AppleTalk as a living protocol suite is pretty much dead, and will be used in legacy environments only. As a name, it was dead even before OS X, when they came out with new streams based code for MacOS 9 which included AppleTalk and TCP/IP (so long to the hack that was MacTCP) and called it OpenTransport. Though it supported things other than AppleTalk, when it came out, it was such a breakthrough, there was an effort to brand all of networking OpenTransport and deprecate the name AppleTalk. They wanted to show of their new SYSV stream space, with a MUCH better implementation of TCP/IP.
The one great advantage AppleTalk had over other protocols of it's day was ease of finding things on networks. Broadcast packets to the one well known port that had a naming server allowed people to find devices without having to type in addresses or ports, that was all handled by the OS. OpenTalk/Rendezvous is a replacement for that, allowing browsing and easy discovery of devices/applications on TCP/IP networks. As such, replacing AppleTalk in people's heads is a worthy goal.
I used to be a ksh guy, but I went to bash. pdksh is ksh88. bash functionality is a superset of that. things like programmable completion, brace expansion, small typo correction (cdspell) makes it hard for me to go back to ksh. Yes, I know zsh is a superset of bash, but I never got into it, bash adds a little functionality without me having to change the way I think (evben though one could argue zsh is for the better). I find all thee not only useful, but essential, but as always, YMMV.
even outside of that, pdksh isn't perfect, and it has it's quirks. Think about pdksh as not so much a ksh clone, but an interpretation of the kornshell spec. It just feels different, in ways I can't think of now since it's been so long it's been my default shell.
"Why would you want to use bash?" Why would anyone want to write an OS? Why would some guy buy a Honda and not a Toyota? sometimes things are just personal prefs.
I saw this too, I guess we've come a long way since worrying about the Morris worm.
My favorite finger story: I'm working an employment fair at my old University, and a cute girl comes over and gives her resume. It's light, we placed it in the "to be made into cool paper airplanes as we pray to Bernoulli" but I noticed she had finger: mane@university.edu on her resume. I tried it, and her.plan said "blah blah, thanks for fingering me!!" Maybe we shoulda hired her.
Many people access Slashdot from the office... Are you implying that people read slashdot from work, for SHAMe , err, whoops (quickly hides mozilla as boss walks by).
The thing I hate is a company I used to work for is now supposedly the cutting edge of anti-PopUpBlock technology. I'd like to say that nothing I did remotely resembled popups or trying to defeat blockers. Sad/ironic thing is, the company was (in theory) founded on giving web viewers more choice on ads, now they're doing a 180 and trying to subvert the end user's choice.
Though the GPL doesn't explicitly rule out commercial use, it does effectively seriously curtail the ability to sell software for money. Even when you do try, you generally get flamed for it - there was a fork of CDex that (under my understanding) technically did not violate the letter of the GPL, but many felt it violated the spirit, and they got hammered on it.
That said, "being able to sell your software" is a pretty narrow description of "commercial use". We use things here internally all the time. RedHat uses GPL software to promote it's commercial services, etc.
Magpie also includes tools for adjusting a site's URL by incrementing or decrementing the numbers in it and for "sanitizing" links to real content by stripping off redirector script prefix/suffixes. This is a good extension for those who do a lot of research online.
Hmm, now what kind of site might have a lot of images^W err... content in a numerical sequence? I wish I could call porn hunting "research".
SunOS is the kernel, i'ts numbering has been pretty consistent, with a somewhat normal and linear progression from version 1 to the current 5.10.
They introduced the Solaris "distibution" (more for marketing reasons) stuff with SunOS5 - Solaris 2, even going so far to retroactively version SunOS4 as the Solaris 1 line. Then they did the whole stupid versioning thing with Solaris 2.7/Solaris 7. Solaris 2 was a big jump from Soalris 1, ahem, SunOS 4, so it deserved the major version jump. Other companies (b.k.a. Microsoft) started the version inflation thing, and Sun just jumped on the bandwagon.
This isn't Solaris specific. Linux has the kernel version (equivalent to SunOS version) and distro version (RedHat/SuSE/Debian whatever). Windows has internal versions Win 3.1 was 3.1, but Windows 95 was 4.0, NT 2000 was 5.0, and XP is 5.1.
In the old days, you just had a world readable/etc/passwd. It had to be world readable because that was where all the uid username, uid home directory, etc. lookups got their data from. this left the passwords, though encrypted, world readable. Passwords are a one-way hash algorithm, so the only way to break a password is to guess something, encrypt it, and see if it matches. In theory, very hard to break. In practice, people severly limit the possible password space to search (how many passwords do you have that have your name, even though you know you shouldn't) so it reduces the amount to passwords you have to try.
This got changed a long time ago to where the/etc/passwd file kept most of the info, but a file, readable only by root, kept the encrypted passwords. This is/etc/shadow. It has the username, password, and nowadays some password meta-information, like aging, etc.
His statement basically is "did you forget your password, but still have it available, encrypted." It's semi-coded for "hey, wanna crack someone's MD5 based password, if you have it, we can crack it"
Nowadays,/etc/shadow isn't as much of a security aid, since most people need to have logins on many machines, and the encrypted passwords are generally available (NIS, LDAP) from the server anyway. I freaked once in my dotcon daze when I found we had a root equiv account with no password, because the "skilled sysadmin" we hired couldn't remember passwords. My CEO, trying to justify this guy (essentially justifying his hiring an idiot) said "well, not having a password is unexpected, just like a good password". I thought 1) I found out, easily, without guessing and 2) justifying something by saying "no one will guess this because no one will think we're this stupid" isn't good justification.
AT the highest level (remember that the BSDs share code very freely):
FreeBSD: stable, high performance on x86 and a couple other chips. OpenBSD: Security, audited codebase. NetBSD: Portability - if it runs 32 bits, it runs NetBSD. DragonFly BSD: a fairly radical rewrite of the kernel, bringing in message passing inspired by Amiga and a bunch of other goodies that is too radical for a more stability-focused FreeBSD.
Not sure what you mean by "what apps is it suitable for". At current, DragonFly BSD hasn't even released version 1.0, so not suitable for production. And if you're not in production, choose anything you want.
I forgot the model number, but some HP PA_RISC chips essentially did runtime optimization. Much like Pentium class and higher chips decode x86 ABI calls into micro-ops and feed to a more RISC-like core, I thionk the 8800 decoded RISC ops to RISC ops, but reordered and optimized them. Since you're going from RISC to RISC, you don't have the immense decode logic, nor do you have to worry so much about deep pipeline stalls and clears that you get with the new Pentium 4s. You're able to reorder based on current chip state, and I think this dynamic recompilation resulted in something like a 30% improvement. Sadly, and ironically, this is the last chip in the PA-RISC like which was scuttled for Itanium, which takes essentially the reverse view (push more and more optimization into the compiler) and has had pathetically slow roll outs.
1) though cool at one time, it's been many years since SCO was a solid competitor in the OS race. Linux has past it a while ago, and is now far ahead. They made an what can seen to be an admission as such when they came out with OpenUNIX, which was UnixWare 7 with a bunch of Linux pieces bolted on. The market responded with apathy, and the current lawsuits happened. The amount of work to make it a worthy competitor to Linux could never be made up for in sales revenue.
2) The SCO we talk about now is not the SCO that built OpenServer/UnixWare. It's more of a holding company. All of the old SCO talent (and there was a good bunch at one time) is in Tarantella (what the old SCO renamed itself when it spun out the OS).
They don't have too many other choices for using the codebase as a revenue stream.
So there is no need to patch IE [slashdot.org]. Just start with mozilla. Many apps embed IE as an HTML COM object (Yahoo IM, Outlook, Morpheus). Don't let these apps kill you. Always patch.
Uhh...the Internet? (rejected, Al Gore invented that) I hate this false urban legend because I believe it cost Gore a few votes. He never said it, and this was spread as a rumor to make Gore sound like a pompous jerk. (His personality did leave something to be desired, but get a guy for stuff he's done, not made up shit).
Yeah, he said he "creat[ed] the internet", and that's a stretch (outside forces helped a lot), but the Invented thing makes him sound like he pretended he was at Berkeley, sharing missives with Postel and Stevens, looking at packet headers, which he never meant to imply. The people who pushed this quote out are smart enough to know the connotation, but then play dumb when people challenge this "oh it means the same" when the connotation is clearly different.
Of course, cars seem to be going towards alphabet soup in their naming Pontiac 6000SUX is my favorite (Robocop) Jokes aside, there are too many different cars that use LS, from the Saturn LS, Lincoln LS6 LS8, Lexus LS450,... Very hard to differentiate.
I'd say that there's no more market tested and carefully chosen names than car model names. Buick Lacrosse anyone? Actually I think all the names are too researched. What the hell is Achieva? Too many things are trademarked, so people have to make stuff up, but then give them all this "emotes this and inspires that..." garbage. I like Chevy Eviscerator, that I'd buy.
If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system Actually, FAT32. FAT is old enough they can't charge on it.
Most of the FAT32 stuff is for Digital Storage, FAT32 increases max card size, and more importantly for most people increases file size past 2Gb. I have a friend at work whose camera decision absolutely required FAT32. He needed to shoot some video with soemthing that looked like a still camera, and needs the video times he could only get with a FAT32 capable camera. I know they're gonna charge device makers, not sure if they can hit media makers (who in theory could have any filesystem they want on the card/chip/whatever).
Might As Well Apply For A Patent... for mouse movements. For some reason this reminded me of a.sig I used to see here: Windows has detected that your mouse has moved. Reboot now for changes to take effect?
I know what you mean, but I believe the logic is kind of faulty. "I'm going to release this destructive code, because if I don't (and don't prod the company for a fix) someone will release destructive code". The one true benefit I see is by releasing exploit code, you'll attract script kiddies, who'll release something moderately dangerous but explosively so, vs. a true cracker who'll cause something more personally destructive and be better at hiding his tracks. The publicity of the ham-fisted destructiveness of the skr1pt kidd13 exploit will drive some patches, for a few days at least.
Even if we accept the logic fully (and I do partially) we've seen recently that the entire patch process is flawed. Fixes are released, just no one applies them, for various reasons. My sister is on a dialup modem, never once hit Windows Update, because she felt if she did, she'd make her system unstable. Now she has 100MB of patches to install, over a modem. Some are staged to require reboots, so she can't even leave it for unattended operation. Nevermind the fact that windowsupdate is notorious for dropping connections on huge files, and unbelievably doesn't have any file download RESUME capability. Most savvy people find the URL, then sic a file downloader on it. My sister? Not going to work.
Why is a patch for a stack smash buried in a 35Mb patch file that decides to do other stuff to your computer?
The patch process was designed by computer professionals (good) and targets other computer savvy people (not good).
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably a joke, but . . .
AppleTalk as a living protocol suite is pretty much dead, and will be used in legacy environments only. As a name, it was dead even before OS X, when they came out with new streams based code for MacOS 9 which included AppleTalk and TCP/IP (so long to the hack that was MacTCP) and called it OpenTransport. Though it supported things other than AppleTalk, when it came out, it was such a breakthrough, there was an effort to brand all of networking OpenTransport and deprecate the name AppleTalk. They wanted to show of their new SYSV stream space, with a MUCH better implementation of TCP/IP.
The one great advantage AppleTalk had over other protocols of it's day was ease of finding things on networks. Broadcast packets to the one well known port that had a naming server allowed people to find devices without having to type in addresses or ports, that was all handled by the OS. OpenTalk/Rendezvous is a replacement for that, allowing browsing and easy discovery of devices/applications on TCP/IP networks. As such, replacing AppleTalk in people's heads is a worthy goal.
Is there a Mozilla implementation?
Can I write in Richard Pryor? I think he's got some experience in this...
I used to be a ksh guy, but I went to bash.
pdksh is ksh88. bash functionality is a superset of that. things like programmable completion, brace expansion, small typo correction (cdspell) makes it hard for me to go back to ksh. Yes, I know zsh is a superset of bash, but I never got into it, bash adds a little functionality without me having to change the way I think (evben though one could argue zsh is for the better). I find all thee not only useful, but essential, but as always, YMMV.
even outside of that, pdksh isn't perfect, and it has it's quirks. Think about pdksh as not so much a ksh clone, but an interpretation of the kornshell spec. It just feels different, in ways I can't think of now since it's been so long it's been my default shell.
"Why would you want to use bash?" Why would anyone want to write an OS? Why would some guy buy a Honda and not a Toyota? sometimes things are just personal prefs.
Or MSN with the butteryfly...
I saw this too, I guess we've come a long way since worrying about the Morris worm.
.plan said "blah blah, thanks for fingering me!!" Maybe we shoulda hired her.
My favorite finger story: I'm working an employment fair at my old University, and a cute girl comes over and gives her resume. It's light, we placed it in the "to be made into cool paper airplanes as we pray to Bernoulli" but I noticed she had finger: mane@university.edu on her resume. I tried it, and her
But after playing with DFly, would you get the munchies?
Many people access Slashdot from the office...
Are you implying that people read slashdot from work, for SHAMe , err, whoops (quickly hides mozilla as boss walks by).
The thing I hate is a company I used to work for is now supposedly the cutting edge of anti-PopUpBlock technology. I'd like to say that nothing I did remotely resembled popups or trying to defeat blockers. Sad/ironic thing is, the company was (in theory) founded on giving web viewers more choice on ads, now they're doing a 180 and trying to subvert the end user's choice.
Though the GPL doesn't explicitly rule out commercial use, it does effectively seriously curtail the ability to sell software for money. Even when you do try, you generally get flamed for it - there was a fork of CDex that (under my understanding) technically did not violate the letter of the GPL, but many felt it violated the spirit, and they got hammered on it.
That said, "being able to sell your software" is a pretty narrow description of "commercial use". We use things here internally all the time. RedHat uses GPL software to promote it's commercial services, etc.
Magpie also includes tools for adjusting a site's URL by incrementing or decrementing the numbers in it and for "sanitizing" links to real content by stripping off redirector script prefix/suffixes. This is a good extension for those who do a lot of research online.
Hmm, now what kind of site might have a lot of images^W err... content in a numerical sequence? I wish I could call porn hunting "research".
Technically, it's just the number in a mole. A mole is just a number, it can count anything, an element, or a molecule, whatever.
Hmm, I see this less for physics, more for chemistry, I remember too many stoichiometry equations and titration experiments from high school.
SunOS is the kernel, i'ts numbering has been pretty consistent, with a somewhat normal and linear progression from version 1 to the current 5.10.
They introduced the Solaris "distibution" (more for marketing reasons) stuff with SunOS5 - Solaris 2, even going so far to retroactively version SunOS4 as the Solaris 1 line. Then they did the whole stupid versioning thing with Solaris 2.7/Solaris 7. Solaris 2 was a big jump from Soalris 1, ahem, SunOS 4, so it deserved the major version jump. Other companies (b.k.a. Microsoft) started the version inflation thing, and Sun just jumped on the bandwagon.
This isn't Solaris specific. Linux has the kernel version (equivalent to SunOS version) and distro version (RedHat/SuSE/Debian whatever). Windows has internal versions Win 3.1 was 3.1, but Windows 95 was 4.0, NT 2000 was 5.0, and XP is 5.1.
In the old days, you just had a world readable /etc/passwd. It had to be world readable because that was where all the uid username, uid home directory, etc. lookups got their data from. this left the passwords, though encrypted, world readable. Passwords are a one-way hash algorithm, so the only way to break a password is to guess something, encrypt it, and see if it matches. In theory, very hard to break. In practice, people severly limit the possible password space to search (how many passwords do you have that have your name, even though you know you shouldn't) so it reduces the amount to passwords you have to try.
/etc/passwd file kept most of the info, but a file, readable only by root, kept the encrypted passwords. This is /etc/shadow. It has the username, password, and nowadays some password meta-information, like aging, etc.
/etc/shadow isn't as much of a security aid, since most people need to have logins on many machines, and the encrypted passwords are generally available (NIS, LDAP) from the server anyway. I freaked once in my dotcon daze when I found we had a root equiv account with no password, because the "skilled sysadmin" we hired couldn't remember passwords. My CEO, trying to justify this guy (essentially justifying his hiring an idiot) said "well, not having a password is unexpected, just like a good password". I thought 1) I found out, easily, without guessing and 2) justifying something by saying "no one will guess this because no one will think we're this stupid" isn't good justification.
This got changed a long time ago to where the
His statement basically is "did you forget your password, but still have it available, encrypted." It's semi-coded for "hey, wanna crack someone's MD5 based password, if you have it, we can crack it"
Nowadays,
There's something about seeing STD in a forum about viruses that doesn't quite look right...
AT the highest level (remember that the BSDs share code very freely):
FreeBSD: stable, high performance on x86 and a couple other chips.
OpenBSD: Security, audited codebase.
NetBSD: Portability - if it runs 32 bits, it runs NetBSD.
DragonFly BSD: a fairly radical rewrite of the kernel, bringing in message passing inspired by Amiga and a bunch of other goodies that is too radical for a more stability-focused FreeBSD.
Not sure what you mean by "what apps is it suitable for". At current, DragonFly BSD hasn't even released version 1.0, so not suitable for production. And if you're not in production, choose anything you want.
"There's no problem in computer science that can not be solved by using another level of indirection, except for too many levels of indirection"
-- Unknown
I forgot the model number, but some HP PA_RISC chips essentially did runtime optimization. Much like Pentium class and higher chips decode x86 ABI calls into micro-ops and feed to a more RISC-like core, I thionk the 8800 decoded RISC ops to RISC ops, but reordered and optimized them. Since you're going from RISC to RISC, you don't have the immense decode logic, nor do you have to worry so much about deep pipeline stalls and clears that you get with the new Pentium 4s. You're able to reorder based on current chip state, and I think this dynamic recompilation resulted in something like a 30% improvement. Sadly, and ironically, this is the last chip in the PA-RISC like which was scuttled for Itanium, which takes essentially the reverse view (push more and more optimization into the compiler) and has had pathetically slow roll outs.
1) though cool at one time, it's been many years since SCO was a solid competitor in the OS race. Linux has past it a while ago, and is now far ahead. They made an what can seen to be an admission as such when they came out with OpenUNIX, which was UnixWare 7 with a bunch of Linux pieces bolted on. The market responded with apathy, and the current lawsuits happened. The amount of work to make it a worthy competitor to Linux could never be made up for in sales revenue.
2) The SCO we talk about now is not the SCO that built OpenServer/UnixWare. It's more of a holding company. All of the old SCO talent (and there was a good bunch at one time) is in Tarantella (what the old SCO renamed itself when it spun out the OS).
They don't have too many other choices for using the codebase as a revenue stream.
So there is no need to patch IE [slashdot.org]. Just start with mozilla.
Many apps embed IE as an HTML COM object (Yahoo IM, Outlook, Morpheus). Don't let these apps kill you. Always patch.
Uhh...the Internet? (rejected, Al Gore invented that)
I hate this false urban legend because I believe it cost Gore a few votes. He never said it, and this was spread as a rumor to make Gore sound like a pompous jerk. (His personality did leave something to be desired, but get a guy for stuff he's done, not made up shit).
Yeah, he said he "creat[ed] the internet", and that's a stretch (outside forces helped a lot), but the Invented thing makes him sound like he pretended he was at Berkeley, sharing missives with Postel and Stevens, looking at packet headers, which he never meant to imply. The people who pushed this quote out are smart enough to know the connotation, but then play dumb when people challenge this "oh it means the same" when the connotation is clearly different.
Rant mode off.
Of course, cars seem to be going towards alphabet soup in their naming ... Very hard to differentiate.
Pontiac 6000SUX is my favorite (Robocop)
Jokes aside, there are too many different cars that use LS, from the Saturn LS, Lincoln LS6 LS8, Lexus LS450,
I'd say that there's no more market tested and carefully chosen names than car model names.
Buick Lacrosse anyone? Actually I think all the names are too researched. What the hell is Achieva? Too many things are trademarked, so people have to make stuff up, but then give them all this "emotes this and inspires that..." garbage. I like Chevy Eviscerator, that I'd buy.
If you want to get scared, worry about that last part of the article which states that MS wants to start charging for the FAT file system
Actually, FAT32. FAT is old enough they can't charge on it.
Most of the FAT32 stuff is for Digital Storage, FAT32 increases max card size, and more importantly for most people increases file size past 2Gb. I have a friend at work whose camera decision absolutely required FAT32. He needed to shoot some video with soemthing that looked like a still camera, and needs the video times he could only get with a FAT32 capable camera. I know they're gonna charge device makers, not sure if they can hit media makers (who in theory could have any filesystem they want on the card/chip/whatever).
Might As Well Apply For A Patent ... for mouse movements. .sig I used to see here:
For some reason this reminded me of a
Windows has detected that your mouse has moved. Reboot now for changes to take effect?
I know what you mean, but I believe the logic is kind of faulty. "I'm going to release this destructive code, because if I don't (and don't prod the company for a fix) someone will release destructive code". The one true benefit I see is by releasing exploit code, you'll attract script kiddies, who'll release something moderately dangerous but explosively so, vs. a true cracker who'll cause something more personally destructive and be better at hiding his tracks. The publicity of the ham-fisted destructiveness of the skr1pt kidd13 exploit will drive some patches, for a few days at least.
Even if we accept the logic fully (and I do partially) we've seen recently that the entire patch process is flawed. Fixes are released, just no one applies them, for various reasons. My sister is on a dialup modem, never once hit Windows Update, because she felt if she did, she'd make her system unstable. Now she has 100MB of patches to install, over a modem. Some are staged to require reboots, so she can't even leave it for unattended operation. Nevermind the fact that windowsupdate is notorious for dropping connections on huge files, and unbelievably doesn't have any file download RESUME capability. Most savvy people find the URL, then sic a file downloader on it. My sister? Not going to work.
Why is a patch for a stack smash buried in a 35Mb patch file that decides to do other stuff to your computer?
The patch process was designed by computer professionals (good) and targets other computer savvy people (not good).