves truly safe is to catch security holes before the other side does and update our source packages before the attacks start.
There is a saying in network security: "One loose link is all you need."
Okies, people, let's say that David Smith is the creator of the Melissa virus. Well, he's got to be somewhat good of a coder to write the blasted thing...
The Melissa virus is not an evil monstrosity designed by a lone person to bring the information world crashing down upon our heads. What he did wasn't even *hard*. It's not like he had to break into military databases, bypass the incredible security, etc.
He let people do that for him, all thanks to Micro$oft. He utilized one of the primest of security holes. People. He did use their ignorance and trust against them, true, but it still took one person to blindly trust this suspicious document they received from an outside source.
And let's look at how the Melissa virus was done. It was a Visual Basic-written Word Macro. Written on Micro$oft to affect anyone who uses Micro$oft.
Macro virii are not new. In fact, they've been around for at least two years. However, unlike conventional virii, they're complete potential has not been explored. Each new development can, in a way, be paralleled to the rise of virii in the mid-to-late '80's.
Macros are a huge security hole in Micro$oft products. If you give me access to a Windows machine, and only give me access to Word because you don't want me to use anything else, I can easily hack together a macro to let me access command.com or anything else I want.
But no one wants to believe that.
Especially not the media. Hackers generally (and please do not confuse the term hacker with cracker) dislike the media, are in a sort of revolt from it. And the media wants to, well, to maybe exaggerate it a tad, own the souls of everyone it can. The hackers are a threat.
Threats must be eliminated. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Or else.
The Melissa virus has shown us three things. One, the media is evil, given the arrest of David Smith. Two, Micro$oft Office is one of the greatest hazards to a computer's security. (Micro$oft coders, please take note.) Three, macro virii are still mutating, becoming stronger.
Does anyone here still remember the big scare about Michaelangelo a few years ago? The Melissa virus scare was even worse.
But has the macro virii world truly found its Michaelangelo, or are we just seeing its preludes?
I'm not sure... Emulators have their uses. It depends on what you want to do though.
Case in point. 1. dosemu
This is an emulator, believe it or not. Yet I have never run into anyone who would call use of this illegal or promoting illegality. If I have a properly purchased piece of software, it's not illegal for me to run it under the emu, is it?
I think here, we really must be more specific in which *kinds* of emulators should be banned into oblivion.
2. This may sound daft to everyone else, but I'd love to have a TI-99/4A emu. Why?
Because TI BASIC and TI Extended BASIC are definitely a lot more fun than some modern programming languages (and anything done my M$ since DOS 3.3). (Also, remember, it took the PC until 1989 to match the TI-99/4A in ability, which was discontinued in '82 or '83.)
I know it's been done, but I'd love to know how it was done. And, besides, there are some fun BASIC games I still have the listings for... (Any one here remember the Home Computing Magazines?)
I do agree that most emulators released nowadays are to mimic the entertainment systems. (There is no way I'm going to call a Nintendo a full-fledged computer.) These emulators are based around being able to get the games to play, because those machines were specifically *designed* to play games. So, yes, these emulators do promote piracy, copyright infringement, etc. Yes, these emulators are illegal.
Yet, do not blanket condemn all emulators. Take into consideration the various types of emulators out there before you decide to toss them all on the proverbial bonfire.
And, if you need me, I'm going to be translating TI-99/4A programs for my PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing's wrong with using anime characters. Or any other name for that matter.
:) ) without either going to look at the machine in the lab or consulting some high-and-mighty chart in a binder somewhere. But, I guess, for scalable naming conventions with many, many hosts, you lose the ability to have completely unique host IDs that can make sense or are readily recognizeable.
I have a small network, like yours (four machines in the local area, one in my office at work, and my brother's machine which seems to have a habit of becoming a part of my network every so often). I find that a naming system works. I know exactly what each machine does based on its name. (I also was able to do this based on 3.5" floppy disks.) I even have my own pet names for servers at work ('starlight' and 'vengeance' are two of my favorites).
I'm kinda locked in this system though because two of my machines are nameservers and changing them isn't *that* easy.
The system we use in the office is that each machine has an identification based on its purpose. It's functional and easy to work with in a professional environment (not to mention more professional than having randomly-named servers), but it's not really as much fun.
For a functional naming system for over 2000 computers, you've got me. The local university uses a scheme which is computer lab ID-computer number (e.g. poe216-0001). However, it's not easy to identify the machine and whether or not its Solaris, NT, Linux, Mac, BeOS, or Dreamcast running NetBSD (
The media seems to be denouncing video games for all that is wrong with kids these days. Maybe this is true. Maybe it's not.
Reading over what JonKatz has written here... I have heard every bonus that people get from video games before. In relation to other sorts of games.
Anyone here remember Avalon Hill board games? Especially Third Reich, Russian Campaign, or Panzerblitz?
For those of you who don't know, Avalon Hill was a company that made board games -- in particular, war games. These didn't just encourage independent thinking on the tactical or strategic level -- they required it to win!
Now, I've never heard anyone blame Avalon Hill games for anything...
The other category... Talking about controversial...
Dungeons and Dragons in particular. A discussion on why the media has always disliked it should not be necessary.
Role-playing games with people encourage the same thinking and independence as video games. This was actually proved in a study at some point, but I've forgotten most of the details. (What do you want from me? That was four and a half years ago that I looked it up...)
But the video games are lacking in one aspect.
Wargames and role-playing games also encourage social interaction. You have to have a live opponent in Russian Campaign, or three for Stellar Conquest. And role-playing games have to involve a small group of people. Video games support no such interaction for the most part. Your exceptions tend to be deathmatches in Quake or the like.
Yes, video games are nice. And Squaresoft's stuff is just awesome to behold. ("They can do that?") But give me the interaction in RPGs any day.
And, if you need me, I'll be planning next semester's Amber campaign. --CAE
When I found out that RedHat 7.0 was finally coming out, I basically shrugged and made a note not to go to sunsite for a few days. Now, I'll admit that I did look at some of the 7.0-beta packages, but was dismayed when I found out that I needed to upgrade my version of rpm -- and I did not see a way to upgrade it. (Admittedly, I failed to look in the 6.2 updates directory.)
I'm just going to go on what I have read here and heard otherwise... Apparently, gcc 2.9.6 has issues. Yes, most software has issues, but these seemed to be serious issues.
I'm going to wait on upgrading my version of gcc, it seems. Although my computer was initially an installation of Red Hat Linux (version 5.2, in fact, which had a buggy-as-hell implementation of GNOME on my box), I decided about the time 6.2 went into beta to move away from the rpm system software methodology. Now, if I can't compile the software packages I want to install, then I'm sunk.
I have to agree with those that say that Bob Young's letter was long and pointless. No, Red Hat is not Microsoft. Red Hat will never be Microsoft. It is impossible for Red Hat to become Microsoft without breaking the GPL, which most of the software for Linux is distributed under. It's just not going to happen.
And, for those of you out there who don't realize this, you don't need Red Hat to run Linux. Debian, Slackware, and SuSE are all alternatives if you want major distributions. Or, hey, go hit freshmeat.net for the tarballs and build them yourselves!
I just have a few questions: How long was 7.0 in beta? How many people tried to download the packages? And was gcc 2.9.6 one of the beta packages?
If gcc 2.9.6 was amongst the beta packages and there was a long enough review period, then Red Hat had no reason to use a different version of gcc if they did not receive bug reports or complaints. The purpose of a beta is to iron out the bugs before a gold release. But one cannot fix bugs that one does not know exist.
However, if gcc 2.9.6 was not within the beta packages, the test period was insufficient, or Red Hat ignored the bug reports, then complain, piss, and moan all you want for you are justified.
And, remember, everyone makes mistakes. If you want proof of this, look at some of the changelogs for the 2.4.0 test kernels. (Okay, maybe this is unfair, but it proves a point.)
Linux is an open source, free operating system. Most of its software falls under the GPL, which ensures open source software and whose developers choose to release the programs for free. It is impossible for any one distributor to gain a monopoly over it like Microsoft over Windows.
Linux is a movement; its user base supplies its voice. Yell loud enough and you will be heard.
Well, look at the Linux/Stoag computer virus. It does exactly what we're worrying about in exploit bugs.
Linux as an operating system is, in actuality, a lot more insecure than we'd like to admit. To prove my point, look at RedHat's Linux 6.1 Security Advisories page. How many of these packages were fixed to prevent root exploits? Five of thirteen. But look at how common some of these five are!
Malicious people can use lpr of all things! Another famous example: bind. Or how about wu_ftpd? Those two, alone, are present alone on how much of the linux community?
Honestly, were it not for freshmeat.net , I probably would not have discovered the existance of the new packages. (I don't check RedHat's site often. And I don't signup for mailing lists either... So this is my fault.)
There are script kiddies out there who can manipulate the overflows in bind. (Please, for the love of God, if you haven't updated to bind 8.2.2_P3, go do so!) If a script kiddie can find a way to do that, then some coder worth his paycheck can probably figure out a way to have a program manipulate itself into root that way.
I mean, all some perverse (or highly bored) programmer has to do is write a program to manipulate those bugs to get root... And then run rm -rf / to kill your machine. (There are, of course, nastier things one could do, but the less ideas I generate for others, the better.)
By no means, are we safe. Linux virii will eventually be created and released into the wild. (There are even some that claim that MicroSoft will be the origin for the epidemic.)
The only way we can keep ourselves truly safe is to catch security holes before the other side does and update our source packages before the attacks start.
There is a saying in network security: "One loose link is all you need."
Okies, people, let's say that David Smith is the creator of the Melissa virus. Well, he's got to be somewhat good of a coder to write the blasted thing...
The Melissa virus is not an evil monstrosity designed by a lone person to bring the information world crashing down upon our heads. What he did wasn't even *hard*. It's not like he had to break into military databases, bypass the incredible security, etc.
He let people do that for him, all thanks to Micro$oft. He utilized one of the primest of security holes. People. He did use their ignorance and trust against them, true, but it still took one person to blindly trust this suspicious document they received from an outside source.
And let's look at how the Melissa virus was done. It was a Visual Basic-written Word Macro. Written on Micro$oft to affect anyone who uses Micro$oft.
Macro virii are not new. In fact, they've been around for at least two years. However, unlike conventional virii, they're complete potential has not been explored. Each new development can, in a way, be paralleled to the rise of virii in the mid-to-late '80's.
Macros are a huge security hole in Micro$oft products. If you give me access to a Windows machine, and only give me access to Word because you don't want me to use anything else, I can easily hack together a macro to let me access command.com or anything else I want.
But no one wants to believe that.
Especially not the media. Hackers generally (and please do not confuse the term hacker with cracker) dislike the media, are in a sort of revolt from it. And the media wants to, well, to maybe exaggerate it a tad, own the souls of everyone it can. The hackers are a threat.
Threats must be eliminated. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Or else.
The Melissa virus has shown us three things. One, the media is evil, given the arrest of David Smith. Two, Micro$oft Office is one of the greatest hazards to a computer's security. (Micro$oft coders, please take note.) Three, macro virii are still mutating, becoming stronger.
Does anyone here still remember the big scare about Michaelangelo a few years ago? The Melissa virus scare was even worse.
But has the macro virii world truly found its Michaelangelo, or are we just seeing its preludes?
Like we didn't already know this.
I'm not sure... Emulators have their uses. It depends on what you want to do though.
Case in point.
1. dosemu
This is an emulator, believe it or not. Yet I have never run into anyone who would call use of this illegal or promoting illegality. If I have a properly purchased piece of software, it's not illegal for me to run it under the emu, is it?
I think here, we really must be more specific in which *kinds* of emulators should be banned into oblivion.
2. This may sound daft to everyone else, but I'd love to have a TI-99/4A emu. Why?
Because TI BASIC and TI Extended BASIC are definitely a lot more fun than some modern programming languages (and anything done my M$ since DOS 3.3). (Also, remember, it took the PC until 1989 to match the TI-99/4A in ability, which was discontinued in '82 or '83.)
I know it's been done, but I'd love to know how it was done. And, besides, there are some fun BASIC games I still have the listings for... (Any one here remember the Home Computing Magazines?)
I do agree that most emulators released nowadays are to mimic the entertainment systems. (There is no way I'm going to call a Nintendo a full-fledged computer.) These emulators are based around being able to get the games to play, because those machines were specifically *designed* to play games. So, yes, these emulators do promote piracy, copyright infringement, etc. Yes, these emulators are illegal.
Yet, do not blanket condemn all emulators. Take into consideration the various types of emulators out there before you decide to toss them all on the proverbial bonfire.
And, if you need me, I'm going to be translating TI-99/4A programs for my PC.