I can accept that as this is a public forum and speaking here makes me more vulnerable to such scrutiny.
A contextual interpretation of your comment suggests that my original post is accurate whether I am right or wrong it is in my interest to scrutinize the governing body.
That said, if you can find me on facebook I will add a Slashdot account with my real name.
But we are human beings not animals, there is certainly a better method for assessing the outside world than taking the first thing that comes along and defending it to the grave. Is it really satisfactory to just state that Assange, Interpol, and everyone else are just actors suffering the repercussions of their actions? At some point there must be an assertion made and an action taken, which of course subjects one to the scrutiny you speak of, unfortunately it is not always as simple as waiting to be the last person to speak you also have to listen and give consideration to all points - you must not just be waiting, but actively using that time to revise your model of the situation.
Perhaps it is actually a rather nuanced form of character assassination where each step only serves to make the observer cast doubt on their own model of reality thereby incentivizing a given actor to reaffirm their original assertions, this "reaffirmation of original assertions" may not actually improve an actor's model of his/her environment, but it does allow the actor to continue acting as though their original assertions were accurate.
Decisions are modelled into facts when other decisions are based upon them, the scrutiny is warranted because choices are compulsory and self serving, but scrutiny itself is derived from the actors world model rather than some greater sense of reality, this allows the many to adopt operational fallacies that marginalize different perspectives on the basis that the original perspective was in fact different.
Scrutiny must serve a purpose, otherwise it will serve itself.
This is my thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My thread is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My thread, without me, is useless. Without my thread, I am useless. I must comment my thread true. I must comment straighter than my enemy who is trying to troll me. I must troll him before he trolls me. I will... My thread and myself know that what counts in this war is not the comments we post, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the comments that count. We will comment... My thread is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its parent, its top posts and its troll posts. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my thread clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will... Before Taco, I swear this creed. My thread and myself are the defenders of my Internet. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is Slashdot's and there is no enemy, but peace!
Are you suggesting that character assassination is more becoming of politicians or are you suggesting that by definition of class there is an inherent bias in judging government action?
Yes, I understand the situation. Anonymous Coward, it is you I am concerned about. You do understand Michael Kristopeit's philosophical stance means nothing less than the eternal demise of characters like yourself and myself being nothing less than a carefully crafted google bomb. In fact, Anonymous Coward I pledge to battle this evil Michael Kristopeit and his dark powers of accountability wherever we may find this MichaelKristopeitN^N.
hey mister supergenius, if you're so smart, shouldn't you be doing something productive aside from calling people idiots and jerking off whenever you get mod points?
Re:Have they decided to implement security yet?
on
OpenBSD 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 0
The *BSD Wailing Song
What's left for me to see In my ship I sailed so far What can the answer be Don't know what the questions are. And after all I've done Still I cannot feel the sun Tell me save me In the end our lost souls must repent. I must know it is for certain Can it be the final curtain As long as the wind will blow I'll be searching high and low. Who knows what's really true They say the end is so near Why are we all so cruel We just fill ourselves with fear. And heaven and hell will turn All that we love shall burn Hear me trust me In the end our lost sould must repent. I must know it is for certain Can it be the final curtain As long as the wind will blow I'll be searching high and low Final curtain Final curtain
flask of ripe urine pressed to bsd lips bsd drink up
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.
BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
It doesn't matter, no matter how many time you try to recesitate *BSD, it's just doesn't matter. It's a plain and simple truth, *BSD is dying.
Click here [planetquake.com] to see the most appropriate case mod for a *BSD system.
If you can also print out your word processor documents on mu
“There is no other way of guarding oneself against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect.” Niccolo Machiavelli
Bullshit is bullshit is bullshit.
The question is whether the link was bullshit or whether the parent post was bullshit.
Nah, bud, I'm not a troll. I just thought the irony, considering what your response to me this morning, was absolutely fucking hilarious. And I think you're full of shit.
no probs man, if it's linux then it has MAC so no fucking worries man!
Re:Have they decided to implement security yet?
on
OpenBSD 4.8 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If your webserver is compromised in a jail, can the webpages still be defaced? Yep. Not with a proper MAC policy.
For varying definitions of compromised, you mean? If the Sysadmin has deployed a detailed MAC policy.
Running third party software that the OpenBSD team did not audit themselves which gets pwned? Far less likely with MAC. If the machine is exploited, minimal damage can be done.
This is a good argument, but it's really hard to just say "Far less likely with MAC". This is always going to be the System Administrators responsibility. In fact all aspects of system security are going to be delegated to the system's managers almost immediately. This is the point where YOU need to decide if OpenBSD will suit your needs or become to complex to manage for your particular task.
Need to restrict access from root to satisfy legal or policy requirements? Not possible with the outdated root = god model. It is possible with MAC.
This is goofy, I'm not sure I can think of a *nix system that doesn't allow you to disable root. On the other hand, I believe this is correct, with the exception that I don't believe there are any legal governance bodies in operation currently defining a proper MAC policy and implementation. Meaning that you could never prove OpenBSD was actually capable of meeting them or not, neither can you prove that SELinux meets these requirements. We only know that it did not happen while that government body was in place.
Want to restrict the permission a process has, instead of automatically granting it the same full permissions your user account has? Not possible on OpenBSD, possible with MAC. No, systrace doesn't cut it.
Setuid, of course systrace will run right over setuid, but anyone who can set policy on a MAC system is a point of priviledge elevation as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This is hyperbolic he is the world's first post-scarcity international spy, he's an asset even to his worst enemies.
You can guarantee he's a convicted criminal as far as the U.S. is concerned.
Precisely, this line of thinking might prevent some from a chance at a normal life.
http://www.slate.com/id/2245889/
This young boy has a developing latex glove fetish, should he be refused proper medical attention for fear of "accidental" rape?
The article is not exactly an example of misogyny, until you look at the picture. The date would be relevant, but I am not looking it up.
I can accept that as this is a public forum and speaking here makes me more vulnerable to such scrutiny.
A contextual interpretation of your comment suggests that my original post is accurate whether I am right or wrong it is in my interest to scrutinize the governing body.
That said, if you can find me on facebook I will add a Slashdot account with my real name.
But we are human beings not animals, there is certainly a better method for assessing the outside world than taking the first thing that comes along and defending it to the grave. Is it really satisfactory to just state that Assange, Interpol, and everyone else are just actors suffering the repercussions of their actions? At some point there must be an assertion made and an action taken, which of course subjects one to the scrutiny you speak of, unfortunately it is not always as simple as waiting to be the last person to speak you also have to listen and give consideration to all points - you must not just be waiting, but actively using that time to revise your model of the situation.
Perhaps it is actually a rather nuanced form of character assassination where each step only serves to make the observer cast doubt on their own model of reality thereby incentivizing a given actor to reaffirm their original assertions, this "reaffirmation of original assertions" may not actually improve an actor's model of his/her environment, but it does allow the actor to continue acting as though their original assertions were accurate.
Decisions are modelled into facts when other decisions are based upon them, the scrutiny is warranted because choices are compulsory and self serving, but scrutiny itself is derived from the actors world model rather than some greater sense of reality, this allows the many to adopt operational fallacies that marginalize different perspectives on the basis that the original perspective was in fact different.
Scrutiny must serve a purpose, otherwise it will serve itself.
This is my thread. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My thread is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. My thread, without me, is useless. Without my thread, I am useless. I must comment my thread true. I must comment straighter than my enemy who is trying to troll me. I must troll him before he trolls me. I will...
My thread and myself know that what counts in this war is not the comments we post, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the comments that count. We will comment...
My thread is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its parent, its top posts and its troll posts. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my thread clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before Taco, I swear this creed. My thread and myself are the defenders of my Internet. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is Slashdot's and there is no enemy, but peace!
I thought it was hilarious.
Are you suggesting that character assassination is more becoming of politicians or are you suggesting that by definition of class there is an inherent bias in judging government action?
This seems to be blatant character assassination and should be beneath an international political body.
"You can tell someone they are wrong in a constructive way."
I'm sorry, but no you can't.
They won't do that, because the toolbar is a programmable feature so functionality can be tacked on to the browser for in-house development.
Yes, I understand the situation. Anonymous Coward, it is you I am concerned about. You do understand Michael Kristopeit's philosophical stance means nothing less than the eternal demise of characters like yourself and myself being nothing less than a carefully crafted google bomb. In fact, Anonymous Coward I pledge to battle this evil Michael Kristopeit and his dark powers of accountability wherever we may find this MichaelKristopeitN^N.
hypocrite indeed, ignorant as well, any claim to the contrary was incidental.
hey mister supergenius, if you're so smart, shouldn't you be doing something productive aside from calling people idiots and jerking off whenever you get mod points?
The *BSD Wailing Song
What's left for me to see
In my ship I sailed so far
What can the answer be
Don't know what the questions are.
And after all I've done
Still I cannot feel the sun
Tell me save me
In the end our lost souls must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low.
Who knows what's really true
They say the end is so near
Why are we all so cruel
We just fill ourselves with fear.
And heaven and hell will turn
All that we love shall burn
Hear me trust me
In the end our lost sould must repent.
I must know it is for certain
Can it be the final curtain
As long as the wind will blow
I'll be searching high and low
Final curtain
Final curtain
flask of ripe urine
pressed to bsd lips
bsd drink up
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.
BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Almost everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
It doesn't matter, no matter how many time you try to recesitate *BSD, it's just doesn't matter. It's a plain and simple truth, *BSD is dying.
Click here [planetquake.com] to see the most appropriate case mod for a *BSD system.
If you can also print out your word processor documents on mu
“There is no other way of guarding oneself against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect.” Niccolo Machiavelli
Bullshit is bullshit is bullshit.
The question is whether the link was bullshit or whether the parent post was bullshit.
it's punny.
That is the battle you're discussing.
SELinux vs Integrated Cryptography.
I'm pretty sure they are both going to have trade offs.
In a sentence I will say that for example.
Engarde Linux vs OpenBSD would compete along different methodologies, yet, will both likely enjoy a good degree of success.
Offtopic sorry. I will repost shortly back in the thread and you are not exactly full of shit.
Nah, bud, I'm not a troll. I just thought the irony, considering what your response to me this morning, was absolutely fucking hilarious. And I think you're full of shit.
you mean it would have been better if the 88 bugs hadn't been there in the first place, even with MAC as implemented by the GOOG?
no probs man, if it's linux then it has MAC so no fucking worries man!
If your webserver is compromised in a jail, can the webpages still be defaced? Yep. Not with a proper MAC policy.
For varying definitions of compromised, you mean? If the Sysadmin has deployed a detailed MAC policy.
Running third party software that the OpenBSD team did not audit themselves which gets pwned? Far less likely with MAC. If the machine is exploited, minimal damage can be done.
This is a good argument, but it's really hard to just say "Far less likely with MAC". This is always going to be the System Administrators responsibility. In fact all aspects of system security are going to be delegated to the system's managers almost immediately. This is the point where YOU need to decide if OpenBSD will suit your needs or become to complex to manage for your particular task.
Need to restrict access from root to satisfy legal or policy requirements? Not possible with the outdated root = god model. It is possible with MAC.
This is goofy, I'm not sure I can think of a *nix system that doesn't allow you to disable root. On the other hand, I believe this is correct, with the exception that I don't believe there are any legal governance bodies in operation currently defining a proper MAC policy and implementation. Meaning that you could never prove OpenBSD was actually capable of meeting them or not, neither can you prove that SELinux meets these requirements. We only know that it did not happen while that government body was in place.
Want to restrict the permission a process has, instead of automatically granting it the same full permissions your user account has? Not possible on OpenBSD, possible with MAC. No, systrace doesn't cut it.
Setuid, of course systrace will run right over setuid, but anyone who can set policy on a MAC system is a point of priviledge elevation as well.