Have you ever noticed how when it comes to hacking/cracking that it all comes back to a Unix variant of some form or another? Why is it the media (be it web based or otherwise)is always portraying Unix/Linux systems as being constantly hacked into or cracked? Why is it we never hear about all the NT or Win 2k boxes that get broke into? Too much emphasis is being placed on past mistakes rather than ways to fix them. Every OS has it's security issues (as does the majority of software on the market today). But yet the emphasis is always on script kiddies and the sys admins that were not prepared for them. And this type of attention gets the whole spotlight...rather than the positive things that make up the systems we love. With all of this kind of negative attention, people are getting so that they automatically equate Linux with kids that hack, or systems that are not secure, rather than looking at the systems strengths. It seems that when it comes to security, we have two type of admins. Those that don't care and those that are so paranoid it is pathetic (alarms going off when pinged??? isn't that a bit much?). The fact is that the Unix variant boxes don't get hacked anymore than NT or Win 2k boxes. The fact is that people who run these systems look for these intrusions more than the NT or Win 2k admins because of all of the attention regarding security within the Unix community. And rather than look at the positive aspects of a break in, people just complain about it. Which in part is understandable due to the time it takes to cover your bases. But at the same time, wouldn't it have been interesting to be Noel in this case? Hell...I'd love to track down the people who broke into my system. That would be one of the most interesting parts of system administration. And that is one of the best ways to continue ones education. Is by constantly being challenged. I'm just sick of Linux and other Unix type systems being frowned upon for "security" reasons.
More details regarding what was being requested in the way of service from UUNet would have been nice. It would seem that if UUNet did not have the facilities in place to offer this customer service, the potential customer could have still got his access to their network through his local LEC by ordering his T1, DS3, OC-3 or whatever through UUNet and then having it delivered to his premise through the LEC. Seems like what this person may have wished for was to have a smaller circuit (T1) delivered to his premise by UUNet. This would require UUNet to extend fiber to his place of business and place hub electronics at the premise. A bit of an investment for a T1. What I don't understand is why anyone would think that access to a multi-billion dollar network should be free??? Also, the fact that carriers exchange services with eachother without charging one another is mute. When exchanging access between networks, why charge? Each provider is getting something in return for that access. It seems that a popular growing trend among ISPs is to whine about how this should be free and that should be free, but they aren't giving away access to their network for free now are they?
Slashdot Mirror
AMD sucks ass. I bought a 800 mhz chip and new motherboard and I couldn't even get through POST. Not compatible with generic RAM? What a joke.
Have you ever noticed how when it comes to hacking/cracking that it all comes back to a Unix variant of some form or another? Why is it the media (be it web based or otherwise)is always portraying Unix/Linux systems as being constantly hacked into or cracked? Why is it we never hear about all the NT or Win 2k boxes that get broke into? Too much emphasis is being placed on past mistakes rather than ways to fix them. Every OS has it's security issues (as does the majority of software on the market today). But yet the emphasis is always on script kiddies and the sys admins that were not prepared for them. And this type of attention gets the whole spotlight...rather than the positive things that make up the systems we love. With all of this kind of negative attention, people are getting so that they automatically equate Linux with kids that hack, or systems that are not secure, rather than looking at the systems strengths. It seems that when it comes to security, we have two type of admins. Those that don't care and those that are so paranoid it is pathetic (alarms going off when pinged??? isn't that a bit much?). The fact is that the Unix variant boxes don't get hacked anymore than NT or Win 2k boxes. The fact is that people who run these systems look for these intrusions more than the NT or Win 2k admins because of all of the attention regarding security within the Unix community. And rather than look at the positive aspects of a break in, people just complain about it. Which in part is understandable due to the time it takes to cover your bases. But at the same time, wouldn't it have been interesting to be Noel in this case? Hell...I'd love to track down the people who broke into my system. That would be one of the most interesting parts of system administration. And that is one of the best ways to continue ones education. Is by constantly being challenged. I'm just sick of Linux and other Unix type systems being frowned upon for "security" reasons.
More details regarding what was being requested in the way of service from UUNet would have been nice. It would seem that if UUNet did not have the facilities in place to offer this customer service, the potential customer could have still got his access to their network through his local LEC by ordering his T1, DS3, OC-3 or whatever through UUNet and then having it delivered to his premise through the LEC. Seems like what this person may have wished for was to have a smaller circuit (T1) delivered to his premise by UUNet. This would require UUNet to extend fiber to his place of business and place hub electronics at the premise. A bit of an investment for a T1. What I don't understand is why anyone would think that access to a multi-billion dollar network should be free??? Also, the fact that carriers exchange services with eachother without charging one another is mute. When exchanging access between networks, why charge? Each provider is getting something in return for that access. It seems that a popular growing trend among ISPs is to whine about how this should be free and that should be free, but they aren't giving away access to their network for free now are they?