No, I wouldn't. I don't like being nickled and dimed.
I'd pay an extra $5 once in a while for something that's worth it but if the value is only a few cents then you should have given it to me when I paid for the game.
Exception to the rule: If the basic game was -free- but I had to pay pennies here and there for worthwhile features then I'd pay the pennies. I don't game often enough, so this would represent a value.
When I hear someone seriously propose standardizing the standardization process my first thought is that the level of bureaucracy has reached a point where its time to run for the hills. Thanks to prior standardization efforts I should still be reachable by cell...
The point is that the nukes were LOST and then later found after having been flown across the country in violation of both federal law and a major arms treaty with Russia.
Emphasis on LOST. The nukes were LOST. It was random luck that they hopped a plane instead of ending up at the local surplus store.
Whether e360 is now a spammer is not a fact determined by the default judgment. The fact determined by the judgment is that e360 was not a spammer when Spamhaus so identified it on the date of the action giving rise to the complaint.
in case the linux-side DHCP server didn't understand the packets, couldn't it send some kind of error
No really. It could maybe send a NAK but that wouldn't help. The best thing it could do is ignore the unicast option, reply with a normal broadcast packet and hope that the packet gets there. Unless the folks inexplicably designed the network with a broadcast-only dhcp server where the broadcasts couldn't reach the requesting host, the response would most likely get there.
So you think that "perfectly acceptable to ignore non-standard requests" means the same thing as "not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear"? I question your reading comprehension skills.
Do you think MS is not able to follow the standards?
If you were paying attention, you'd know that MS did follow the standards. The problem started when MS implemented an option component of the DHCP standard and didn't design in a fallback to the mandatory components (not conservative in what you send.) The problem was then complete when the Linux-side DHCP server refused to respond to packets with the optional flag set instead of doing its best to respond in the way it understood (not liberal in what you accept.)
Had either side followed this golden rule in network protocol implementation then things would have simply worked.
No buddy, you got that dead wrong. Quoting from RFC 760:
"In general, an implementation should be conservative
in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That
is, it should be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but should
accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to
technical errors where the meaning is still clear)."
Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft,
Within libertarianism there are two schools of thought on this.
One school of thought indeed says, "Hey, Microsoft is doing what they want to do just like you are. If you don't agree with them, refuse to be a part of it."
The other school of thought says, "Microsoft, Walmart and the other megacorps are so large and touch so many lives in a controlling manner that they constitute unwanted governance. They should be broken into small enough entities that they can't exert any sort of governance effect."
At the moment the former school of thought is dominant in the party. That's unfortunate because it undermines much of what they're fighting for.
File it with the copyright office. Doing so authenticates the date filed. That is what the copyright office exists for, after all.
Maybe they do know.
on
PCI Compliance
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For those who didn't catch the acronym, PCI = payment card industry, i.e. Visa, Mastercard et al.
many are complaining that the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is too complex and costly. What is most troubling is that such opinions are being written in periodicals and by people that should know better.
Maybe the opinions got it right. I lead the systems administration team for an organization which does a tremendous number of credit card transactions. PCI DSS compliance is a joke. You answer a long questionaire, much of which has no relevance (virus scanner for your Linux web server!?). Next you submit to a black-box scan of your exterior network interface by an external auditor who does nothing more than run Nessus against your address space. Then they hassle you about all the faulty Nessus hits. Yes we are running SSL IMAP and no it doesn't have any known security vulnerabilities despite the rank 7 nessus hit documented by a URL that returns a 404 error. Commence eyeroll.
Furthermore, if we apply this policy rigorously throughout the whole of the Linux operating system, I'm sure we can make Linux' security record every bit a good as Windows in no time at all.
No, that won't do at all. If you want to make Linux's security approach that of Windows, you'll need something like, "chmod -R 777/"
The basic metric is: ( (failures * employees) / systems managed ) versus the same metric found in other teams or at other companies. The team with the lowest score is the best performer.
You could also factor in:
salaries (folks who make more money should be more effective) system complexity (a server is more complex than a user PC) time to repair (a 24-hour outage is worse than a 5-minute outage) severity of failure (A total failure is worse than an irritating bug. An irritating bug is worse than a failure with no user-level impact.)
It's called "parole." In exchange for leaving jail early, you agree to abide by alternate restrictions on your freedom for the duration of your sentence.
And even a marginally competent network administrator ought to be able to recognize that they face a packet storm and isolate the problem in about 30 minutes through the simple expedient of, "Unplug this switch. Did the problem stop? No. Plug it back in and unplug the next switch."
I'll bet the sucker not only keeps his job but gets a commendation for finding the problem.
Verizon guy shorts the home's electric main, it sparks like hell inside the wall leaving burns and smoke comes out of the meter where the fuse blew.
Argument that its a fire: things got burned.
Argument that its not a fire: apparantly no secondary ignition. The burns were evidently from the sparks and the fuse melting.
As for the fireman saying, "if there's flames..." It take a few minutes for the fire truck to arrive. If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that there wouldn't be any argument over whether there was a fire. His claim of the existance of flames can't be based on primary observation by either him or his staff.
I can see why Verizon cares about the difference. If there was a fire, that's a compelling reason for the county to change the ordinances governing the certifications their installers are required to hold. If there were just some sparks with the protection on the electrical circuits preventing a fire as designed then there's no reason to change the ordinances.
Nevermind; I figured it out. These are the folks who short-sold when the stock was $5. They figure they've made enough money and keeping the extra 50 cents isn't worth the odd possibility that something sends the stock north again. So, they're buying at 50 cents to cover the previous short and get out of the SCOX game entirely.
What I want to know is: who is still stupid enough to buy the stock at 50 cents? Haven't they figured out yet that the next step for SCO is bankruptcy liquidation in which the stockholders get -zilch-?
Depends on the raid card. I run about 80 servers with a mix of HP/Compaq SmartArray, Adaptec aacraid, LSI Megaraid and Linux MD raid systems.
The Adaptec and LSI Megaraid cards are truly heinous. Just last week I had a system that wouldn't boot because the megaraid card decided that the NVRAM and on-disk settings didn't match... Even though the "force boot" option was set. Force-boot is supposed to write the on-disk config to nvram on a mismatch. As often as not, a machine with a megaraid card crashes on a single-disk failure instead of continuing to operate minus one disk. It'll reboot fine but not before you lose the unwritten data and deal with filesystem corruption. And God help you if a second disk develops a bad spot... It won't do the best it can to rebuild; it'll simply flunk leaving the good portions of the data unrecoverable.
I'll match Linux MD against those cards for reliability purposes any day. I wish there was some hardware I could buy that enhanced it with a battery-backed cache and parity acceleration. Then I could throw away the megaraid and adaptec cards.
The SmartArray cards are actually very good. Expensive as hell, but good. Sadly the primary configuration utility is on a CD instead of in the bios and some goober at HP decided to rig the disc so it won't boot on any hardware that's not HP/Compaq. Fortunately you can boot Knoppix, copy the linux config utilities and configure it that way.
Re:Standing to bring suit
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
True. But having an obligation not to make a claim is not the same as lacking the standing to make a claim.
Re:Standing to bring suit
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
SCO still has a contract with Novell that offers an exclusive license to unix and allows them to administer the unix licenses for everyone else under certain conditions. That could give SCO standing to sue if indeed Linux did violate the unix copyrights.
Re:Novell to Open Source Unix?
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
There are two possibilities that could lead to the unix source opening:
SCO ends up in violation of their exclusive contract, voiding it. Novell is then more or less free to do as they want with the code.
IBM's judgement against SCO leaves them the principal debtholder. That positions them where they could acquire the contract. They work a deal with Novell to open the unix source so it can't again be claimed to jeapardize Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Would You Pay Pennies For Game Features?
No, I wouldn't. I don't like being nickled and dimed.
I'd pay an extra $5 once in a while for something that's worth it but if the value is only a few cents then you should have given it to me when I paid for the game.
Exception to the rule: If the basic game was -free- but I had to pay pennies here and there for worthwhile features then I'd pay the pennies. I don't game often enough, so this would represent a value.
When I hear someone seriously propose standardizing the standardization process my first thought is that the level of bureaucracy has reached a point where its time to run for the hills. Thanks to prior standardization efforts I should still be reachable by cell...
The point is that the nukes were LOST and then later found after having been flown across the country in violation of both federal law and a major arms treaty with Russia.
Emphasis on LOST. The nukes were LOST. It was random luck that they hopped a plane instead of ending up at the local surplus store.
LOST! Get it?
Whether e360 is now a spammer is not a fact determined by the default judgment. The fact determined by the judgment is that e360 was not a spammer when Spamhaus so identified it on the date of the action giving rise to the complaint.
This is a HUGE gift from the appeals court.
in case the linux-side DHCP server didn't understand the packets, couldn't it send some kind of error
No really. It could maybe send a NAK but that wouldn't help. The best thing it could do is ignore the unicast option, reply with a normal broadcast packet and hope that the packet gets there. Unless the folks inexplicably designed the network with a broadcast-only dhcp server where the broadcasts couldn't reach the requesting host, the response would most likely get there.
So you think that "perfectly acceptable to ignore non-standard requests" means the same thing as "not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear"? I question your reading comprehension skills.
Do you think MS is not able to follow the standards?
If you were paying attention, you'd know that MS did follow the standards. The problem started when MS implemented an option component of the DHCP standard and didn't design in a fallback to the mandatory components (not conservative in what you send.) The problem was then complete when the Linux-side DHCP server refused to respond to packets with the optional flag set instead of doing its best to respond in the way it understood (not liberal in what you accept.)
Had either side followed this golden rule in network protocol implementation then things would have simply worked.
No buddy, you got that dead wrong. Quoting from RFC 760:
"In general, an implementation should be conservative
in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That
is, it should be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but should
accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to
technical errors where the meaning is still clear)."
Remember a libertarian would not harp on Microsoft,
Within libertarianism there are two schools of thought on this.
One school of thought indeed says, "Hey, Microsoft is doing what they want to do just like you are. If you don't agree with them, refuse to be a part of it."
The other school of thought says, "Microsoft, Walmart and the other megacorps are so large and touch so many lives in a controlling manner that they constitute unwanted governance. They should be broken into small enough entities that they can't exert any sort of governance effect."
At the moment the former school of thought is dominant in the party. That's unfortunate because it undermines much of what they're fighting for.
Broken software being broken shouldn't be allowed on line wherever possible.
That would violate the robustness principle summed up in RFC 1122: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send."
In this respect, both Microsoft and the city are in the wrong.
File it with the copyright office. Doing so authenticates the date filed. That is what the copyright office exists for, after all.
For those who didn't catch the acronym, PCI = payment card industry, i.e. Visa, Mastercard et al.
many are complaining that the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is too complex and costly. What is most troubling is that such opinions are being written in periodicals and by people that should know better.
Maybe the opinions got it right. I lead the systems administration team for an organization which does a tremendous number of credit card transactions. PCI DSS compliance is a joke. You answer a long questionaire, much of which has no relevance (virus scanner for your Linux web server!?). Next you submit to a black-box scan of your exterior network interface by an external auditor who does nothing more than run Nessus against your address space. Then they hassle you about all the faulty Nessus hits. Yes we are running SSL IMAP and no it doesn't have any known security vulnerabilities despite the rank 7 nessus hit documented by a URL that returns a 404 error. Commence eyeroll.
Furthermore, if we apply this policy rigorously throughout the whole of the Linux operating system, I'm sure we can make Linux' security record every bit a good as Windows in no time at all.
/"
No, that won't do at all. If you want to make Linux's security approach that of Windows, you'll need something like, "chmod -R 777
The basic metric is: ( (failures * employees) / systems managed ) versus the same metric found in other teams or at other companies. The team with the lowest score is the best performer.
You could also factor in:
salaries (folks who make more money should be more effective)
system complexity (a server is more complex than a user PC)
time to repair (a 24-hour outage is worse than a 5-minute outage)
severity of failure (A total failure is worse than an irritating bug. An irritating bug is worse than a failure with no user-level impact.)
He's employable; he can work at the fast food establishment of his choice.
Why are they even allowed to do this?
It's called "parole." In exchange for leaving jail early, you agree to abide by alternate restrictions on your freedom for the duration of your sentence.
Its all a miscommunication. If the congress wanted "nu-ku-lar" information, they should have asked for it.
And even a marginally competent network administrator ought to be able to recognize that they face a packet storm and isolate the problem in about 30 minutes through the simple expedient of, "Unplug this switch. Did the problem stop? No. Plug it back in and unplug the next switch."
I'll bet the sucker not only keeps his job but gets a commendation for finding the problem.
Verizon guy shorts the home's electric main, it sparks like hell inside the wall leaving burns and smoke comes out of the meter where the fuse blew.
Argument that its a fire: things got burned.
Argument that its not a fire: apparantly no secondary ignition. The burns were evidently from the sparks and the fuse melting.
As for the fireman saying, "if there's flames..." It take a few minutes for the fire truck to arrive. If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that there wouldn't be any argument over whether there was a fire. His claim of the existance of flames can't be based on primary observation by either him or his staff.
I can see why Verizon cares about the difference. If there was a fire, that's a compelling reason for the county to change the ordinances governing the certifications their installers are required to hold. If there were just some sparks with the protection on the electrical circuits preventing a fire as designed then there's no reason to change the ordinances.
Nevermind; I figured it out. These are the folks who short-sold when the stock was $5. They figure they've made enough money and keeping the extra 50 cents isn't worth the odd possibility that something sends the stock north again. So, they're buying at 50 cents to cover the previous short and get out of the SCOX game entirely.
What I want to know is: who is still stupid enough to buy the stock at 50 cents? Haven't they figured out yet that the next step for SCO is bankruptcy liquidation in which the stockholders get -zilch-?
Depends on the raid card. I run about 80 servers with a mix of HP/Compaq SmartArray, Adaptec aacraid, LSI Megaraid and Linux MD raid systems.
The Adaptec and LSI Megaraid cards are truly heinous. Just last week I had a system that wouldn't boot because the megaraid card decided that the NVRAM and on-disk settings didn't match... Even though the "force boot" option was set. Force-boot is supposed to write the on-disk config to nvram on a mismatch. As often as not, a machine with a megaraid card crashes on a single-disk failure instead of continuing to operate minus one disk. It'll reboot fine but not before you lose the unwritten data and deal with filesystem corruption. And God help you if a second disk develops a bad spot... It won't do the best it can to rebuild; it'll simply flunk leaving the good portions of the data unrecoverable.
I'll match Linux MD against those cards for reliability purposes any day. I wish there was some hardware I could buy that enhanced it with a battery-backed cache and parity acceleration. Then I could throw away the megaraid and adaptec cards.
The SmartArray cards are actually very good. Expensive as hell, but good. Sadly the primary configuration utility is on a CD instead of in the bios and some goober at HP decided to rig the disc so it won't boot on any hardware that's not HP/Compaq. Fortunately you can boot Knoppix, copy the linux config utilities and configure it that way.
True. But having an obligation not to make a claim is not the same as lacking the standing to make a claim.
SCO still has a contract with Novell that offers an exclusive license to unix and allows them to administer the unix licenses for everyone else under certain conditions. That could give SCO standing to sue if indeed Linux did violate the unix copyrights.
There are two possibilities that could lead to the unix source opening:
SCO ends up in violation of their exclusive contract, voiding it. Novell is then more or less free to do as they want with the code.
IBM's judgement against SCO leaves them the principal debtholder. That positions them where they could acquire the contract. They work a deal with Novell to open the unix source so it can't again be claimed to jeapardize Linux.