Check it out along with CodeRedII attack info realtime
Dude, have you looked at your graph recently? You have some negative numbers at the beginning of August. Does your attack counter program subtract from the count when your server tries to attack other servers?
Other countries (read: Africa) will be sure to follow their example. In Africa people are dying of AIDS at an alarming rate.
I wouldn't count on it. Cost of drugs is not what's keeping African nations from treating their people. There are a myriad of other reasons. In South Africa, one of the worst-hit nations, AIDS drugs were offered at 33% of the cost in the US, but were refused. A year later, they were offered free, and were still refused. The government's stance on HIV (a state of denial) prevented them from accepting any help at all. Once the drugs were accepted, another problem came up: the people didn't have enough food to take the drugs. AIDS drugs have heavy side-effects, especially when taken without food, and the most poverty-stricken South Africans became desperately ill when they tried to take them on an empty stomach, so they stopped taking them.
The point is, basically, that the cost of drugs isn't the real problem in Africa, it's the more widespread effects of poverty and political ineptitude.
<impression voice="JohnnyCarson">I did not know that.</impression> I knew it was inherited, I didn't realize it actually stood for something. Of course, I don't advocate just trashing it, because it's so widely used; I just would use something different if I were starting from scratch.
I think the last time this happened, there were two packages, one was the main program, the other was the "plugins" or something. The Plugins depended on the main package, and for some dumb reason, the main package depended on the plugins. Awesome. I think there were several packages that shouldn't have been separate that all depended on each other and needed to be removed. (And for added fun, Package A requires Package B requires Package C requires the package I want to delete...)
Yes, I can see how problems like that come up, and I've had similar situations, but I think the problem there isn't the idea of packaging as much as poor implementation. A package that depends on its own plugins is poorly packaged; changing the whole packaging system because someone doesn't understand how to properly package an application seems a bit extremem.
Neither would I, I'd call it either/apps or/Applications, but to keep it in the current Linux-distro world, I used a/usr/apps example. (Oh, hell, why not call it/apps and symlink/Applications to it and...)
This definitely is one of the biggest problems with Linux today; it took me weeks to figure out where stuff was supposed to go when I first started using it. Your symlink idea is a good one, but maybe a step further? You can keep the existing structure for backwards package compatibility, but symlink real names to them: ln -s/usr/share/Linux/Common Files, etc.
especially since most OSS packages wind up not having nice uninstallers. (Yeah, you can "rpm -e", and I'm sure there's an apt-get equivilent (apt-remove?:)) - but you then frequently run into dependency hell.
Well, if you run into dependency hell using rpm -e or apt-get remove, you're going to have much bigger problems if you just blow away a directory. If you rm -rf/usr/apps/glibc, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
It'd really be nice to have applications in individual directories, say something like "/usr/apps/Mozilla" for Mozilla, "/usr/apps/Galeon" for Galeon, "/usr/apps/Gimp" for the Gimp - all of them containing all the data-files needed, instead of "/usr/share"
Yeah, that's a good idea. If I were redesigning an operating system, I'd do that. (I also wouldn't call that top-level dir/usr).
Good point - exactly my opinion, though I've never been able to put it into words as well. Basically, the "nonconformity" of bashing Linux (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) is now hip on/. as a backlash to the to the conformity of bashing MS and praising Linux. It seems that now there are more posts saying "I don't agree with the herd mentality that Linux is better" than there are posts expressing the "herd mentality" that Linux is better. In short, nonconformity is the new conformity. And's it's really freaking annoying to read 100 kids who think they're daring and bold for questioning the "prevailing wisdom."
I have a lot of nostalgia for the old GEM desktop. I ridiculed my DOS friends at the time for their unstable, text-only systems, and for how much better games looked on my computer. But the Microsoft marketing machine killed the ST and the Amiga and others, so now it just sits in my attic.
PS: Anyone know where I can find a copy of Sam & Ed basketball?
Nothing ticks me off more than having to search through a list of installed system RPMs just so that I can uninstall an old copy of mozilla.
And this is different from Add/Remove Programs how? You go through the list (in alphabetical order), find the one you don't want anymore, and click uninstall. It's not difficult, and even if you think it is difficult, it's no easier or harder than Add/Remove Programs. What's the difference?
Secondly, I haven't seen a gui application yet that I religiously envoke from the command prompt. Get gui applications out of the $PATH! If I wanted to run xcdroast from the command line every time, I would put a symbolic link in/usr/local/bin myself!
Why does this bother you? I don't run a whole lot of gui apps from the command line myself, but having them in my $PATH isn't exactly costing me hours of productivity. In fact, I don't see how it makes a difference in anything. Time, effort, anything. I don't even see the point in this at all. It's like saying "I never configure the look-and-feel of my panel in Gnome, so why is it in the settings program? If I wanted to configure L&F for the panel, I'd put the capplet in there myself!"
Okay moderators, down we go.....
I have never seen a post with this sort of comment get modded down.
Actually, microsoft.com works just fine. I downloaded IE for NT for a couple of workstations in the office here just yesterday. And just to make sure it wasn't a recent change causing the problem, I just went there. So, no, microsoft.com is not a problem.
I guess they don't put much stock on training students to use the most prevalent (Note: I didn't say the best)office automation tools in the marketplace (MS Office)
Yeah, no kidding. Thank God my school gave me all that WordPerfect training! I mean, that's all anybody uses, right? They taught us the proper function key sequences, and now I can get a job anywhere, all thanks to my WordPerfect training!
Students do not need to be trained in how to use specific applications. The period my school spent training my little brother (9th grade) to save documents in Word was completely wasted. Students need to be taught how to use computers in general, and how to figure things out on their own. Even if Office is still the dominant productivity suite in ten years, it will most likely be completely different. Rote training in application use today creates the lusers of tomorrow.
Re:Web browsing is not a strong point
on
Linux Win In Schools
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I really don't understand this. What are these sites that people have trouble viewing with Linux? I mean, with Moz.9.3, Java 1.3, and Flash all running fine on my machine, what else is there? Is there some hidden internet that I'm not aware of that has amazing functionality only available to Windows users? The only web thing I have to go to Windows to do is play Age of Kings on zone.com, and I have to reboot to play the game anyway.
The main message of the article is:
Please shift OSS development effort away from Mono/DotGNU and PHP towards open source Java products (jakarta project, jboss, kaffe, sable,...).
I understand that, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there already is development on the J2EE technologies as far as open-source goes. I have them running in a production environment right now. Maybe more marketing could help; JBoss is a very nice product, and its integration with Tomcat is superb, but nobody seems to know about it. I think there's plenty of room for the Monos and dotGnus out there. The author tried to say that OSS is losing because there's not enough web service-type development available, but that's just false.
Strip web services of all the hype... and frankly, the web server isn't even the most importent part. That's just the vector of communication. The importent stuff remains the databases and code.
Exactly. Why do people think you need something huge and fancy to do web services? The whole point of it is to simplify things. I wrote our order entry system at work using EJB, and I exposed the beans via SOAP by 1) copying Apache's soap.jar to Tomcat's webapp directory and 2) writing a 7-line deployment descriptor. Two steps, that's it. And for any other new web services, I don't even need to repeat the first step. This is all running on open-source software (Linux, JBoss, Hypersonic, Tomcat, Apache SOAP). How exactly is open source behind MS on this one? I can do it all in production-level software today with open source; I have to use a beta-level app from MS to do it in the IIS world. I just don't understand this article at all.
And how long does it take linux to reboot, a couple minutes depending on the machine? Why is that one action a total waste of your time and not the amount of time to copy the binaries off the cd. I just don't understand this mentality.
It's not the time involved waiting for the reboot, it's the time involved sitting at the computer watching it so I can reboot it when it needs it. It's a total waste of my time because I have to pay a lot more attention to a Windows install than a Linux install. I can do other things while it copies binaries of the disc./p.
This is an ideal case of Linux use; home desktop users will have quite a time getting galeon installed.
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at then. If your point is that using a computer is easier for someone who has an admin working for them than for someone who doesn't, you're right, but that's not really OS-specific. Are you trying to say that this case study doesn't prove that Linux is a good home desktop system? If so, you're right, it doesn't prove that, but I don't think anyone is trying to say that it does. The point of the study is that Linux is a great choice for large organizations with office-type requirements.
But given an OS is installed, its much easier to double-click on a self-extracting exe and get a program installed, than it is in Linux.
True enough. But if it the self-extracting exe does fail, you're SOL. No amount of googlizing can save you. And you can do that in Linux (e.g. Mozilla's installer), just most non-commercial app developers don't. And then there's the ever-popular "Remove Program" option, which usually doesn't remove everything. But again, this is tangential to the original point of the story, which is that Linux is easier to set up and admin for a large office organization.
And if you think you retort was A)ever-so-witty or B) sarcastic or even C)original (look at the number of clone posts), you seriously need to go and watch some Eddie Izzard:)
Proof once again that self-deprecation gets you nowhere on Slashdot.:)
Plus, they will never have to compile that new, sexy app that only seasoned veterans can.
In my haste to put up that ever-so-witty sarcastic retort, I forgot to comment on this. They don't have to compile that new, sexy, app, because the sysadmin can do it once on the server and it's instantly available to everybody. That's the real advantage of thin clients. Only one upgrade, instantly applicable to everyone.
<sarcasm> Oh, right. Let me guess: where you work, all the secretaries installed NT on their own, and as soon as those W2K boxes arrive, they're going to upgrade. </sarcasm>
I have to say this to people all the time. If you think Linux is hard to install, try installing Windows sometime. I have to reinstall Windows a lot at work and at home (mostly due to hard drive / processor upgrades), and it's a very laborious process. Even once you do get it running, you have to grab drivers (and reboot), reinstall all your apps (and rebooot, and reboot...). Linux, on the other hand, I just answer a few questions, take a 30 minute break and do something else, and come back to a ready-to-go box. Depending on the distro's age, I might also run LiveUpdate for Mandrake or apt-get for Debian. The best part is that none of these things requires rebooting, which means I don't have to sit in front of the machine while it works, wasting my time.
If I install Win2K or NT on a box connected to the net right now, there is a high probability I will be infected before I can even apply the patch. That's a fact.
If I install Linux/BSD/etc with Apache on a box connected to the net, I will end up with an access.log full of default.ida?XXXXXXXXXXXXX requests and nothing more. That's a fact.
It's disingenuous to say that the indexing hole is comparable to "some CGI script," because that CGI script is not a default component of the Apache installation. The relative security records of Apache and IIS are not the result of "open" vs "proprietary" development models, they are the result of the attitudes of the respective developers towards the need for new features and accountability to end users. IIS doesn't end up with more holes because it's "closed-source," but because it's designed to add as many features as possible and install those by default. This isn't an ideological difference, it's good development practices difference.
Dude, this place is turning into ZDNet. "Insightful" comments from people too stupid to run Linux (i.e., dumber than my 11-year-old sister and 45-year-old mother)? Give me a break. If you don't like it, fine. Nobody said you have to use it. But to say it's unusable is just a baldfaced lie. Someone with moderator points put this troll and his AC replies to himself back where they belong.
The idea is nice, the intention is louvable, but I believe it would be considered illegal in most countries. After all, you are actually using their machine without permission.
Are you sure? I mean, it's not like you're cracking into people's boxes randomly to do this; only computers that try to attack your Apache server are effected. Of course, thieves have successfully sued for unsafe property for injury themselves during attempted burglaries, so who knows...
Slashdot Mirror
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Either you're a troll or just fucking stupid.
Here, I took a screenshot of it: here. I think it might just render different on Mozilla.
Dude, have you looked at your graph recently? You have some negative numbers at the beginning of August. Does your attack counter program subtract from the count when your server tries to attack other servers?
I wouldn't count on it. Cost of drugs is not what's keeping African nations from treating their people. There are a myriad of other reasons. In South Africa, one of the worst-hit nations, AIDS drugs were offered at 33% of the cost in the US, but were refused. A year later, they were offered free, and were still refused. The government's stance on HIV (a state of denial) prevented them from accepting any help at all. Once the drugs were accepted, another problem came up: the people didn't have enough food to take the drugs. AIDS drugs have heavy side-effects, especially when taken without food, and the most poverty-stricken South Africans became desperately ill when they tried to take them on an empty stomach, so they stopped taking them.
The point is, basically, that the cost of drugs isn't the real problem in Africa, it's the more widespread effects of poverty and political ineptitude.
<impression voice="JohnnyCarson">I did not know that.</impression> I knew it was inherited, I didn't realize it actually stood for something. Of course, I don't advocate just trashing it, because it's so widely used; I just would use something different if I were starting from scratch.
Yes, I can see how problems like that come up, and I've had similar situations, but I think the problem there isn't the idea of packaging as much as poor implementation. A package that depends on its own plugins is poorly packaged; changing the whole packaging system because someone doesn't understand how to properly package an application seems a bit extremem.
This definitely is one of the biggest problems with Linux today; it took me weeks to figure out where stuff was supposed to go when I first started using it. Your symlink idea is a good one, but maybe a step further? You can keep the existing structure for backwards package compatibility, but symlink real names to them: ln -s /usr/share /Linux/Common Files, etc.
Well, if you run into dependency hell using rpm -e or apt-get remove, you're going to have much bigger problems if you just blow away a directory. If you rm -rf /usr/apps/glibc, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
Good point - exactly my opinion, though I've never been able to put it into words as well. Basically, the "nonconformity" of bashing Linux (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) is now hip on /. as a backlash to the to the conformity of bashing MS and praising Linux. It seems that now there are more posts saying "I don't agree with the herd mentality that Linux is better" than there are posts expressing the "herd mentality" that Linux is better. In short, nonconformity is the new conformity. And's it's really freaking annoying to read 100 kids who think they're daring and bold for questioning the "prevailing wisdom."
I have a lot of nostalgia for the old GEM desktop. I ridiculed my DOS friends at the time for their unstable, text-only systems, and for how much better games looked on my computer. But the Microsoft marketing machine killed the ST and the Amiga and others, so now it just sits in my attic.
PS: Anyone know where I can find a copy of Sam & Ed basketball?
And this is different from Add/Remove Programs how? You go through the list (in alphabetical order), find the one you don't want anymore, and click uninstall. It's not difficult, and even if you think it is difficult, it's no easier or harder than Add/Remove Programs. What's the difference?
Why does this bother you? I don't run a whole lot of gui apps from the command line myself, but having them in my $PATH isn't exactly costing me hours of productivity. In fact, I don't see how it makes a difference in anything. Time, effort, anything. I don't even see the point in this at all. It's like saying "I never configure the look-and-feel of my panel in Gnome, so why is it in the settings program? If I wanted to configure L&F for the panel, I'd put the capplet in there myself!"
I have never seen a post with this sort of comment get modded down.
Actually, microsoft.com works just fine. I downloaded IE for NT for a couple of workstations in the office here just yesterday. And just to make sure it wasn't a recent change causing the problem, I just went there. So, no, microsoft.com is not a problem.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression it was something you just made up. Now that I see your proof, I apologize.
Yeah, no kidding. Thank God my school gave me all that WordPerfect training! I mean, that's all anybody uses, right? They taught us the proper function key sequences, and now I can get a job anywhere, all thanks to my WordPerfect training!
Students do not need to be trained in how to use specific applications. The period my school spent training my little brother (9th grade) to save documents in Word was completely wasted. Students need to be taught how to use computers in general, and how to figure things out on their own. Even if Office is still the dominant productivity suite in ten years, it will most likely be completely different. Rote training in application use today creates the lusers of tomorrow.
I really don't understand this. What are these sites that people have trouble viewing with Linux? I mean, with Moz .9.3, Java 1.3, and Flash all running fine on my machine, what else is there? Is there some hidden internet that I'm not aware of that has amazing functionality only available to Windows users? The only web thing I have to go to Windows to do is play Age of Kings on zone.com, and I have to reboot to play the game anyway.
Right. The GOP has secret death squads going from clinic to clinic gunning down doctors.
Please stop being an idiot.
I understand that, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there already is development on the J2EE technologies as far as open-source goes. I have them running in a production environment right now. Maybe more marketing could help; JBoss is a very nice product, and its integration with Tomcat is superb, but nobody seems to know about it. I think there's plenty of room for the Monos and dotGnus out there. The author tried to say that OSS is losing because there's not enough web service-type development available, but that's just false.
Exactly. Why do people think you need something huge and fancy to do web services? The whole point of it is to simplify things. I wrote our order entry system at work using EJB, and I exposed the beans via SOAP by 1) copying Apache's soap.jar to Tomcat's webapp directory and 2) writing a 7-line deployment descriptor. Two steps, that's it. And for any other new web services, I don't even need to repeat the first step. This is all running on open-source software (Linux, JBoss, Hypersonic, Tomcat, Apache SOAP). How exactly is open source behind MS on this one? I can do it all in production-level software today with open source; I have to use a beta-level app from MS to do it in the IIS world. I just don't understand this article at all.
It's not the time involved waiting for the reboot, it's the time involved sitting at the computer watching it so I can reboot it when it needs it. It's a total waste of my time because I have to pay a lot more attention to a Windows install than a Linux install. I can do other things while it copies binaries of the disc./p.
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at then. If your point is that using a computer is easier for someone who has an admin working for them than for someone who doesn't, you're right, but that's not really OS-specific. Are you trying to say that this case study doesn't prove that Linux is a good home desktop system? If so, you're right, it doesn't prove that, but I don't think anyone is trying to say that it does. The point of the study is that Linux is a great choice for large organizations with office-type requirements.
True enough. But if it the self-extracting exe does fail, you're SOL. No amount of googlizing can save you. And you can do that in Linux (e.g. Mozilla's installer), just most non-commercial app developers don't. And then there's the ever-popular "Remove Program" option, which usually doesn't remove everything. But again, this is tangential to the original point of the story, which is that Linux is easier to set up and admin for a large office organization.
Proof once again that self-deprecation gets you nowhere on Slashdot. :)
In my haste to put up that ever-so-witty sarcastic retort, I forgot to comment on this. They don't have to compile that new, sexy, app, because the sysadmin can do it once on the server and it's instantly available to everybody. That's the real advantage of thin clients. Only one upgrade, instantly applicable to everyone.
<sarcasm> Oh, right. Let me guess: where you work, all the secretaries installed NT on their own, and as soon as those W2K boxes arrive, they're going to upgrade. </sarcasm>
I have to say this to people all the time. If you think Linux is hard to install, try installing Windows sometime. I have to reinstall Windows a lot at work and at home (mostly due to hard drive / processor upgrades), and it's a very laborious process. Even once you do get it running, you have to grab drivers (and reboot), reinstall all your apps (and rebooot, and reboot...). Linux, on the other hand, I just answer a few questions, take a 30 minute break and do something else, and come back to a ready-to-go box. Depending on the distro's age, I might also run LiveUpdate for Mandrake or apt-get for Debian. The best part is that none of these things requires rebooting, which means I don't have to sit in front of the machine while it works, wasting my time.
If I install Win2K or NT on a box connected to the net right now, there is a high probability I will be infected before I can even apply the patch. That's a fact.
If I install Linux/BSD/etc with Apache on a box connected to the net, I will end up with an access.log full of default.ida?XXXXXXXXXXXXX requests and nothing more. That's a fact.
It's disingenuous to say that the indexing hole is comparable to "some CGI script," because that CGI script is not a default component of the Apache installation. The relative security records of Apache and IIS are not the result of "open" vs "proprietary" development models, they are the result of the attitudes of the respective developers towards the need for new features and accountability to end users. IIS doesn't end up with more holes because it's "closed-source," but because it's designed to add as many features as possible and install those by default. This isn't an ideological difference, it's good development practices difference.
Dude, this place is turning into ZDNet. "Insightful" comments from people too stupid to run Linux (i.e., dumber than my 11-year-old sister and 45-year-old mother)? Give me a break. If you don't like it, fine. Nobody said you have to use it. But to say it's unusable is just a baldfaced lie. Someone with moderator points put this troll and his AC replies to himself back where they belong.
Are you sure? I mean, it's not like you're cracking into people's boxes randomly to do this; only computers that try to attack your Apache server are effected. Of course, thieves have successfully sued for unsafe property for injury themselves during attempted burglaries, so who knows...