I'm a software engineer with LMTSS (Transportation and Security Solutions - the business unit that just won NARA). I don't know all the licensing details of this, but I know guys down the hall who are quite happily writing kernel modules for 2.6 to support proprietary hardware used in air traffic control systems we run on Linux.
To be sure though, not all is rosy and open source at LM... I'm currently working on a project that's being developed in a weird combination of C++ and Ada on AIX, using lots of wacky, expensive, definitely closed-source tools. No gnat or gcc for me... it's all Visual Age and PowerAda (which have the annoying property of producing binaries generally impossible to debug with gdb). I really need to look into moving to other projects...
I beg your pardon, but think about how all your favorite type-safe languages are implemented (ML, CAML, Haskell, Common Lisp, Scheme, Java, etc). These languages are all interpreted or compiled at some level by C code. Imagine how many programs will be affected when (not if, IMHO) somebody finds a bug in the implementation of one of these languages.
High level languages and tools are great, but you've got to realize that computers still only speak assembly. You can think about things at as high a level as you want, but any program has to be translated to something very low level to actually do anything at all. As long as this is the case, we will always have these kinds of bugs and exploits.
You really outdid yourself writing free for dummies.
According to the man page for free, when you call free(ptr), "if ptr is NULL, no operation is performed." Seems kind silly now, huh? I'll grant you, though, that your macro is appropriate for a dummy (as many would argue all macros are). The dummies using your macro will also be happy that you left out setting x to NULL, so that they can happily free memory multiple times and get segfaults.
UsePrivilegeSeparation is definitely set to off by default in 3.1 (I just got done changing it on my box). Also, PermitRootLogin is set to yes, so that's no help.
It's been good serving the IRC community for the last 12 years.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that no part of 1988 was 12 years ago. Either that first year must have sucked, or math isn't a big thing at the University of Colorado.
Maybe I'm picking nits here, but on page 3 of the article (the "Test Configuration"), the system's NIC is listed as "Intel EtherExpress PRO 10/100 - Realtek 8139b, PCI". That's just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a software engineer with LMTSS (Transportation and Security Solutions - the business unit that just won NARA). I don't know all the licensing details of this, but I know guys down the hall who are quite happily writing kernel modules for 2.6 to support proprietary hardware used in air traffic control systems we run on Linux.
To be sure though, not all is rosy and open source at LM... I'm currently working on a project that's being developed in a weird combination of C++ and Ada on AIX, using lots of wacky, expensive, definitely closed-source tools. No gnat or gcc for me... it's all Visual Age and PowerAda (which have the annoying property of producing binaries generally impossible to debug with gdb). I really need to look into moving to other projects...
...but liars always figure.
I beg your pardon, but think about how all your favorite type-safe languages are implemented (ML, CAML, Haskell, Common Lisp, Scheme, Java, etc). These languages are all interpreted or compiled at some level by C code. Imagine how many programs will be affected when (not if, IMHO) somebody finds a bug in the implementation of one of these languages.
High level languages and tools are great, but you've got to realize that computers still only speak assembly. You can think about things at as high a level as you want, but any program has to be translated to something very low level to actually do anything at all. As long as this is the case, we will always have these kinds of bugs and exploits.
Isn't that "flexible, bendable, super-reliable, utterly VIABLE, give-em-a-tryable?"
You really outdid yourself writing free for dummies.
According to the man page for free, when you call free(ptr), "if ptr is NULL, no operation is performed." Seems kind silly now, huh? I'll grant you, though, that your macro is appropriate for a dummy (as many would argue all macros are). The dummies using your macro will also be happy that you left out setting x to NULL, so that they can happily free memory multiple times and get segfaults.
Wow, somebody seriously needs to look into the Gnome2 backport to Woody.
According to Netcraft, slashdot.org itself is using IPs owned by C&W.
Saddam: "I wonder how close those Americans are... I know, break out the access points!"
...for hosting ftp.openbsd.org on a box running SunOS, not OpenBSD!
Shouldn't that be a number of publishers are suing, not a number of publishers is suing? Nice English...
UsePrivilegeSeparation is definitely set to off by default in 3.1 (I just got done changing it on my box). Also, PermitRootLogin is set to yes, so that's no help.
It's been good serving the IRC community for the last 12 years.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that no part of 1988 was 12 years ago. Either that first year must have sucked, or math isn't a big thing at the University of Colorado.
Maybe I'm picking nits here, but on page 3 of the article (the "Test Configuration"), the system's NIC is listed as "Intel EtherExpress PRO 10/100 - Realtek 8139b, PCI". That's just wrong.