Your argument is wrong once again. TCP/IP includes what we call the applicaton layer which is free to encrypt the payload or not. The protocol is secure because it allows the encapsulation of secure data within it's payload transparently. You may even encapsulate TCP/IP within TCP/IP, encrypt it, etc
This discussion is going nowhere, we're obviously talking at two different perspectives, I think the application is responsible for the logical security and the protocol is responsible for the physical security. You think the protocol should handle it all....
In the end TCP/IP is a masterpiece, it is secure alright. Not that there won't be many future improvements to it, but it is one heck of an engineering craft.
Please take a look at my reply below, fault tolerance is a form of security, since the system will not respond in case of physical failure - remember the security concept the chain is only as strong as its weakest link? You might have thought of logical security only, which is ok, but incomplete. Without physical security a system is worthless.
The internet was designed do be a defense project, if you still want to argue it was not made to be secure I'd please ask you to read some more on DARPA and why congress spends so much tax payer money there.
I guarantee you it is not for making insecure though fault tolerant systems.
Logical security includes what you are probably thinking of as the whole deal. But your concept is incomplete, since fault tolerance is also vital to a system, there is no use in having a very logically secure network that is not tolerant to mass physical failure. Am I saying something absurd here, or have you seen what I meant?
Indeed I made a final nervous comment, but read back through your reply to my post, you totally discarded my argument as childish and unfundamented.
The details? Well the internet is insecure huh? Right now, drop what you are doing, and take the internet down. Hack it, make yourself untraceable, isn't the internet insecure? I'll see you on 8 PM news, you have a few hours to do it.
You can't. The internet is secure, the protocols are good, and so far the brightest minds out there have not come up with something better.
I am not saying you can't revolutionize it all, in fact I encourage you to.
When I was criticizing an obviously flawed and mediocre operating system, you came and compared it to the internet. The world can't do without the internet, it can do without Windows.
Sorry if I offended you, didn't mean to. My argument is sound, and I dare not compare the Internet to Windows.
The Internet was designed with the sole purpose of being secure, to stand through a massive nuclear attack on US soil and still communicate through alternate routes.
Go back to 101 kid, you have no clue what the internet is. And you completely lack the respect that the late Jon Postel and the original creators of the first Internet protocols deserve.
Microsoft's sense of security is not only different from mine, it is different from reality. Like a PhD thesis, these types of things are only proven in practice, and practice shows, time and time again, that their approach to software construction is insecure.
And still some admire them for releasing timely patches. Well if were Microsoft I'd thank the white hats for warning them of a security flaw weeks before the public.
I agree with you. Their view of security is a marketed approach to security. Just read what Bruce Schneier has to say about Microsoft's "sense".
Still on the practical side of things, not going into OS wars, just subscribe to bugtraq and do a little statistics on daily microsoft bugs and holes discovered. I find it amazing that anyone out there on mission critical environments, specifically official government and defense agencies, are still using this stuff.
I apologize if I am offending some Microsoft fans out there but to me Microsoft security, reliability and credibility have ceased to exist long ago.
It doesn't matter who warns Microsoft and when. Security isn't something you suddenly do, it is built from architecture to deployment, and Microsoft is nowhere close to engineering any secure products.
Windows is insecure in its conception, and unfortunately I see very little that can be done to reverse this.
With a site like Slashdot it's easy to do market research : you paste the idea you want to research on at the end of a related article and see what everyone says;)
Oh, and I hand-counted twice and a paid Slashdot is a bad idea according to 98,7% of Slashdot users.
Since when do Microsoft own ECMA ? Microsofts implementation is controlled by Microsoft, but the standard itself isn't. Why don't Sun submit to a standards body ? It's primarily because they want to retain control.
"IT" in "it is still controlled by Microsoft" referred to.NET not ECMA. I have no clue why Java isn't submitted to standard bodies, but I've read something from Jim Gosling mentioning this don't remember what he had to say about it though. And yeah if I invested billions into something, I'd indeed like to keep control of it....the main thing is Java is not being pushed at us through the force of a monopoly.
I'd agree, if it didn't imply that platform-specific features were properly modularised, and not glued onto the language
When you use forward slashes in Perl running on Win32 you get perfect results while navigating directories/folders, while if you used backlashes you'd need two each time to avoid being escaped out of the string. When you use fork on windows a new process is spawned even though processes on Win32 are passive lumps of memory that need active threads and on UNIX they are sufficient for program execution, no threads....but both fork perfectly....and they're both called fork.
fork is UNIX, CreateThread/Process is Windows, both are called fork in Perl and it runs a dandy.
Sorry but I have to disagree again with you, there is absolutely nothing wrong in glueing the functions which originated from UNIX on to the multiplatform language. It is fine to have the new process function be called fork, either on Windows where you CreateProcess() or on VMS where you BATCHTHETHINGY() or UNIX where you clone or fork() and wait().
But then again I understand your point, you are a purist and want the language as neat and tied as Python. I agree, and think Python is fine.
As for myself I like the occasional magic that makes Perl work, I don't like everything nice, shiny and orthodox, and I think Linux, Perl, emacs, the Intel CPUs and lots of other hacker craft are built this way including UNIX itself. They've got magic in them to make it work with the new stuff and the old and not break.
So you can run a brand new State and go by shiny new rules or obey an old and patched Constitution that works. I am a bit dated in my options I admit, but I go for the oldtime patched Perl.
Sorry if this became offtopic, this is an old discussion anyway, but it is just nice exchanging ideas.
Stallman Email says:The Open Source Initiative has the right to
define a criterion for open source and note the fact that GNOME fits it, but GNOME has no connection with them.
To the best of my knowledge the G in GNOME stands for GNU???
And geez with so much good research out there, why did Icaza have to choose a Microsoft product for a base to Gnome. Just seems to be a way to attract attention, needlessly by the way, I just think that there are great virtual machine architectures out there that could be used to implement a common runtime base for most languages.
Lastly, Richard Stallman is not only a free software activist, he is also the president to a prestigious foundation, with too much accomplished to let this PR blunder damage his reputation, so he released a nice email publicly retreating from a personal confrontation from Icaza.
But lets face it, in private he`s cursing Icaza's guts right now...damn he chose Microsoft after all....all you MSFT lovers don't bother replying, I have an affair with open source UNIX....
Well, he believes correctly. The core components are an ECMA standard.
This is not, and has never been proof of openness and that it should be adopted by open source developers. It is still controlled by Microsoft, which defeats your second argument that starts with "Java is controlled by Sun."
For something more genuinely cross-platform, that properly separates core and platform functionality, try Python.
Well we can either start a language war or simply use the best tool for the best job. And I do believe I mentioned that Perl IS BIASED towards UNICES, though IT WILL WORK on about twice the platforms Python will...but I like Python as well, and do agree with you that it is less unixish. To me though being UNIXish is a feature.
Scientists at IBM Corp.'s (NASDAQ:IBM) San Jose, Calif.-based Almaden Research Center this week rushed to report that they have performed a challenging quantum computer calculation, causing a billion-billion custom-designed molecules in a test tube to become a seven-qubit quantum computer.
With that breakthrough, they solved a simple version of the mathematical problem that is the crux of many of today's data-security cryptographic systems. According to Nabil Amer, manager and strategist of IBM Research's physics of information group, this was quite a feat.
"This result reinforces the growing realization that quantum computers may someday be able to solve problems that are so complex that even the most powerful supercomputers working for millions of years can't calculate the answers," said Amer.
I just happened to notice that Perl is being used for so many innovative research fields.
First of all Perl seems to be an excellent language for Bioinformatics, and Dr. Lincoln Stein is a leading voice in this area. Recently O'Reilly has been giving great coverage in this area.
Nanotechnology seems to be another area where Perl is getting much attention.
I believe the platform and vendor independence, absolute openness, and superb data munging capabilities of it are the main reasons for Perl's adoption in such academic research.
But, although I am an aspiring Perl advocate) and big Larry Wall fan myself, I wonder just how optimized these modules are for such intense low level work....
It actually impresses me that some open source leaders actually go for this kind of marketing plot.
See de Icaza's intentions to make.NET the framework for Gnome....Stallman was more than mad when he heard about it here in Brasil past week. Icaza actually believed that there was openness to the Microsoft framework, and that it could be safely used for the Gnome.
Them same situation we got here, you could adopt the JVM for any project actually, but it is closed technology nonetheless and very well masked as open and platform-neutral.
For true open source, platform independence see Perl. Be careful though, Perl is extremely biased towards non-commercial, non-arrogant, non-crashin, non-biased open-source UNICES:)!!!!
Quoting the article: "This scenario will severely block innovation in the programming language field because a whole generation of programmers may be educated by CLR-compatible languages, and what they will learn is that all languages are identical. They will know only one model for inheritance, typing, frameworks, etc. They will be much less likely to experiment with truly different alternatives."
If anyone lets a single framework be their programming language education then they deserve so!
I can't believe he even brought that up. It is like saying oh now that they've invented the mouse innovation in the user interface field will be crippled since a whole generation of UI architects will be using the mouse for input and double-left click for yes, right click for options, etc....
This is very common, a good technical article drawing the wrong social conclusions. Actually technicians are very bad at drawing human or social conclusions, see Oppenheimer and Einstein.....
(Being only a programmer perhaps I'm drawing the wrong conclusion myself.....)
Yeah Japan and Europe are good for videogames, the rest of the good stuff is done in U.S.
Your post was unnecessary flamebait, we all know the merits of american invention, now if for one second you consider yourself a superior tribe because you're richer go stuff your cars and computers up your ass.
Ralph, that is globalization, and that is why italians die protesting on the streets, that is why everywhere the G8 meet there are protests...because german workers have to be dumped by cheap taiwanese labor, why do american programmers have to compete with cheap indian and asian labor, why do 90% of Nike shoes come from asia?
But globalization is here to stay, the little producer of oranges in Florida will have to compete with the little guy from Brazil. And so the cycle goes, in the end I believe everyone gets cheaper, higher quality end products!
Americans will lose territory just like everyone else will, but the global competition will lead to high quality products and lots of advances in science, tech and even peace!
Think about it, a future where everyone has a slice of the pie. Not only germans or americans or japanese. Everyone.
I am confused : who's the troll here? Your post is just disguised envy and flame. Be cool man, nobody wants to take America from you.
If I remember correctly your civil war was about states trying to become republics? What are you now, a collection of 51 superpowers?
There's a chance for everyone, and just because they grow it doesn't mean they're a threat to America. It seems everything becomes a military issue when dealt with by americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is wrong once again. TCP/IP includes what we call the applicaton layer which is free to encrypt the payload or not. The protocol is secure because it allows the encapsulation of secure data within it's payload transparently. You may even encapsulate TCP/IP within TCP/IP, encrypt it, etc
This discussion is going nowhere, we're obviously talking at two different perspectives, I think the application is responsible for the logical security and the protocol is responsible for the physical security. You think the protocol should handle it all....
In the end TCP/IP is a masterpiece, it is secure alright. Not that there won't be many future improvements to it, but it is one heck of an engineering craft.
Please take a look at my reply below, fault tolerance is a form of security, since the system will not respond in case of physical failure - remember the security concept the chain is only as strong as its weakest link? You might have thought of logical security only, which is ok, but incomplete. Without physical security a system is worthless.
The internet was designed do be a defense project, if you still want to argue it was not made to be secure I'd please ask you to read some more on DARPA and why congress spends so much tax payer money there.
I guarantee you it is not for making insecure though fault tolerant systems.
Redundancy is a form of physical security.
Logical security includes what you are probably thinking of as the whole deal. But your concept is incomplete, since fault tolerance is also vital to a system, there is no use in having a very logically secure network that is not tolerant to mass physical failure. Am I saying something absurd here, or have you seen what I meant?
Indeed I made a final nervous comment, but read back through your reply to my post, you totally discarded my argument as childish and unfundamented.
The details? Well the internet is insecure huh? Right now, drop what you are doing, and take the internet down. Hack it, make yourself untraceable, isn't the internet insecure? I'll see you on 8 PM news, you have a few hours to do it.
You can't. The internet is secure, the protocols are good, and so far the brightest minds out there have not come up with something better.
I am not saying you can't revolutionize it all, in fact I encourage you to.
When I was criticizing an obviously flawed and mediocre operating system, you came and compared it to the internet. The world can't do without the internet, it can do without Windows.
Sorry if I offended you, didn't mean to. My argument is sound, and I dare not compare the Internet to Windows.
The Internet was designed with the sole purpose of being secure, to stand through a massive nuclear attack on US soil and still communicate through alternate routes.
Go back to 101 kid, you have no clue what the internet is. And you completely lack the respect that the late Jon Postel and the original creators of the first Internet protocols deserve.
Microsoft's sense of security is not only different from mine, it is different from reality. Like a PhD thesis, these types of things are only proven in practice, and practice shows, time and time again, that their approach to software construction is insecure.
And still some admire them for releasing timely patches. Well if were Microsoft I'd thank the white hats for warning them of a security flaw weeks before the public.
I agree with you. Their view of security is a marketed approach to security. Just read what Bruce Schneier has to say about Microsoft's "sense".
Still on the practical side of things, not going into OS wars, just subscribe to bugtraq and do a little statistics on daily microsoft bugs and holes discovered. I find it amazing that anyone out there on mission critical environments, specifically official government and defense agencies, are still using this stuff.
I apologize if I am offending some Microsoft fans out there but to me Microsoft security, reliability and credibility have ceased to exist long ago.
It doesn't matter who warns Microsoft and when. Security isn't something you suddenly do, it is built from architecture to deployment, and Microsoft is nowhere close to engineering any secure products.
Windows is insecure in its conception, and unfortunately I see very little that can be done to reverse this.
There isn't a C virtual machine (that I know of), though.
Hi, I think I understood what you tried to say, but can you tell me of one machine these days that is not a virtual machine for C?
Gone are the days when your C program touched the machine at all!!!
With a site like Slashdot it's easy to do market research : you paste the idea you want to research on at the end of a related article and see what everyone says ;)
Oh, and I hand-counted twice and a paid Slashdot is a bad idea according to 98,7% of Slashdot users.
Since when do Microsoft own ECMA ? Microsofts implementation is controlled by Microsoft, but the standard itself isn't. Why don't Sun submit to a standards body ? It's primarily because they want to retain control.
.NET not ECMA. I have no clue why Java isn't submitted to standard bodies, but I've read something from Jim Gosling mentioning this don't remember what he had to say about it though. And yeah if I invested billions into something, I'd indeed like to keep control of it....the main thing is Java is not being pushed at us through the force of a monopoly.
"IT" in "it is still controlled by Microsoft" referred to
I'd agree, if it didn't imply that platform-specific features were properly modularised, and not glued onto the language
When you use forward slashes in Perl running on Win32 you get perfect results while navigating directories/folders, while if you used backlashes you'd need two each time to avoid being escaped out of the string. When you use fork on windows a new process is spawned even though processes on Win32 are passive lumps of memory that need active threads and on UNIX they are sufficient for program execution, no threads....but both fork perfectly....and they're both called fork.
fork is UNIX, CreateThread/Process is Windows, both are called fork in Perl and it runs a dandy.
Sorry but I have to disagree again with you, there is absolutely nothing wrong in glueing the functions which originated from UNIX on to the multiplatform language. It is fine to have the new process function be called fork, either on Windows where you CreateProcess() or on VMS where you BATCHTHETHINGY() or UNIX where you clone or fork() and wait().
But then again I understand your point, you are a purist and want the language as neat and tied as Python. I agree, and think Python is fine.
As for myself I like the occasional magic that makes Perl work, I don't like everything nice, shiny and orthodox, and I think Linux, Perl, emacs, the Intel CPUs and lots of other hacker craft are built this way including UNIX itself. They've got magic in them to make it work with the new stuff and the old and not break.
So you can run a brand new State and go by shiny new rules or obey an old and patched Constitution that works. I am a bit dated in my options I admit, but I go for the oldtime patched Perl.
Sorry if this became offtopic, this is an old discussion anyway, but it is just nice exchanging ideas.
Stallman Email says :The Open Source Initiative has the right to
define a criterion for open source and note the fact that GNOME fits it, but GNOME has no connection with them.
To the best of my knowledge the G in GNOME stands for GNU???
And geez with so much good research out there, why did Icaza have to choose a Microsoft product for a base to Gnome. Just seems to be a way to attract attention, needlessly by the way, I just think that there are great virtual machine architectures out there that could be used to implement a common runtime base for most languages.
Lastly, Richard Stallman is not only a free software activist, he is also the president to a prestigious foundation, with too much accomplished to let this PR blunder damage his reputation, so he released a nice email publicly retreating from a personal confrontation from Icaza.
But lets face it, in private he`s cursing Icaza's guts right now...damn he chose Microsoft after all....all you MSFT lovers don't bother replying, I have an affair with open source UNIX....
Well, he believes correctly. The core components are an ECMA standard.
This is not, and has never been proof of openness and that it should be adopted by open source developers. It is still controlled by Microsoft, which defeats your second argument that starts with "Java is controlled by Sun."
For something more genuinely cross-platform, that properly separates core and platform functionality, try Python.
Well we can either start a language war or simply use the best tool for the best job. And I do believe I mentioned that Perl IS BIASED towards UNICES, though IT WILL WORK on about twice the platforms Python will...but I like Python as well, and do agree with you that it is less unixish. To me though being UNIXish is a feature.
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article/0,,10 _943731,00.html
Scientists at IBM Corp.'s (NASDAQ:IBM) San Jose, Calif.-based Almaden Research Center this week rushed to report that they have performed a challenging quantum computer calculation, causing a billion-billion custom-designed molecules in a test tube to become a seven-qubit quantum computer.
With that breakthrough, they solved a simple version of the mathematical problem that is the crux of many of today's data-security cryptographic systems. According to Nabil Amer, manager and strategist of IBM Research's physics of information group, this was quite a feat.
"This result reinforces the growing realization that quantum computers may someday be able to solve problems that are so complex that even the most powerful supercomputers working for millions of years can't calculate the answers," said Amer.
I just happened to notice that Perl is being used for so many innovative research fields.
First of all Perl seems to be an excellent language for Bioinformatics, and Dr. Lincoln Stein is a leading voice in this area. Recently O'Reilly has been giving great coverage in this area.
Nanotechnology seems to be another area where Perl is getting much attention.
I believe the platform and vendor independence, absolute openness, and superb data munging capabilities of it are the main reasons for Perl's adoption in such academic research.
But, although I am an aspiring Perl advocate) and big Larry Wall fan myself, I wonder just how optimized these modules are for such intense low level work....
Exactly, and well said.
.NET the framework for Gnome....Stallman was more than mad when he heard about it here in Brasil past week. Icaza actually believed that there was openness to the Microsoft framework, and that it could be safely used for the Gnome.
:)!!!!
It actually impresses me that some open source leaders actually go for this kind of marketing plot.
See de Icaza's intentions to make
Them same situation we got here, you could adopt the JVM for any project actually, but it is closed technology nonetheless and very well masked as open and platform-neutral.
For true open source, platform independence see Perl. Be careful though, Perl is extremely biased towards non-commercial, non-arrogant, non-crashin, non-biased open-source UNICES
Quoting the article: "This scenario will severely block innovation in the programming language field because a whole generation of programmers may be educated by CLR-compatible languages, and what they will learn is that all languages are identical. They will know only one model for inheritance, typing, frameworks, etc. They will be much less likely to experiment with truly different alternatives."
If anyone lets a single framework be their programming language education then they deserve so!
I can't believe he even brought that up. It is like saying oh now that they've invented the mouse innovation in the user interface field will be crippled since a whole generation of UI architects will be using the mouse for input and double-left click for yes, right click for options, etc....
This is very common, a good technical article drawing the wrong social conclusions. Actually technicians are very bad at drawing human or social conclusions, see Oppenheimer and Einstein.....
(Being only a programmer perhaps I'm drawing the wrong conclusion myself.....)
Offtopic, moderators please ignore.
/dev/null
/dev/null
/dev/null
This is the 100MB Google file repos.00.
I will use cat as the C sample.
time cat repos.00 >
real 0m0.415s
user 0m0.040s
sys 0m0.390s
time java cat.class repos.00 >
real 0m0.822s
user 0m0.030s
sys 0m0.800s
time perl -n -e 'print;' repos.00 >
real 0m1.514s
user 0m1.190s
sys 0m0.350s
So perl takes much longer to compile but runs over twice as fast as Java just to read and spit out the contents of a 100MB file.
Completely offtopic I know...you asked for evidence...
Any doubts mail me at Perl Mongers Brasilia - brasilia.pm.org
Yeah Japan and Europe are good for videogames, the rest of the good stuff is done in U.S.
Your post was unnecessary flamebait, we all know the merits of american invention, now if for one second you consider yourself a superior tribe because you're richer go stuff your cars and computers up your ass.
Ralph, that is globalization, and that is why italians die protesting on the streets, that is why everywhere the G8 meet there are protests...because german workers have to be dumped by cheap taiwanese labor, why do american programmers have to compete with cheap indian and asian labor, why do 90% of Nike shoes come from asia?
But globalization is here to stay, the little producer of oranges in Florida will have to compete with the little guy from Brazil. And so the cycle goes, in the end I believe everyone gets cheaper, higher quality end products!
Americans will lose territory just like everyone else will, but the global competition will lead to high quality products and lots of advances in science, tech and even peace!
Think about it, a future where everyone has a slice of the pie. Not only germans or americans or japanese. Everyone.
What is wrong is the word "usually".
Here's the correct version:
Mundane jobs can lead to creativity but they usually lead to a human hamsters running in wheels chasing the cash to pay bills.
I am confused : who's the troll here? Your post is just disguised envy and flame. Be cool man, nobody wants to take America from you.
If I remember correctly your civil war was about states trying to become republics? What are you now, a collection of 51 superpowers?
There's a chance for everyone, and just because they grow it doesn't mean they're a threat to America. It seems everything becomes a military issue when dealt with by americans.
Get real, make peace.
Taking a copy of a rare disk on a trip instead of the original - a decent use for copying CD's and should be absolutely legal IMHO.
I once lost this 4 CD Eric Clapton book/cd set on a trip, got robbed. Won't happen again!
Prakman, nice sig, I wake up listening that song everyday!
Anyone tell me how Bill Joy was a mover or a shaker in 2001?
Al Gore invented the radio, and did the first ever broadcast from the BBC in London.
Wow, one intelligent being here!!!!
The military is all people seem care about lately. That is why people and buildings are being blown up.
I've had enough of arms race, fuck the lasers. Bush get a life outside cold war.