The result of this was rejected as a Slashdot story but CNN reporting "A U.S. court on Tuesday ordered Internet naming giant VeriSign Inc. to immediately cease a direct-mail campaign that used what a rival called deceptive advertising to poach its customers.
"
Actually the Linux kernel is not under CVS (or any revision control); however, all the BSD's, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Darwin, have been using CVS for many years.
I would agree except that the unlicensed files made it into a released kernel. If this was only in someone's development patches it would be a different story.
I'm pretty sure that Søren (the copyright holder) actually exists; and I'm equally sure that Linus got those headers from a person or organization (Redhat) that exists.
It is most definitely a license violation. The first clause of the license states:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
without modification, immediately at the beginning of the file
Note that the license has been completely removed.
If you try to access a vulnerable server it attempts to send you a 'readme.eml' file with a.wav content type. This file (using strings) appears to contain numerous registry entries plus all the strings used to find and infect other servers.
The 208.x.x.x is similiar to Code Red in that it attempts to scan local subnets (I bet you are have a 208.x.x.x IP); therefore, naming it 208 is only good for those in your Class A. We have received attempts from over 100 hosts infected with the Code Red 2 worm, starting from the local class C, then class B, and now class A and others. It appears to be attempting to find rooter servers, for what purpose I can only imagine.
Sorry everyone but I don't have the bandwidth to serve the ACL screenshot to the world (was not expecting to be slashdotted:/). Mirrors welcome, though.
This doesn't appear to be 'CVS in a nutshell,' nor is it published by McGraw-Hill. In fact, this appears to be 'CVS pocket reference' by O'Reilly. Am I the only one confused?
If spamming is illegal in your locality, you could be charged as an accessory to [whatever the legal term is for spamming]. Hell, you might even get a reward for narc'ing them out.:)
And conversely, I went there, saw some serious inaccuracies (including the fact that it lists all the BSD's as being released under the GPL) and reviews that appeared to be written by Windows users, and never returned.
Personally, I found their complete lack of research and understanding of the BSD community as a sign of a site that I would never return to...
I disagree with sending inflamatory messages, but also do not condone their [dm]isinformation.
Please show me where you got the idea that the purpose of the open source community is to create an OS to rival Windows? Personally, I enjoy working on open source projects, including FreeBSD, not because I want Microsoft to go away, but because I enjoy using and developing a stable, secure OS. Perhaps the quote: "Linux is for Microsoft haters, BSD is for Unix lovers" is true...
It you actually read what TrustedBSD is about, you would see that it is an extension to FreeBSD and should be integrated into FreeBSD-proper before 5.0 is released.
Actually, FreeBSD regularly integrates OpenBSD's fixes into the system (and vice versa). The nice thing about having the 3 open-source BSD's (along with MacOS X and BSD/OS) is that much code is shared, and is available for the others to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess someone should start a 'Gnome is dying' thread right about now.
By selling a vulnerable piece of software then selling another application to prevent it from being exploited sounds like a protection racket to me.
Perhaps someone can let me know why, when I submitted this exact story yesterday, it was quickly rejected:
* 2002-05-15 21:44:50 Verisign order to stop ads (articles,news) (rejected)
The result of this was rejected as a Slashdot story but CNN reporting "A U.S. court on Tuesday ordered Internet naming giant VeriSign Inc. to immediately cease a direct-mail campaign that used what a rival called deceptive advertising to poach its customers. "
So is the air that a bullet flies through before it injures or kills someone.
Actually the Linux kernel is not under CVS (or any revision control); however, all the BSD's, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Darwin, have been using CVS for many years.
I would agree except that the unlicensed files made it into a released kernel. If this was only in someone's development patches it would be a different story.
I'm pretty sure that Søren (the copyright holder) actually exists; and I'm equally sure that Linus got those headers from a person or organization (Redhat) that exists.
It is most definitely a license violation. The first clause of the license states:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
without modification, immediately at the beginning of the file
Note that the license has been completely removed.
If you try to access a vulnerable server it attempts to send you a 'readme.eml' file with a
The 208.x.x.x is similiar to Code Red in that it attempts to scan local subnets (I bet you are have a 208.x.x.x IP); therefore, naming it 208 is only good for those in your Class A. We have received attempts from over 100 hosts infected with the Code Red 2 worm, starting from the local class C, then class B, and now class A and others. It appears to be attempting to find rooter servers, for what purpose I can only imagine.
NT 4.0 sp6
Sorry everyone but I don't have the bandwidth to serve the ACL screenshot to the world (was not expecting to be slashdotted :/). Mirrors welcome, though.
This from the guy who does not believe in revision control :)
This doesn't appear to be 'CVS in a nutshell,' nor is it published by McGraw-Hill. In fact, this appears to be 'CVS pocket reference' by O'Reilly. Am I the only one confused?
If spamming is illegal in your locality, you could be charged as an accessory to [whatever the legal term is for spamming]. Hell, you might even get a reward for narc'ing them out. :)
$ uname -sr /usr/include/sys/types.h
/* user id */
FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
$ grep uid_t
typedef u_int32_t uid_t;
$
And conversely, I went there, saw some serious inaccuracies (including the fact that it lists all the BSD's as being released under the GPL) and reviews that appeared to be written by Windows users, and never returned.
Personally, I found their complete lack of research and understanding of the BSD community as a sign of a site that I would never return to...
I disagree with sending inflamatory messages, but also do not condone their [dm]isinformation.
And a number of companies, including BSDi and those listed here, here, here, here, here, here would probably disagree.
Please show me where you got the idea that the purpose of the open source community is to create an OS to rival Windows? Personally, I enjoy working on open source projects, including FreeBSD, not because I want Microsoft to go away, but because I enjoy using and developing a stable, secure OS. Perhaps the quote: "Linux is for Microsoft haters, BSD is for Unix lovers" is true...
Along with this small ftp server that can only server 5000 simultaneous users.
bvi (binary vi) at http://bvi.sourceforge.net/ works well under Linux and FreeBSD, and appears to be fairly portable. If you like vi, bvi is great.
It you actually read what TrustedBSD is about, you would see that it is an extension to FreeBSD and should be integrated into FreeBSD-proper before 5.0 is released.
Actually, FreeBSD regularly integrates OpenBSD's fixes into the system (and vice versa). The nice thing about having the 3 open-source BSD's (along with MacOS X and BSD/OS) is that much code is shared, and is available for the others to use.
Using the splash screen during boot on my laptop with FreeBSD tends to turns heads, though. Remember, not all unix systems are servers.