Personalization of the learning process could also be achieved by software. They track learner's progress through the subject matter, identify weak spots and focus more on them. The role of the teacher would be similar to that of a coach - to inspire, motivate, guide and oversee the progress of the students.
But what would we call it? Moodle? No that would never work. And even if it did - who would use it?
[sigh] Yes, I was being sarcastic. Moodle does all that and more - not just in theory, it's widely deployed and used throughout the world. The wife of the world's richest (and allegedly) IT savvy guy thinks Ffffacebook solves the problem that has already been solved. There's your education problem right there.
There has never been a land connection to Australia since the continent broke off from Africa shortly after the KT Event,
Oh? A land connection from where? My understanding, which is far from complete, is that there was at least two waves on settlers prior to the first Portugese. The first wave did not bring the dingo with them (~40000ya), and arrived at a time when there was still mega fauna. They either walked and/or were washed there (Mount Toba). That migration made it to Tasmania and was later isolated there from the second wave of immigration.
The second wave which displaced the first inhabitants came from India, and brought the dingo with them (~4000ya). The dingo did'nt come from India (possibly Java, but it's closed likely ancestors have only been found in India). 4000 ya it was likely possible to wade, walk and take short raft trips from one island to another visible island between Australian and the Indonesian islands, and from there to the land to the north. Continental drift theory doesn't allow for that, but volcanic actions on the level of the sea bed might. It's possible that both immigrations lost the knowledge of boats capable of making long sea trips.
The closest islands in the South Asian Archipelago (which themselves have never been reachable by land) could barely see mountain peaks in Australia on a clear day.
I won't argue about how the first wave arrived - too much is theoretical. But you should reassess your belief about the route to Malaysia , and possibly to China via Taiwan - similar distances between islands and shallow reefs that could easily have subsided due to volcanic activity since. Most of the theories that support your belief are based only on sudden flooding of that area, it has a long history of volcanic activity and sudden water level changes. Even now you could get to Malaysia from Cape York without having to cross more than 50km of open water at a time (less it I judged the tides right and didn't mind tearing myself up on reefs - that's definitely swimmable if you're game). That's a journey that does not require a boat of a raft. It's not difficult to check what I'm saying.
BTW, dingos arrived only about 4000-6000 years ago, the original immigrants appear to have arrived well before dogs and humans began living together.
Agreed.
Do you know much about the genetics of the descendants of the indigenous Tasmanians? (the land bridge they crossed from what's now the mainland has been deep, open water for a long time). Do you know if any genetic testing been done of material left by the last of the full bloods?
the pacific has a north and a south cyclone of prevailing wind (and also an oceanic gyre if you're just floating with no wind). it's just a matter of what latitude you use for the prevailing direction
thor's journey is awesome, and we do find native american dna at easter island,
Agreed (to all points).
but the vast majority of the south pacific is austromelanesian.
Also agreed.
easter island's people came from the west, not from the east
Do you have a source for that please? I "suspect" they came from the North, or the East (not the West).
A strong, unique password (aka a secret) is the only thing that matters
A secret matters. A secret password is not the only thing that matters. The modern default for sshd is already protected against the attack in the story - I put the relevant default setting in the post you didn't read when replying id_rsa.pub is stored on the remote system (as ~/.ssh/authorized_keys) - the only way an attacker can have access to that is if they already have access to the remote system. If they have access to the system the game is already over.
Certificates are nothing but long passwords that people can't remember and thus need to store in plaintext.
Certificates are nothing but long and complex, far more than any password could be, that people can't remember so they don't make the common mistake of using weak passwords bruteforced by the attack in the main story (which only works if you've fucked with default sshd) , and thus need to store in plaintext if you stupidly don't use a passphrase
TFTFY.
If an attacker can read the public key stored in ~/.ssh/authorized_keys on the remote machine it's game over because they have access. If they have access it's still game over if you used a password.
If the attacker has access to the local system and you use passphrases to protect your ssh keys - it's still likely game over, just as it is if you use passwords only (because they can install spying processes).
The longer and more complex the secret string is the harder it is bruteforce - regardless of whether it's a password you type or one that supply by and encryption process. To say that one you type is more secure is just silly.
Claiming that good security is based on using authentication you can remember just shows how poor your understanding of security is. That's the most common failing - not a strength. Maybe if you read and understood Bruce Shneier's articles and forums instead of regurgitating sections you clearly don't understand, you'd have more credibility (you have none on his forums either). Why do you think Bruce recommends using encryption keys for authentication? (Hint: he's a cryptographer) Why do you think Bruce recommends people use a password manager rather on relying on the weakest link in the chain of security (the meatbag at the end)? He wrote a password manager for that reason. If you can remember the password it will be broken.
The problem is you don't realize what a password actually is in relation to security. [...]
You've posted the same sort of babble on Bruce's forum before - it's been debunked many times, you've been called out as a dangerous fool there. And I'll call you the same here.
Now there are two of you who have made all open source supporters look like raging assholes.
And the Year of Linux on the Desktop? Well, it'll be 2017 at the earliest now.
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Thanks for the wakeup call. I now realise I need to make some serious changes and I'm grateful for you lifting the scales from my eyes.
From now on I'll be devoting all my free time to only producing code for "Desktop Linux", and I'll strongly encourage all other Open Source developers to do the same. No more selfishly writing code to scratch my own itch.
There's a slim chance that you're not a troll and/or shill, and that we are not the only people in the room so...
I do read the angry rants of people who claim Open Source does not solve their problems, and bad bug reports - I never know when there may be some wheat amongst that chaff. Of course that does limit the amount of time I have to spare for dealing with useful bug reports, and to devote to actual development.
If you wanted to set an example you could respond in point form rather than just broad complaints.
If you really want to win the Desktop War you could start by defining Desktop
THis flaw isn't even a mild flaw considering nobody worth a squirt of piss would ever rely on passwords to secure any SSH - be that from microsoft, libre or open.
The majority of servers running SSH rely solely on username and password authentication.
Do you have an authoritative citation for that? I'm surprised that so many have deliberately changed
the sshd policy.
A strong, unique password known only to a single user is the most secure protection available.
Do you have an authoritative citation for that? And no, MOO is not authoritative.
Certificates don't add shit on top of that in terms of actual security.
Is a certificate what a cow calls encryption? Why would humans put "a certificate" "on top of" passwords?
The solution (if you don't haven't deployed port knocking
Those who settled in Australia were probably relatively skilled at boating already, or else they wouldn't have ended up in Australia. Thus, it could be the same group & niche at work in both continents.
Or, they walked across the land bridge that existed at the time they (and dingo) first appeared in Gondwanna.
Perhaps some went towards Gondwanna and some toward Laurasia?
I used to work for a company that sold large printers and vinyl cutters, mainly to sign makers and I can confirm that sign makers are particularly cheap when it comes to upgrading their tools.
I've dealt with a few signage companies. Yes they're often cheap bastards. The business I'm referring to are not - just very practical, there's a difference.
That printer and cutter cost >$28K (25 years ago, and apparently new version are locked down crap), which still works flawlessly, and meets all their requirements. When (if) the box that runs the controller software dies it'll be moved to a VM (built and tested a long time ago).
I'm all for change control and sane business expenditure decisions. Give me a compelling argument for changing software (don't fix what ain't broke in the belief that the replacement is perfect). Give me a compelling argument for investing money in any business equipment (it's an investment that must be profitable and most smaller business does not cost the ROI with money spent on computer hardware and software). Do cost training and downtime. In this particular instance the answer is no - buying new computer hardware brings no advantages - the peripherals already run at maximum speed and faster printing and cutting would bring no advantages (no one sits around while a job is running). Upgrading the OS would bring no advantages - the business was not stupidly trying to run everything from that computer, it is dedicated to the cutter and printer.
This is a business that has been in continuous profit for thirty years with a very healthy margin.
They use signage - not sell it. If you've been to trade show you've possibly seen their work - they design, build, and manage the installation of the custom stands for the high-end clients.
I'm all for "if it ain't broke...", but when it is broke, and every print run takes twice as long because your Windows 98 box takes ten minutes to reboot, and another five to load the required program and then has a 50% chance of crashing, that right there is a good time to buy a new computer.
Agreed, with several provisos:
if W98 takes ten minute to boot you should hold an Australian boot party for your IT. That'd be Idiot Talking, and, boot parties hurt. Managing the W98SE registry and swap file is not difficult or occult.
Image management and virtualization isn't difficult or obscure either.
On the other hand, the specialised software for these printers was so behind the times it still wouldn't support a 64 bit OS a couple of years ago, which is a slight problem when you're dealing with image files which can quite happily eat all 4GB of addressable RAM, so maybe they weren't missing out on much.
"These" printers? The printer and cutter I'm referring to use 16-bit controller programs - that's what runs on the DOS box. Currently that client is using 64-bit and 32-bit OS (Linux, OSX, and Windows). The software for the printer and cutter don't know what a font or image format is - just control instructions. The cutter has a very simple and open controller, the printer has a closed controller - the controller software uses an open format for input. The business produces images using any graphic program. Those images are processed by GIMP and converted to posterized images, which are then converted to print files for the box that runs the printer. At some point that DOS box will die and they'll switch to the VM version (which has been tested). It helps that a critical requirement of their business is never failing to have a stand ready (and perfect) for the opening of a trade show. Logistics, accounting and risk management are something the principals are very good at.
You have done a fine job indicating that many Americans cannot see past their shoelaces, and that you are an extremist fruit-cake nut-ball head-case that should be watched carefully. Why not actually do something useful, like run for office and kill Rider Bills, or educate young people that a race to the bottom is literally a race to the bottom, or better yet, learn that not everyone in the U.S. is watching TV. As for Waco, maybe you should learn that it the FBI does actual bad deeds everyday, but that was not one of them. Jimmy, is that you?
Having watched the English Waco documentary that will likely never be shown in the USA, and knowing a bit about the history of the FBI - I can only agree with part of one of those sentences.
Can't just be the recruiters. Someone above them has to either be actively allowing them bring people back in who have already been rejected three times before or they're just so disorganized they don't keep records on that kind of thing. Given who we're talking about that seems less likely, but you never know. I can see maybe bringing someone in a second time if the first on-site interview is a "near miss", but four times? That's just weird.
It's not weird at all. Google had 53,600 employees as of 2014, spread over 40 countries. No matter how good Google is at collecting data, it doesn't mean they have perfect records, or processes in place for employment.
I was working for them as a contractor some years ago when I got an email from one of their recruiters (she was in the USA). So they definitely are not all-knowing. I've spoken to her since (referred some people to her) - her job is just to scour lists and development projects looking for talent. It's not like she knows what vacancies are available, or much about the people she contacts - just their work. And she is one of many Google talent spotters. They have no way of knowing whether someone else has contacted you before or if you already work for Google in some capacity.
The phone interview I had was done by HR, not the managers of the area were I wound up working - that experience was consistent with many companies (HR are clueless).
Now you won't just have to buy other people's pee to pass your drug test, you'll have to buy other people's spit to get access to racist websites.
If you're paying for their spit you're doing it wrong. I was at a recent rally where the "white supremacists" were in attendance and it seems like sputum is their main contribution to society.
If they're the "supreme" the rest of us whites need to take a good long look at ourselves and ask why we work, can spell, and don't sit around in a pool of phlegm. Seriously - I saw a spitoon of them (that's the correct collective noun) standing around in a circle having a friendly chat before the rally, and spitting on the ground. Really - at first I thought it was a spoof, but no - they were fair dinkum about it (one even had his confederate tattoo on one skinny bicep). And they weren't even angry. If they were angry in a strong wind it'd be a mucal maelstrom.
TB. would be the death of them.
Some people pepper their speech with "ums" and "erms" - so do they, but they punctuate with a hawk and a spit. I agree they've been marginalised - just disagree that it's unjust.
I don't think you have to worry about needing to swab up their spit to get access to their "websites" (but use gloves if you do) - those pinheads couldn't run a bath let alone a secure website. Their "leaders" are a different type - I doubt they believe any of their propaganda. So maybe their websites'd be harder to hack. But if they used genetic confirmation for access control they'd have to exclude some of their membership.
As for whether it's good or bad - I suspect it's neither. How different is that from websites that confirm your economic status, some sort of membership in other groups, or identity? If the information is misused the problem lies with the person who stupidly put their genetic data up on 23andme. Once you give stuff away without license you lose the right to retrospectively determine how it's used.
The majority of Linux users don't use or need the remote features of X. They want a responsive and consistent GUI. Dump all that legacy shit meant for the days of thicknet runs and AUI transceivers. We don't have framebuffers and fixed frequency monitors anymore either.
Then the "majority" can run the system of their choice.
There are four major failings in your logic: you conflates users (at a keyboard and mouse, on a box they own) with instances of Linux; you overlook the reality of available choices by conflating a new choice with the removal of choices; you conflate the need for new with the necessity for everything old needing to be updated (plenty of 10+ year old software running in situations that don't need to change); you are ignorant of the nature of Open Source development - it's not just about desktops, and likely never will be. Nor is it just for those that use pre-compiled packages - that isn't likely to change either. And Open Source will likely never be compelled by the "needs" of "users". Impelled != Compelled.
tl;dr It's not about the majority - you miss the point of the Cathedral and the Bazaar. But I doubt you miss the point of a meritocracy, that's just something you hope to ignore or browbeat into disappearing (while failing to extrapolate on the consequences).
The good new is you can have your cake, and eat it too. But expecting everyone to eat the same cake and enjoy it are doomed to the same fate as demanding free cake made and baked to your specifications. That's why there's so many types of cakes, and not everyone eats cake.
What gets developed partially reflects the fact that if enough people want something some of them will get off their arse and develop a solution (though only a few will share it, and even less will change it to suit the desires of others). That's got nothing to do with the number of people that want that something - only that many (not most) of us want the same things.
For those who don't want this security nightmare on their systems, they don't have to install X windows.
Or Wayland. As long as choices remain, and they do, there is no problem - except in the minds of fanbois. I have no problem with the idea of replacing redundant parts of system architecture. The nature of all software development (with the obvious exception of qmail) is that if it gets enough use it develops to the point where it becomes easier to replace it than rebuilt it (of course the new style of programming and project development will stop that, and we may have flying cars soon). AFAIK no re-implementations spring from the womb full grown. As long as there's plenty of overlap between the old vanishing and the new having sufficient testing to be reliable there is no problem - unless you count those who are reluctant to adapt to change (and I don't). That's likely to be the case, except maybe for those that deliberately restrict their range of choices (shoot foot, boo hoo).
I'm happy Wayland is being developed - I'm just not ready to invest much time in it, yet. Most of the complaints about Wayland are just storms in a very small teacup (Ubuntu desktop users).
As for security of X vs. Wayland - it's a matter of context. Wayland is likely to be more secure because part of the design is to fix perceived problems in X. That's great. Learn from history. When I have compelling reasons to use a GUI I'll use X - until Wayland proves compatible with the features I need, in a given situation. No one's forcing me to do otherwise, and my use cases cannot be the same as everyone else's (I use Linux in many different situations - as do many who believe they only use it on a desktop). Seems sensible to me.
Basically, after this thread I have no further interest in Wayland unless it gets network transparency.
It's unlikely you'll have to worry about it unless you decide to run Ubuntu (Ewebuntu?).
My 2c - Wayland may be interesting for the "average desktop user" (WTF that is) and mobile phones. Some people that use Ubuntu say "debian package" and that get conflated with debian packages in Debian. Chances of Debian dropping X any-time soon are likely the same as those of X remaining usable (X's chances are pretty good as long as Keith Packard and Peter Hutterer live, and if they die there's always Ken Graunke, Matt Dew, Martin Peres, Peter Hutterer, Corbin Simpson, and Michael Larabel, and many others).
Thanks, Fran. You've just made the entire open source community look like a bunch of useless assholes once again.
No, Fran is just pointing out a fact. Would you like some cheese with that whine - or maybe milk and cookies? Many of the "users" of Linux are a bunch of useless arseholes - that's the nature of diversity. But no one forces that role on you, if you want change try looking at the other end of the finger as the starting place.
Guess what conflating the "users" (I wanna be a sysdamin - do it for me) with "the entire open source community" categorises you as.
And people wonder why The Year of Linux on the Desktop is always "next year".
Fail fanboi. Some people. Opinions are like arseholes.
You don't get the point of Linux - it's not to validate your choice.
You don't get the point of developing Open Source - it's not to serve your needs unless you are the developer. Regardless of your over-inflated sense of self-entitlement.
You don't get the point of choice - it's not reciprocal. If you use my code I owe you nothing - neither do you, but the balance is not unity.
You want freedom but you won't give up security - it's always a trade-off. You demand choice but won't take responsibility. You don't have to be, but you are an arsehole - fortunately not everyone makes that choice.
Even if you do submit helpful bug reports or fund development there's a difference between making useful contributions and commitments. Developers do both, most users don't even make a contribution (users with a silent "L"). Many are too fucking lazy to even read a man page - or search for an answer before posting to a list with a stupid question (lacking in information on what they've done, what they want to do, and why they want to do it). And no - whining is not a useful contribution. If you want a hug try hanging around the park at night.
You don't like my attitude? But yours is just peachy. "It doesn't like me - therefore it's fat, smelly, and will fail". Yeah, that's a winning attitude that'll gain friends and engender pity that won't turn to contempt.
BTW, G+ is for Google employees, tumbleweeds, and people who don't know they have a G+ account.
Funny...I'm not a Google employee and I know I have a G+ account - I specifically created it. I much prefer G+ to Facebook, etc and spend more time on G+ than any other social network.
Now, don't mistake this for Google fan-dom, I rarely touch my gmail account; and rarely comment on anything in YouTube. My main uses of Google are G+, Calendar, Hangouts (chat), and Search.
I'm no Google fan. I use Google+ for business accounts. It has a few nice features, and a lot of features I don't use.
The greatest feature is that the network is free of Ffffacebook users. The second best feature is that it works well to elevate websites in the SER of all search engines (if used properly).
The clients have an OS/2 box installed in each of their service (gas) stations. Everything runs on them, time sheets, inventory, ordering, POS, training systems, email, security monitoring etc. In their case it's been a very profitable investment.
Another client has a DOS box they use to control a large self-adhesive vinyl printer and a CAD cutter (self-adhesive vinyl cutter for signage). They made their money back many times over on the software and hardware investment - the hardware was particularly expensive and isn't supported by later OS. The printer uses a dongle licensing system, and the company that made it long since went out of business. When the time comes to replace the box (an enterprise HP with SCSI that may refuse to ever die) it'll be simple to virtualise. The printer and cutter are so rugged they'll likely last forever - the parts that do wear are easy to replace with generic components.
You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights.
Depending on the conditions, even that speed may be unreasonably high. Consider a narrow country road where your lights are the only major source of illumination. A cyclist may be close to invisible until you have a direct line of sight to any lights they have on and/or your own lights hit their reflective clothing, but they could still be moving at considerable speed towards you. And on a narrow country road, they may well be cycling in unusual road positions to avoid other hazards as well.
Even a motor vehicle going in the opposite direction to you could be hidden by a bend or dip in the road so you don't see it or its lights until relatively late. If you assume you're both travelling at similar speeds, then if you're both going so fast that you're at the limit of your headlight visibility, you're almost sure to crash if there isn't enough space to pass.
Agreed - drive to conditions. Part of those conditions are other road users, pedestrians, animals, the mechanics of your own car, and other things. Presume you can't predict what those things will do and cater for the lowest common denominator - that they'll do something that will seriously fuck you up and usually you'll be safe.
not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.
Or all the people off the side of that road who get blinded when the oncoming car swivels it's high-beam spotlight at them... I'm guessing (hoping?) they've thought of that, but I don't see how it will work if the road the attention-deficit automagically swivelling headlights is on, is higher than the side-roads.
Slashdot Mirror
Very nicely rude. Class insult. Well done.
A pleasure to meet you Pot. What a lovely shade of black you are.
Personalization of the learning process could also be achieved by software. They track learner's progress through the subject matter, identify weak spots and focus more on them. The role of the teacher would be similar to that of a coach - to inspire, motivate, guide and oversee the progress of the students.
But what would we call it? Moodle? No that would never work. And even if it did - who would use it?
[sigh] Yes, I was being sarcastic. Moodle does all that and more - not just in theory, it's widely deployed and used throughout the world.
The wife of the world's richest (and allegedly) IT savvy guy thinks Ffffacebook solves the problem that has already been solved. There's your education problem right there.
when i said the west, i meant, literally from the west of easter island, which would be what we call the eastern part of the world
sorry if that was misleading
No worries.
There has never been a land connection to Australia since the continent broke off from Africa shortly after the KT Event,
Oh? A land connection from where? My understanding, which is far from complete, is that there was at least two waves on settlers prior to the first Portugese. The first wave did not bring the dingo with them (~40000ya), and arrived at a time when there was still mega fauna. They either walked and/or were washed there (Mount Toba). That migration made it to Tasmania and was later isolated there from the second wave of immigration.
The second wave which displaced the first inhabitants came from India, and brought the dingo with them (~4000ya). The dingo did'nt come from India (possibly Java, but it's closed likely ancestors have only been found in India). 4000 ya it was likely possible to wade, walk and take short raft trips from one island to another visible island between Australian and the Indonesian islands, and from there to the land to the north. Continental drift theory doesn't allow for that, but volcanic actions on the level of the sea bed might. It's possible that both immigrations lost the knowledge of boats capable of making long sea trips.
The closest islands in the South Asian Archipelago (which themselves have never been reachable by land) could barely see mountain peaks in Australia on a clear day.
I won't argue about how the first wave arrived - too much is theoretical. But you should reassess your belief about the route to Malaysia , and possibly to China via Taiwan - similar distances between islands and shallow reefs that could easily have subsided due to volcanic activity since. Most of the theories that support your belief are based only on sudden flooding of that area, it has a long history of volcanic activity and sudden water level changes. Even now you could get to Malaysia from Cape York without having to cross more than 50km of open water at a time (less it I judged the tides right and didn't mind tearing myself up on reefs - that's definitely swimmable if you're game). That's a journey that does not require a boat of a raft. It's not difficult to check what I'm saying.
BTW, dingos arrived only about 4000-6000 years ago, the original immigrants appear to have arrived well before dogs and humans began living together.
Agreed.
Do you know much about the genetics of the descendants of the indigenous Tasmanians? (the land bridge they crossed from what's now the mainland has been deep, open water for a long time).
Do you know if any genetic testing been done of material left by the last of the full bloods?
the pacific has a north and a south cyclone of prevailing wind (and also an oceanic gyre if you're just floating with no wind). it's just a matter of what latitude you use for the prevailing direction
thor's journey is awesome, and we do find native american dna at easter island,
Agreed (to all points).
but the vast majority of the south pacific is austromelanesian.
Also agreed.
easter island's people came from the west, not from the east
Do you have a source for that please? I "suspect" they came from the North, or the East (not the West).
A strong, unique password (aka a secret) is the only thing that matters
A secret matters. A secret password is not the only thing that matters. The modern default for sshd is already protected against the attack in the story - I put the relevant default setting in the post you didn't read when replying id_rsa.pub is stored on the remote system (as ~/.ssh/authorized_keys) - the only way an attacker can have access to that is if they already have access to the remote system. If they have access to the system the game is already over.
Certificates are nothing but long passwords that people can't remember and thus need to store in plaintext.
Certificates are nothing but long and complex, far more than any password could be, that people can't remember so they don't make the common mistake of using weak passwords bruteforced by the attack in the main story (which only works if you've fucked with default sshd) , and thus need to store in plaintext if you stupidly don't use a passphrase
TFTFY.
If an attacker can read the public key stored in ~/.ssh/authorized_keys on the remote machine it's game over because they have access. If they have access it's still game over if you used a password.
If the attacker has access to the local system and you use passphrases to protect your ssh keys - it's still likely game over, just as it is if you use passwords only (because they can install spying processes).
The longer and more complex the secret string is the harder it is bruteforce - regardless of whether it's a password you type or one that supply by and encryption process. To say that one you type is more secure is just silly.
Claiming that good security is based on using authentication you can remember just shows how poor your understanding of security is. That's the most common failing - not a strength. Maybe if you read and understood Bruce Shneier's articles and forums instead of regurgitating sections you clearly don't understand, you'd have more credibility (you have none on his forums either).
Why do you think Bruce recommends using encryption keys for authentication? (Hint: he's a cryptographer)
Why do you think Bruce recommends people use a password manager rather on relying on the weakest link in the chain of security (the meatbag at the end)? He wrote a password manager for that reason. If you can remember the password it will be broken.
The problem is you don't realize what a password actually is in relation to security. [...]
You've posted the same sort of babble on Bruce's forum before - it's been debunked many times, you've been called out as a dangerous fool there. And I'll call you the same here.
Dear coward
Now there are two of you who have made all open source supporters look like raging assholes.
And the Year of Linux on the Desktop? Well, it'll be 2017 at the earliest now.
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Thanks for the wakeup call. I now realise I need to make some serious changes and I'm grateful for you lifting the scales from my eyes.
From now on I'll be devoting all my free time to only producing code for "Desktop Linux", and I'll strongly encourage all other Open Source developers to do the same. No more selfishly writing code to scratch my own itch.
There's a slim chance that you're not a troll and/or shill, and that we are not the only people in the room so...
THis flaw isn't even a mild flaw considering nobody worth a squirt of piss would ever rely on passwords to secure any SSH - be that from microsoft, libre or open.
The majority of servers running SSH rely solely on username and password authentication.
Do you have an authoritative citation for that? I'm surprised that so many have deliberately changed
the sshd policy.
A strong, unique password known only to a single user is the most secure protection available.
Do you have an authoritative citation for that?
And no, MOO is not authoritative.
Certificates don't add shit on top of that in terms of actual security.
Is a certificate what a cow calls encryption? Why would humans put "a certificate" "on top of" passwords?
The solution (if you don't haven't deployed port knocking
I hope the revival brings back their edge.
Likewise - though I hope it doesn't include all the same actors, not that they weren't OK all those years ago.
they got to south america
it's just a matter of trusting your life to the winds
Are you sure you have that the correct way around? Kon Tiki - From South America to the Pacific Islands.
Noted that journeys were made from the Pacific Islands to other countries. New Zealand is a case in point.
Those who settled in Australia were probably relatively skilled at boating already, or else they wouldn't have ended up in Australia. Thus, it could be the same group & niche at work in both continents.
Or, they walked across the land bridge that existed at the time they (and dingo) first appeared in Gondwanna.
Perhaps some went towards Gondwanna and some toward Laurasia?
I used to work for a company that sold large printers and vinyl cutters, mainly to sign makers and I can confirm that sign makers are particularly cheap when it comes to upgrading their tools.
I've dealt with a few signage companies. Yes they're often cheap bastards. The business I'm referring to are not - just very practical, there's a difference.
That printer and cutter cost >$28K (25 years ago, and apparently new version are locked down crap), which still works flawlessly, and meets all their requirements. When (if) the box that runs the controller software dies it'll be moved to a VM (built and tested a long time ago).
I'm all for change control and sane business expenditure decisions. Give me a compelling argument for changing software (don't fix what ain't broke in the belief that the replacement is perfect). Give me a compelling argument for investing money in any business equipment (it's an investment that must be profitable and most smaller business does not cost the ROI with money spent on computer hardware and software). Do cost training and downtime. In this particular instance the answer is no - buying new computer hardware brings no advantages - the peripherals already run at maximum speed and faster printing and cutting would bring no advantages (no one sits around while a job is running). Upgrading the OS would bring no advantages - the business was not stupidly trying to run everything from that computer, it is dedicated to the cutter and printer.
This is a business that has been in continuous profit for thirty years with a very healthy margin.
They use signage - not sell it. If you've been to trade show you've possibly seen their work - they design, build, and manage the installation of the custom stands for the high-end clients.
I'm all for "if it ain't broke...", but when it is broke, and every print run takes twice as long because your Windows 98 box takes ten minutes to reboot, and another five to load the required program and then has a 50% chance of crashing, that right there is a good time to buy a new computer.
Agreed, with several provisos:
Managing the W98SE registry and swap file is not difficult or occult.
On the other hand, the specialised software for these printers was so behind the times it still wouldn't support a 64 bit OS a couple of years ago, which is a slight problem when you're dealing with image files which can quite happily eat all 4GB of addressable RAM, so maybe they weren't missing out on much.
"These" printers? The printer and cutter I'm referring to use 16-bit controller programs - that's what runs on the DOS box. Currently that client is using 64-bit and 32-bit OS (Linux, OSX, and Windows). The software for the printer and cutter don't know what a font or image format is - just control instructions. The cutter has a very simple and open controller, the printer has a closed controller - the controller software uses an open format for input. The business produces images using any graphic program. Those images are processed by GIMP and converted to posterized images, which are then converted to print files for the box that runs the printer.
At some point that DOS box will die and they'll switch to the VM version (which has been tested). It helps that a critical requirement of their business is never failing to have a stand ready (and perfect) for the opening of a trade show. Logistics, accounting and risk management are something the principals are very good at.
You have done a fine job indicating that many Americans cannot see past their shoelaces, and that you are an extremist fruit-cake nut-ball head-case that should be watched carefully. Why not actually do something useful, like run for office and kill Rider Bills, or educate young people that a race to the bottom is literally a race to the bottom, or better yet, learn that not everyone in the U.S. is watching TV. As for Waco, maybe you should learn that it the FBI does actual bad deeds everyday, but that was not one of them. Jimmy, is that you?
Having watched the English Waco documentary that will likely never be shown in the USA, and knowing a bit about the history of the FBI - I can only agree with part of one of those sentences.
Can't just be the recruiters. Someone above them has to either be actively allowing them bring people back in who have already been rejected three times before or they're just so disorganized they don't keep records on that kind of thing. Given who we're talking about that seems less likely, but you never know. I can see maybe bringing someone in a second time if the first on-site interview is a "near miss", but four times? That's just weird.
It's not weird at all. Google had 53,600 employees as of 2014, spread over 40 countries. No matter how good Google is at collecting data, it doesn't mean they have perfect records, or processes in place for employment.
I was working for them as a contractor some years ago when I got an email from one of their recruiters (she was in the USA). So they definitely are not all-knowing. I've spoken to her since (referred some people to her) - her job is just to scour lists and development projects looking for talent. It's not like she knows what vacancies are available, or much about the people she contacts - just their work. And she is one of many Google talent spotters. They have no way of knowing whether someone else has contacted you before or if you already work for Google in some capacity.
The phone interview I had was done by HR, not the managers of the area were I wound up working - that experience was consistent with many companies (HR are clueless).
Now you won't just have to buy other people's pee to pass your drug test, you'll have to buy other people's spit to get access to racist websites.
If you're paying for their spit you're doing it wrong. I was at a recent rally where the "white supremacists" were in attendance and it seems like sputum is their main contribution to society.
If they're the "supreme" the rest of us whites need to take a good long look at ourselves and ask why we work, can spell, and don't sit around in a pool of phlegm. Seriously - I saw a spitoon of them (that's the correct collective noun) standing around in a circle having a friendly chat before the rally, and spitting on the ground. Really - at first I thought it was a spoof, but no - they were fair dinkum about it (one even had his confederate tattoo on one skinny bicep). And they weren't even angry. If they were angry in a strong wind it'd be a mucal maelstrom.
TB. would be the death of them.
Some people pepper their speech with "ums" and "erms" - so do they, but they punctuate with a hawk and a spit. I agree they've been marginalised - just disagree that it's unjust.
I don't think you have to worry about needing to swab up their spit to get access to their "websites" (but use gloves if you do) - those pinheads couldn't run a bath let alone a secure website. Their "leaders" are a different type - I doubt they believe any of their propaganda. So maybe their websites'd be harder to hack. But if they used genetic confirmation for access control they'd have to exclude some of their membership.
As for whether it's good or bad - I suspect it's neither. How different is that from websites that confirm your economic status, some sort of membership in other groups, or identity? If the information is misused the problem lies with the person who stupidly put their genetic data up on 23andme. Once you give stuff away without license you lose the right to retrospectively determine how it's used.
The majority of Linux users don't use or need the remote features of X. They want a responsive and consistent GUI. Dump all that legacy shit meant for the days of thicknet runs and AUI transceivers. We don't have framebuffers and fixed frequency monitors anymore either.
Then the "majority" can run the system of their choice.
There are four major failings in your logic: you conflates users (at a keyboard and mouse, on a box they own) with instances of Linux; you overlook the reality of available choices by conflating a new choice with the removal of choices; you conflate the need for new with the necessity for everything old needing to be updated (plenty of 10+ year old software running in situations that don't need to change); you are ignorant of the nature of Open Source development - it's not just about desktops, and likely never will be. Nor is it just for those that use pre-compiled packages - that isn't likely to change either. And Open Source will likely never be compelled by the "needs" of "users". Impelled != Compelled.
tl;dr It's not about the majority - you miss the point of the Cathedral and the Bazaar. But I doubt you miss the point of a meritocracy, that's just something you hope to ignore or browbeat into disappearing (while failing to extrapolate on the consequences).
The good new is you can have your cake, and eat it too. But expecting everyone to eat the same cake and enjoy it are doomed to the same fate as demanding free cake made and baked to your specifications. That's why there's so many types of cakes, and not everyone eats cake.
What gets developed partially reflects the fact that if enough people want something some of them will get off their arse and develop a solution (though only a few will share it, and even less will change it to suit the desires of others). That's got nothing to do with the number of people that want that something - only that many (not most) of us want the same things.
For those who don't want this security nightmare on their systems, they don't have to install X windows.
Or Wayland. As long as choices remain, and they do, there is no problem - except in the minds of fanbois. I have no problem with the idea of replacing redundant parts of system architecture. The nature of all software development (with the obvious exception of qmail) is that if it gets enough use it develops to the point where it becomes easier to replace it than rebuilt it (of course the new style of programming and project development will stop that, and we may have flying cars soon). AFAIK no re-implementations spring from the womb full grown.
As long as there's plenty of overlap between the old vanishing and the new having sufficient testing to be reliable there is no problem - unless you count those who are reluctant to adapt to change (and I don't). That's likely to be the case, except maybe for those that deliberately restrict their range of choices (shoot foot, boo hoo).
I'm happy Wayland is being developed - I'm just not ready to invest much time in it, yet. Most of the complaints about Wayland are just storms in a very small teacup (Ubuntu desktop users).
As for security of X vs. Wayland - it's a matter of context. Wayland is likely to be more secure because part of the design is to fix perceived problems in X. That's great. Learn from history.
When I have compelling reasons to use a GUI I'll use X - until Wayland proves compatible with the features I need, in a given situation. No one's forcing me to do otherwise, and my use cases cannot be the same as everyone else's (I use Linux in many different situations - as do many who believe they only use it on a desktop). Seems sensible to me.
Basically, after this thread I have no further interest in Wayland unless it gets network transparency.
It's unlikely you'll have to worry about it unless you decide to run Ubuntu (Ewebuntu?). My 2c - Wayland may be interesting for the "average desktop user" (WTF that is) and mobile phones. Some people that use Ubuntu say "debian package" and that get conflated with debian packages in Debian. Chances of Debian dropping X any-time soon are likely the same as those of X remaining usable (X's chances are pretty good as long as Keith Packard and Peter Hutterer live, and if they die there's always Ken Graunke, Matt Dew, Martin Peres, Peter Hutterer, Corbin Simpson, and Michael Larabel, and many others).
Dear coward,
Thanks, Fran. You've just made the entire open source community look like a bunch of useless assholes once again.
No, Fran is just pointing out a fact. Would you like some cheese with that whine - or maybe milk and cookies?
Many of the "users" of Linux are a bunch of useless arseholes - that's the nature of diversity. But no one forces that role on you, if you want change try looking at the other end of the finger as the starting place.
Guess what conflating the "users" (I wanna be a sysdamin - do it for me) with "the entire open source community" categorises you as.
And people wonder why The Year of Linux on the Desktop is always "next year".
Fail fanboi. Some people. Opinions are like arseholes.
You don't get the point of Linux - it's not to validate your choice.
You don't get the point of developing Open Source - it's not to serve your needs unless you are the developer. Regardless of your over-inflated sense of self-entitlement.
You don't get the point of choice - it's not reciprocal. If you use my code I owe you nothing - neither do you, but the balance is not unity.
You want freedom but you won't give up security - it's always a trade-off. You demand choice but won't take responsibility. You don't have to be, but you are an arsehole - fortunately not everyone makes that choice.
Even if you do submit helpful bug reports or fund development there's a difference between making useful contributions and commitments. Developers do both, most users don't even make a contribution (users with a silent "L"). Many are too fucking lazy to even read a man page - or search for an answer before posting to a list with a stupid question (lacking in information on what they've done, what they want to do, and why they want to do it). And no - whining is not a useful contribution. If you want a hug try hanging around the park at night.
You don't like my attitude? But yours is just peachy. "It doesn't like me - therefore it's fat, smelly, and will fail". Yeah, that's a winning attitude that'll gain friends and engender pity that won't turn to contempt.
BTW, G+ is for Google employees, tumbleweeds, and people who don't know they have a G+ account.
Funny...I'm not a Google employee and I know I have a G+ account - I specifically created it. I much prefer G+ to Facebook, etc and spend more time on G+ than any other social network. Now, don't mistake this for Google fan-dom, I rarely touch my gmail account; and rarely comment on anything in YouTube. My main uses of Google are G+, Calendar, Hangouts (chat), and Search.
I'm no Google fan. I use Google+ for business accounts. It has a few nice features, and a lot of features I don't use.
The greatest feature is that the network is free of Ffffacebook users. The second best feature is that it works well to elevate websites in the SER of all search engines (if used properly).
The clients have an OS/2 box installed in each of their service (gas) stations. Everything runs on them, time sheets, inventory, ordering, POS, training systems, email, security monitoring etc. In their case it's been a very profitable investment.
Another client has a DOS box they use to control a large self-adhesive vinyl printer and a CAD cutter (self-adhesive vinyl cutter for signage). They made their money back many times over on the software and hardware investment - the hardware was particularly expensive and isn't supported by later OS. The printer uses a dongle licensing system, and the company that made it long since went out of business. When the time comes to replace the box (an enterprise HP with SCSI that may refuse to ever die) it'll be simple to virtualise. The printer and cutter are so rugged they'll likely last forever - the parts that do wear are easy to replace with generic components.
Whoosh!
That'd be the sound of the wind whistling through your ears. But don't fret, by the time you reach puberty the wax build up will reduce that noise.
Yes. That means that even at 30 MPH (44 ft/sec), these headlights will only highlight things you will inevitably hit.
It also means that if you drive so fast that you can't stop within the range of what's lit by your headlights - you may well wind up fucking up.
If someone's excuse is that they're in a hurry - buy a fucking alarm clock and learn time management.
You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights.
Depending on the conditions, even that speed may be unreasonably high. Consider a narrow country road where your lights are the only major source of illumination. A cyclist may be close to invisible until you have a direct line of sight to any lights they have on and/or your own lights hit their reflective clothing, but they could still be moving at considerable speed towards you. And on a narrow country road, they may well be cycling in unusual road positions to avoid other hazards as well.
Even a motor vehicle going in the opposite direction to you could be hidden by a bend or dip in the road so you don't see it or its lights until relatively late. If you assume you're both travelling at similar speeds, then if you're both going so fast that you're at the limit of your headlight visibility, you're almost sure to crash if there isn't enough space to pass.
Agreed - drive to conditions. Part of those conditions are other road users, pedestrians, animals, the mechanics of your own car, and other things. Presume you can't predict what those things will do and cater for the lowest common denominator - that they'll do something that will seriously fuck you up and usually you'll be safe.
not to mention the thousands of lawyers looking for class action lawsuit money when it fails.
Or all the people off the side of that road who get blinded when the oncoming car swivels it's high-beam spotlight at them... I'm guessing (hoping?) they've thought of that, but I don't see how it will work if the road the attention-deficit automagically swivelling headlights is on, is higher than the side-roads.