With Jon Hall having New Hampshire's (I presume, the article doesn't explicitly say)...
Yes, maddog's Jeep is registered in NH.
FYI, Bruce Dawson [jbd at codemeta dot com] has LINUX in NH. An image of his plate appears on the "Linux License Plate" T-shirts you see at Linux shows and such. The "Live Free or Die" motto is most appropriate.
Actually, it used RSX, RSTS, and VAX-VMS, which most of the DECUS software was written for. Digital Unix was an afterthought, and a poor implementation at that.
Just in the interests of keeping everyone fully informed, DEC's Unix-like OS for the VAX was Ultrix. "Ultrix is amazingly customizable; you have to replace two-thirds of it just to get anything to work!"
Digital UNIX (formerly OSF/1 and now Compaq Tru64) is for the Alpha line, and is actually one of the better commercial Unixes, IMNSHO.
I believe... that the Mac and Windows interfaces are still too difficult to use. That is why things like... hierarchical directory structures will eventually have to go.
Huh? This is getting rather off-topic, but please explain to me how putting everything in one big mess will make things easier? People don't store all of their documents in one file folder; why should they have to use one file folder on the computer? You're talking about a giant step backwards here.
Berlin, AFAIK aims at EMULATING X11: because its main purpose is not to implement X11, it will implement X11 on top of another API. That's emulation.
Personally, I wouldn't call that an emulation, per se. I would call it a X server implemented for the Berlin platform (similar to the XFree port for OS/2). But that is starting to split hairs; if you want to call Berlin's X support "emulation", I won't argue with you.
WINE, however, allows to run Windows programs on Linux. Linux is not meant to be a Windows implementation.
True, but I never claimed that Wine made Linux a Windows emulator; I claimed Wine itself is a Windows emulator.
WINE is Not A [CPU/Machine Code/Virtual Machine] Emulator.
But it is an OS emulator.
BTW, "Wine" originally stood for "Windows Emulator". The change to the recursive acronym came later. I suspect the reasons were:
Emulating -- acting like -- Windows could be interpreted to mean crashing a lot, and they wanted to avoid that.
A lot of people seem to think that "Windows Emulator" also means "i386 Emulator", which Wine most explicitly is not.
The basis of the government's case (at least part of it) is that, in their opinion, a web browser cannot be part of an OS.
That's just plain wrong.
The basis of the government's case is that, according to US law, a monopoly cannot use their monopoly power to further their own products. It doesn't matter what Microsoft is trying to bundle with Windows; what matters is the fact that they are a monopoly. If you are a monopoly, you have to tread carefully, or your monopoly will be taken away -- forcefully. That's the law, and for good reason.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
I'm glossing over the legal issues, partly because they're complicated and partly because I don't know them all, but please accept my rough interpretation of the case.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept an interpretation that is fundamentally flawed.
So the second system to implement an API is the emulator?
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or were you born that way? Read what I flippin' wrote.
All X11 servers but the first implementation (incl. XF86) are emulators, right?
X11 servers are generally implementing the X11 protocol standard, not trying to act like the original X server implementation. In fact, many of them -- including XFree -- use the same code.
And all Java VMs other than the first are emulators, right?
I suppose that depends on Java's status this week -- is it a standard, or a product owned by Sun?
And the GNU system is a UNIX® system emulator, right?
That was how it started, after all. RMS wanted a Unix system without the Unix license problems.
Microsoft IIS is an NCSA-httpd (now Apache Server) emulator?
Well, I can't speak for Microsoft. Are they trying to be NCSA HTTPD all over again, or are they trying to implement the HTTP standard? (Or, more likely in MSFT's case, embrace and extend the standard?)
If a project is trying to implement a standard, then I wouldn't call that an emulation. They are starting from scratch and creating something that meets an abstract specification.
But, if a project sets out with the goal of implementing something which acts just like another product, then they are building an emulator, by definition. Emuate means "act like".
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need diagrams?
But the problem is, if Janet Reno and Co. get their way, programmers won't have the power to make that decision anymore -- the government will.
Where on this Earth did you get that from? Have you been watching too many "X-Files" shows?
The government is not proposing, nor are they allowed to, dictate what programmers have the power to include in anything. If you honestly think that, I think you should log off, shutdown your workstation, and step outside. Notice the lack of flying saucers and KGB patrols. Once reality has returned, please re-join the discussion.
What the DoJ is proposing is that a single company -- one Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond, Washington -- be broken up into two or more seperate companies, as punishment for illegally using their monopoly power to stifle competition, and to help prevent it from happening again.
No more, no less. It will not affect what other companies can do. It will not affect what other programmers can do. It won't even affect what the new "Baby Bills" can do. It will simply split the companies and prevent then from working together.
The problem is, no one follows the "standards" the same way. Take HTML for example...
Bad example. HTML is not supposed to look the same everywhere. When are people going to figure that out? HTML is supposed to be a presentation-independent, logical markup language. You markup what you are trying to say; the user agent (browser) determines how to say it.
Netscape and IE. Wait, hold on, those two are guilty of extending the markup language on their own...
I'm not saying NSCP and MSFT aren't both guilty of the crime of discarding standards. Indeed, I've condemned Netscape for their behavior in the past. Mozilla, at least, is based on standards, although I think that was because NSCP saw that was their only hope.
I personally just want to use whatever works well, and I want it to be the same.
So, we shouldn't have a choice? A single, select few companies should control what is fast becoming the most important communications medium in human history? We should be at the mercy of MSFT, AOL, and the like?
And you call yourself a libertarian? Libertry is the root of that word, and it seems you're not all that familiar with the concept.
... those OEM vendors signed the contracts, no one forced them to do so...
Um, MSFT very much forced them to do so. It was either that, or lose their right to to distribute Microsoft's OS, which was pretty much the only choice (see monopoly). The only choice the companies had was to sign the contracts or go out of business.
If that's your definition of "liberty", well, I'm glad I don't agree.
There is a great advantage to having a somewhat standardized Operating System.
There are advantages to having a somewhat standardized health care system, too. And to the regulation of firearm ownership and operation. Yet, if you are a libertarian, I'm sure you are strongly against such things. Why are OSes different?
One of my greatest frustrations with Linux is the amount of variance in the systems and the versions of the libraries they include.
Funny, that's my greatest frustration with MS-Windows. On Linux, all I have to do is grab a copy of the library I need, install it, and I'm all set. The better package-management tools even take care of this for you, automatically and transparently.
On Windows, that is often illegal, and when it isn't, you still cannot have more then one version of a library installed. DLL Hell. No, thank you!
So you're saying an emulator is any program that exposes APIs, that all libraries are emulators?
No, I'm not, and that should be obvious. Check my previous post, and you'll see the formal definition of what I'm saying an emulator is, namely, that which emulates (tries to act like, but is not) an origial product.
Wine Is Not an Emulator. It replaces windows libraries, it doesn't emulate.
Oh, please.
emulate: 3. Computer science: To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Wine emulates the Windows binary interface. Funny names aside, Wine very much is an emulator.
The problem here is again, a different stack tere, a different browser here, a different protocol there, a different compression scheme here, a different xml engine there, a different ipsec here, and you get the point.
And this is why standards are what should be followed. Not Microsoft's "Here is our proprietary solution that locks you into our platform" APIs, but standards. Like POSIX, like HTML, like CSS, like XML. If you followed the standard you will be okay.
It is when vendors like Microsoft decide to "enhance" the standard with extensions designed to lock out competition that things break down. Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, and something needs to be done to stop their abuse of that power, or the future of the information age will be owned by a single company.
Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, and something needs to be done to stop their abuse of that power, or the future of the information age will be owned by a single company.
I don't think breaking up MSFT is the best solution possible, but it may be the best solution possible under US law. I would rather be inconvenienced then enslaved.
What would my ideal solution be?
First, behavioral restrictions: Force Microsoft to publish complete specifications for all of their interfaces and file formats, and allow unlimited third-part re-implementation of them. If they cannot provide a spec, they cannot sell the product.
This would keep Microsoft from using their products to lock people into their products. People would be free to choose Windows, Exchange, IIS, IE, or what-have-you if that was the best product available. But if MS tries anything funny, people would be free to switch vendors.
Prohibit Microsoft from entering into exclusive licensing agreements with PC OEMs. This is something that is technically already done, but MS has found loop holes. Close them.
Next, some punitive and corrective measures. MSFT has broken the law and deserves to be punished; they also have locked out their competition in many markets and can continue that lock-out legally. So:
Prohibit bundling any other MS product with Windows for the next five years. No Windows Media Player. No MS-Works or MS-Office pre-loads. Force a choice on people, as MS has forced the lack of a choice on them for so many years.
Force MS to include freely available third-party browsers in the Windows OS package along with IE, and give users the choice of which they want to use. They've used their OS monopoly to build a browser monopoly; correct that.
But again, I don't know if any of this is possible or feasible, and I would rather be inconvenienced then enslaved.
There seem to be a lot of people out there who really dislike the idea of a text-based, human-readable (and editable) configuration database. I'm going to address some of their points here.
First, the easy one: Text files are bad because they can get messed up by typos.
Um, right. And exactly how well does a binary file deal with typos?
You're trying to solve the wrong problem. If the I make a mistake editing my system configuration files directly, I am going to be in trouble, regardless.
The solution is to use an intelligent, front-end program which does sanity checking on the data entered. The difference is, a human-unreadable format cannot be fixed when the front-end program goes wrong. When the MS-Windows registry is corrupted, you reinstall the OS. Period. But when linuxconf screws up my/etc/fstab file, I can fire up emacs and fix it.
That is the biggest reason why human-readable configuration files are vital: Because computers screw up, and I want to be able to fix them when they do.
Now, let's move on to some of the other points: Text-based configuration data results in a performance penalty.
Well, I guess this is technically true. But let's think about this. Parsing the configuration file is something that generally only needs to be done once, when the program initializes (or the file is changed). Most configuration files are small enough that this is really not a significant performance hit. Computers process data, often text data. They do it very well. Let's not get all worked up about asking them to do more of the same.
Next: There is no standard format.
Now, here the detractors have something. Unix evolved rather then being designed. The result is a hodge-podge of configuration formats. I am sure a great many of us would really prefer it if things were a bit more standardized, but they're not. And here that most evil demon of systems design, backwards compatibility, rears its ugly head once again. We can't change things without breaking everything -- programs and people alike.
Unfortunately, there is no good answer to this problem, on any system. It would be easy enough to start rewriting things to use a more standardized format, but nobody does, because frankly, it isn't worth it. If it was, somebody would have done it by now. What we have works quite well, and the effort involved in changing everything is more then the effort needed to figure things out.
It is worth pointing out that simply moving to a standardized format isn't going to alleviate the need to understand what you're editing before you edit it. I've seen enough misconfigured Macs and NT boxes to know that a pretty GUI or a rigid file format doesn't make a system fool-proof.
The text-based nature of Unix's configuration database is actually a strength, here. You cannot comment the Windows registry. But I can (and do) add comments to all of my Unix configuration files. You can also use RCS, SCCS, or any other revision control system to keep track of what was changed, and why. Try doing that with NT.
Now, let me address a few points by particular people:
jilles writes: I think current linux distributions with all their environment variables, init scripts, shell scripts and ancient tools are far more complex than necessary to accomplish the flexibility and security they offer.
I disagree. One of the reasons Unix has survived so long and adapted so well is that it is built on flexible tools, and easily modified and extended for new situations. Those "ancient tools" are still in use today because they work damn well.
In my opinion an OS is nothing more than a kernel + application packages + configuration user data.
You just described the entire computer software system for most cases, so I don't know what your point is.
A good principle in software engineering is separation of concern. It is not practiced enough in linux because configuration files are applications which are partially stored as user data.
Separation of concern is a design principle that states, roughly, that components should not concern themselves with duties that are not theirs. I fail to see how storing configuration data in shell scripts violates this principle.
Not too mention that the kernel's functioning depends on a legion of scripts.
Incorrect. The kernel does not require a single script to boot a running system. Issue "linux init=/bin/sh" at a LILO prompt sometime and you'll see what I mean.
Now, overall service activity is controlled by a series of portable shell scripts because that is what shell scripts are for: Automating repetitive tasks. If they weren't controlled by scripts, you would have to write, maintain, and port a compiled program instead. Just because something is compiled doesn't mean it is better.
Stefan writes: The current situation with.dot-files scattered all around the place works somewhat well when only a single person uses a non-networked computer.
Um, every hear of a networked home directory?
Insufficiently flexible permissions for modifying the configuration, either because filesystem lacks acls...
A lack of filesystem ACLs is a deficiency, and one that should be fixed. And it has been, on several commercial Unixes, and is coming Real Soon Now to the free ones too, or so I'm told.
... or whole files are not granular enough.
Then you use more then one file.
Difficult to inherit/replicate configurations, for say 20 identical clients.
See cp(1) for details on that.
Allows for for a flexible permissions system, let a user remove printjobs from the printer on his desk,
Um, this can be done now.
... or a teacher add user accounts for her classes on a certain server or user group.
Same here. Granted, you'll need the right front-end tools, but that is a universal condition.
Administrate everything without needing to log on to a dozen computers editing files all over.
Look at rsync(1) and rdist(1), as well as network filesystems and NIS. (Granted, NIS has a number of design and implementation flaws, but they are not inherit in the design of Unix.)
Move around configurations and configured items in the tree easily. For example imagine dragging the the apache object from server A to B and voila you've moved your webserver to run on the other computer instead.
Here you should look at the mv(1) command.
IN SUMMARY
Under Unix, everything is a file. Filesystem access controls enforce security. File editors change things. File revision control tracks changes. And file management commands move things around. Why design separate interfaces for everything if you already have them there in the filesystem?
I remember YEARS ago, at a Macworld Expo, GraphSim demoed F/A-18 Hornet (which was mac-only at the time) running on a Quadra 840AV (so this was about 1993) on four monitors...
Cool. id Software's game "Doom" (remember that?) did something like this, too. If you had two extra PCs, you could position them left, center, and right, network them using IPX, and run the same game on all three. About as close to VR as first-person-shooters have gotten on the PC.:-)
But if you have sufficient access to your own desktop, shouldn't you be able to kill the logger?
Sure, you could. But since you are (we presume) working at a government installation, processing sensitive and classified information, doing so would likely get you put under investigation for espionage.
Even if you are innocent, that is not something you want to have to go through. And if they find you were doing something bad (like selling secrets to the Chinese), you get an all expenses paid trip to Leavenworth.
Trust me on this: You DO NOT screw with the Security Police.
You would need to mount the hard drive inside a pressurized container on the spacecraft.
Actually, you would need to mount two disks, back-to-back, otherwise, when the drives spin up, the whole satilite will start rotating in the other direction. Newton's Third Law makes working in space a pain in the butt at times.:-)
When I was working at the Space Science Center at Unnamed U., they were building instruments for data collection. They found it cheaper in the long run to simply use hundreds of megabytes of static RAM (what we computer geeks call "cache RAM"). RAM because disks are a pain to work with in space, and static RAM because it resists radiation better and doesn't need to be refreshed.
Well, maybe not intentional Larry Niven references, but they are there!
Larry made the same error Microsoft did! (The first edition of Ringworld had the Earth spinning the wrong way. Later versions corrected it. The originals are worth money now.)
And now we find out that Jar Jar Binks is really Teela Brown!
Would not a very effective reply be, "Well, what company is supporting FooProduct now that we aren't?", and leading into a brief push for the benefits of being able to choose your support vendor independently of the code provider, to the point of hiring your own programmers if need be.
Of course, I've been told I lack tact in such situations, so perhaps that would not be an effective reply.:-)
Hours, minutes, seconds -- all were invented by man for his own convenience. How much of our perceived lack of time is just that -- pure perception? If we decide how to measure it -- if we decide to measure it at all -- do we not also decide that we do not have enough of it?
It is because They(TM) define the standard unit of time? Perhaps we should be lobbying for Open Source time instead of software?
(Yes, I'm waxing philosophical. So sue me.)
No, it's an "Insane IPO stock tumble"
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
It isn't Linux companies; it is companies that were hugely over-valued at their IPO. The latest Wall Street insanity is Linux. Before that, it was portals. Before that, it was Internet commerce companies. Before that, it was general Internet companies. This isn't so much a reflection of Linux companies as it is a reflection of Wall Street's rather short attention span.
As an example: In the past year, Yahoo!, everyone's favorite Internet company, and one of the few Wall Street darlings to make a profit, as fallen 78 percent. Far more then any Linux company you mention. Yet I don't think Yahoo is going anywhere.
My, my. Are you really, really new to programming or something?
Um, no. Are you really, really new to the English language or something? You're missing my point entirely.
If you have a version of GCC without the source to match it, as in your given example, then you cannot be sure of what it is doing.
The whole point of KT's hypothetical hack was that it would be invisible from the programmer.
His hack was very much real, and not hypothetical as you insinuate. Again, it demonstrates the dangers of misplaced trust in pre-compiled binaries.
As KT demonstrated, you cannot trust the compiler.
If you are sure you have the source to the compiler you are using, and you have reviewed it -- or someone you trust has done the same -- then you can trust the compiler.
The problem in the KT case was, KT provided a pre-compiled binary that everyone assumed was good. Binary. Not source. Binary. Get it?
But don't take my word for it, go read the Thompson paper on inserting self-reproducing malicious code into a compiler. He proves that, even with the source code you can never be 100% sure of what a program is actually doing.
*sigh*
While it is true that Open Source is not a panacea, the Ken Thompson C compiler backdoor does not apply. That particular exploit was only possible because people did not have the source to the binary needed to bootstrap a new machine into running Unix. They had to use a binary provided by Ken Thompson, who they had to trust.
And that is the real matter at hand -- trust. If you are not reviewing every line of code and then compiling every binary yourself -- and let's face it, most people don't have the resources to do that -- you better make damn sure you trust the provider of your pre-compiled binaries.
What if Red Hat slipped a similar back door into their compiler package? What if one of the Debian maintainers decided to do it with their's? How about if both of the above are honest, but CheapBytes does? How about the company they subcontract to manufacture and distribute the boxed sets?
It is critical to remember that most "Open Source" installations are, in fact, using unreviewed, pre-compiled binaries, and not the source itself. If the provider of those binaries is trusted, then you can be confident of the benefits of Open Source. But if not... well, at least you can switch vendors easier then you can with Microsoft's products.
The single biggest question you have to concern yourself with in the security world is still: Who do you trust?
And don't forget the other games -- Studs, BRE and Lord
And LOD! Don't forget Land Of Devistation! Only door game I know of that supported inter-BBS compos and included an optional client-side GUI that could also play MOD (tracked music) files while you played! I've still got the LOD theme music in my MOD collection.
Can you remember your Fidonet node?
My point, or the BBS I fed off of? I was 1:177/132.4, a point off of Computer Castle BBS, the largest Fido BBS in the state of NH before we shutdown. 20 incoming phone lines, and a call-forwarding network extending accross three states!
NYNEX kept trying to raise our rates, but we kept fighting them off. They finally decided to go ahead and do it illegally. What can you do? They're The Phone Company(TM). The system shutdown when the SysOp got a $3000 phone bill that month.
Do you wish you could still code with PCBoard Programming Language?
Give me RemoteAccess and a copy of Turbo Pascal V7 anyday!;-)
Ever miss playing with the volume slide on your USR Courier during connects?
'sniff.
Miss using TheDRAW or DuhDRAW?
Still got TheDRAW zipped up in case I need it. Though it prolly doesn't run under Linux natively, I bet DOSemu would do pretty well.
Wish you could still dial out with QMPro?
Telemate, man! Telemate! One of the only multithreaded DOS apps I ever saw. And the only DOS comm program that let you do other thing while downloading!
Me:What is the point of having a cheap bicycle lock that you are absolutely, positively sure will not stand up to a determined attempt to break it?
You:Well, the point is, it stops a casual thief.
No. That answers the question, "What is the point of having a cheap bicycle lock?"
You said there is a place for a system with low security but high assurance. I am trying to figure out what that would be.
In other words, why would you buy a $20 bicycle lock, and then pay $5000 to verify that, yes, it really is a cheap bicycle lock?
Similarly, a situation where you don't do much to prevent people from coming and going, but are sure that their activities are on a security tape (for example, an ordinary bank) calls for low security, high assurance.
I'm starting to see where the confusion is coming from. You're using terms in a different way.
Security is a multi-part thing. Exact definitions vary, but it is generally defined to be the sum of integrity, availability, authenticity, and accountability. Accountability includes audit. In other words, keeping careful track of who comes and goes is a part of security.
Assurance is how sure you can be that the security features of your system actually work as advertised. Not, "Do we know who took the money?" but "How sure are we that this camera we're thinking of buying will do the job?"
I suspect that levels like A1 describe even better assurance than C2 -- but that you can't get credit for those levels of assurance without also having A1 security.
Moving from Class B to Class A is entirely about adding assurance, and not about adding new security features. IIRC, the big thing about Class A1 is that it requires a formal mathematical proof that your security features work.
*yawn* This again? The Internet has been changing and evolving since it was created. It will continue to do so, likely forever. Yet, for some reason, people drag out these doom-and-gloom, the-world-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-end prophecies on a regular basis.
Slashdot Mirror
With Jon Hall having New Hampshire's (I presume, the article doesn't explicitly say)...
Yes, maddog's Jeep is registered in NH.
FYI, Bruce Dawson [jbd at codemeta dot com] has LINUX in NH. An image of his plate appears on the "Linux License Plate" T-shirts you see at Linux shows and such. The "Live Free or Die" motto is most appropriate.
Article: ... Torvalds adopted a General Public License that said anybody could copy his code, change...
thinthief: Let's get our facts right! They are obviously referring to the GPL...
It is called the General Public License. Read it yourself:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"GNU Public License" is technically incorrect.
Actually, it used RSX, RSTS, and VAX-VMS, which most of the DECUS software was written for. Digital Unix was an afterthought, and a poor implementation at that.
Just in the interests of keeping everyone fully informed, DEC's Unix-like OS for the VAX was Ultrix. "Ultrix is amazingly customizable; you have to replace two-thirds of it just to get anything to work!"
Digital UNIX (formerly OSF/1 and now Compaq Tru64) is for the Alpha line, and is actually one of the better commercial Unixes, IMNSHO.
I believe ... that the Mac and Windows interfaces are still too difficult to use. That is why things like ... hierarchical directory structures will eventually have to go.
:)
Huh? This is getting rather off-topic, but please explain to me how putting everything in one big mess will make things easier? People don't store all of their documents in one file folder; why should they have to use one file folder on the computer? You're talking about a giant step backwards here.
Did I mis-understand you, or what?
Berlin, AFAIK aims at EMULATING X11: because its main purpose is not to implement X11, it will implement X11 on top of another API. That's emulation.
Personally, I wouldn't call that an emulation, per se. I would call it a X server implemented for the Berlin platform (similar to the XFree port for OS/2). But that is starting to split hairs; if you want to call Berlin's X support "emulation", I won't argue with you.
WINE, however, allows to run Windows programs on Linux. Linux is not meant to be a Windows implementation.
True, but I never claimed that Wine made Linux a Windows emulator; I claimed Wine itself is a Windows emulator.
WINE is Not A [CPU/Machine Code/Virtual Machine] Emulator.
But it is an OS emulator.
BTW, "Wine" originally stood for "Windows Emulator". The change to the recursive acronym came later. I suspect the reasons were:
Emulating -- acting like -- Windows could be interpreted to mean crashing a lot, and they wanted to avoid that.
A lot of people seem to think that "Windows Emulator" also means "i386 Emulator", which Wine most explicitly is not.
Recursive acronyms are fun.
The basis of the government's case (at least part of it) is that, in their opinion, a web browser cannot be part of an OS.
That's just plain wrong.
The basis of the government's case is that, according to US law, a monopoly cannot use their monopoly power to further their own products. It doesn't matter what Microsoft is trying to bundle with Windows; what matters is the fact that they are a monopoly. If you are a monopoly, you have to tread carefully, or your monopoly will be taken away -- forcefully. That's the law, and for good reason.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
I'm glossing over the legal issues, partly because they're complicated and partly because I don't know them all, but please accept my rough interpretation of the case.
I am sorry, but I cannot accept an interpretation that is fundamentally flawed.
So the second system to implement an API is the emulator?
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or were you born that way? Read what I flippin' wrote.
All X11 servers but the first implementation (incl. XF86) are emulators, right?
X11 servers are generally implementing the X11 protocol standard, not trying to act like the original X server implementation. In fact, many of them -- including XFree -- use the same code.
And all Java VMs other than the first are emulators, right?
I suppose that depends on Java's status this week -- is it a standard, or a product owned by Sun?
And the GNU system is a UNIX® system emulator, right?
That was how it started, after all. RMS wanted a Unix system without the Unix license problems.
Microsoft IIS is an NCSA-httpd (now Apache Server) emulator?
Well, I can't speak for Microsoft. Are they trying to be NCSA HTTPD all over again, or are they trying to implement the HTTP standard? (Or, more likely in MSFT's case, embrace and extend the standard?)
If a project is trying to implement a standard, then I wouldn't call that an emulation. They are starting from scratch and creating something that meets an abstract specification.
But, if a project sets out with the goal of implementing something which acts just like another product, then they are building an emulator, by definition. Emuate means "act like".
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need diagrams?
But the problem is, if Janet Reno and Co. get their way, programmers won't have the power to make that decision anymore -- the government will.
Where on this Earth did you get that from? Have you been watching too many "X-Files" shows?
The government is not proposing, nor are they allowed to, dictate what programmers have the power to include in anything. If you honestly think that, I think you should log off, shutdown your workstation, and step outside. Notice the lack of flying saucers and KGB patrols. Once reality has returned, please re-join the discussion.
What the DoJ is proposing is that a single company -- one Microsoft Corporation, in Redmond, Washington -- be broken up into two or more seperate companies, as punishment for illegally using their monopoly power to stifle competition, and to help prevent it from happening again.
No more, no less. It will not affect what other companies can do. It will not affect what other programmers can do. It won't even affect what the new "Baby Bills" can do. It will simply split the companies and prevent then from working together.
The problem is, no one follows the "standards" the same way. Take HTML for example ...
... those OEM vendors signed the contracts, no one forced them to do so ...
Bad example. HTML is not supposed to look the same everywhere. When are people going to figure that out? HTML is supposed to be a presentation-independent, logical markup language. You markup what you are trying to say; the user agent (browser) determines how to say it.
Netscape and IE. Wait, hold on, those two are guilty of extending the markup language on their own...
I'm not saying NSCP and MSFT aren't both guilty of the crime of discarding standards. Indeed, I've condemned Netscape for their behavior in the past. Mozilla, at least, is based on standards, although I think that was because NSCP saw that was their only hope.
I personally just want to use whatever works well, and I want it to be the same.
So, we shouldn't have a choice? A single, select few companies should control what is fast becoming the most important communications medium in human history? We should be at the mercy of MSFT, AOL, and the like?
And you call yourself a libertarian? Libertry is the root of that word, and it seems you're not all that familiar with the concept.
Um, MSFT very much forced them to do so. It was either that, or lose their right to to distribute Microsoft's OS, which was pretty much the only choice (see monopoly). The only choice the companies had was to sign the contracts or go out of business.
If that's your definition of "liberty", well, I'm glad I don't agree.
There is a great advantage to having a somewhat standardized Operating System.
There are advantages to having a somewhat standardized health care system, too. And to the regulation of firearm ownership and operation. Yet, if you are a libertarian, I'm sure you are strongly against such things. Why are OSes different?
One of my greatest frustrations with Linux is the amount of variance in the systems and the versions of the libraries they include.
Funny, that's my greatest frustration with MS-Windows. On Linux, all I have to do is grab a copy of the library I need, install it, and I'm all set. The better package-management tools even take care of this for you, automatically and transparently.
On Windows, that is often illegal, and when it isn't, you still cannot have more then one version of a library installed. DLL Hell. No, thank you!
So you're saying an emulator is any program that exposes APIs, that all libraries are emulators?
No, I'm not, and that should be obvious. Check my previous post, and you'll see the formal definition of what I'm saying an emulator is, namely, that which emulates (tries to act like, but is not) an origial product.
Don't be obtuse.
Wine Is Not an Emulator. It replaces windows libraries, it doesn't emulate.
Oh, please.
emulate: 3. Computer science: To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
Wine emulates the Windows binary interface. Funny names aside, Wine very much is an emulator.
The problem here is again, a different stack tere, a different browser here, a different protocol there, a different compression scheme here, a different xml engine there, a different ipsec here, and you get the point.
And this is why standards are what should be followed. Not Microsoft's "Here is our proprietary solution that locks you into our platform" APIs, but standards. Like POSIX, like HTML, like CSS, like XML. If you followed the standard you will be okay.
It is when vendors like Microsoft decide to "enhance" the standard with extensions designed to lock out competition that things break down. Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, and something needs to be done to stop their abuse of that power, or the future of the information age will be owned by a single company.
Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, and something needs to be done to stop their abuse of that power, or the future of the information age will be owned by a single company.
I don't think breaking up MSFT is the best solution possible, but it may be the best solution possible under US law. I would rather be inconvenienced then enslaved.
What would my ideal solution be?
First, behavioral restrictions: Force Microsoft to publish complete specifications for all of their interfaces and file formats, and allow unlimited third-part re-implementation of them. If they cannot provide a spec, they cannot sell the product.
This would keep Microsoft from using their products to lock people into their products. People would be free to choose Windows, Exchange, IIS, IE, or what-have-you if that was the best product available. But if MS tries anything funny, people would be free to switch vendors.
Prohibit Microsoft from entering into exclusive licensing agreements with PC OEMs. This is something that is technically already done, but MS has found loop holes. Close them.
Next, some punitive and corrective measures. MSFT has broken the law and deserves to be punished; they also have locked out their competition in many markets and can continue that lock-out legally. So:
Prohibit bundling any other MS product with Windows for the next five years. No Windows Media Player. No MS-Works or MS-Office pre-loads. Force a choice on people, as MS has forced the lack of a choice on them for so many years.
Force MS to include freely available third-party browsers in the Windows OS package along with IE, and give users the choice of which they want to use. They've used their OS monopoly to build a browser monopoly; correct that.
But again, I don't know if any of this is possible or feasible, and I would rather be inconvenienced then enslaved.
There seem to be a lot of people out there who really dislike the idea of a text-based, human-readable (and editable) configuration database. I'm going to address some of their points here.
/etc/fstab file, I can fire up emacs and fix it.
.dot-files scattered all around the place works somewhat well when only a single person uses a non-networked computer.
...
... or whole files are not granular enough.
... or a teacher add user accounts for her classes on a certain server or user group.
First, the easy one: Text files are bad because they can get messed up by typos.
Um, right. And exactly how well does a binary file deal with typos?
You're trying to solve the wrong problem. If the I make a mistake editing my system configuration files directly, I am going to be in trouble, regardless.
The solution is to use an intelligent, front-end program which does sanity checking on the data entered. The difference is, a human-unreadable format cannot be fixed when the front-end program goes wrong. When the MS-Windows registry is corrupted, you reinstall the OS. Period. But when linuxconf screws up my
That is the biggest reason why human-readable configuration files are vital: Because computers screw up, and I want to be able to fix them when they do.
Now, let's move on to some of the other points: Text-based configuration data results in a performance penalty.
Well, I guess this is technically true. But let's think about this. Parsing the configuration file is something that generally only needs to be done once, when the program initializes (or the file is changed). Most configuration files are small enough that this is really not a significant performance hit. Computers process data, often text data. They do it very well. Let's not get all worked up about asking them to do more of the same.
Next: There is no standard format.
Now, here the detractors have something. Unix evolved rather then being designed. The result is a hodge-podge of configuration formats. I am sure a great many of us would really prefer it if things were a bit more standardized, but they're not. And here that most evil demon of systems design, backwards compatibility , rears its ugly head once again. We can't change things without breaking everything -- programs and people alike.
Unfortunately, there is no good answer to this problem, on any system. It would be easy enough to start rewriting things to use a more standardized format, but nobody does, because frankly, it isn't worth it. If it was, somebody would have done it by now. What we have works quite well, and the effort involved in changing everything is more then the effort needed to figure things out.
It is worth pointing out that simply moving to a standardized format isn't going to alleviate the need to understand what you're editing before you edit it. I've seen enough misconfigured Macs and NT boxes to know that a pretty GUI or a rigid file format doesn't make a system fool-proof.
The text-based nature of Unix's configuration database is actually a strength, here. You cannot comment the Windows registry. But I can (and do) add comments to all of my Unix configuration files. You can also use RCS, SCCS, or any other revision control system to keep track of what was changed, and why. Try doing that with NT.
Now, let me address a few points by particular people:
jilles writes: I think current linux distributions with all their environment variables, init scripts, shell scripts and ancient tools are far more complex than necessary to accomplish the flexibility and security they offer.
I disagree. One of the reasons Unix has survived so long and adapted so well is that it is built on flexible tools, and easily modified and extended for new situations. Those "ancient tools" are still in use today because they work damn well.
In my opinion an OS is nothing more than a kernel + application packages + configuration user data.
You just described the entire computer software system for most cases, so I don't know what your point is.
A good principle in software engineering is separation of concern. It is not practiced enough in linux because configuration files are applications which are partially stored as user data.
Separation of concern is a design principle that states, roughly, that components should not concern themselves with duties that are not theirs. I fail to see how storing configuration data in shell scripts violates this principle.
Not too mention that the kernel's functioning depends on a legion of scripts.
Incorrect. The kernel does not require a single script to boot a running system. Issue "linux init=/bin/sh" at a LILO prompt sometime and you'll see what I mean.
Now, overall service activity is controlled by a series of portable shell scripts because that is what shell scripts are for: Automating repetitive tasks. If they weren't controlled by scripts, you would have to write, maintain, and port a compiled program instead. Just because something is compiled doesn't mean it is better.
Stefan writes: The current situation with
Um, every hear of a networked home directory?
Insufficiently flexible permissions for modifying the configuration, either because filesystem lacks acls
A lack of filesystem ACLs is a deficiency, and one that should be fixed. And it has been, on several commercial Unixes, and is coming Real Soon Now to the free ones too, or so I'm told.
Then you use more then one file.
Difficult to inherit/replicate configurations, for say 20 identical clients.
See cp(1) for details on that.
Allows for for a flexible permissions system, let a user remove printjobs from the printer on his desk,
Um, this can be done now.
Same here. Granted, you'll need the right front-end tools, but that is a universal condition.
Administrate everything without needing to log on to a dozen computers editing files all over.
Look at rsync(1) and rdist(1), as well as network filesystems and NIS. (Granted, NIS has a number of design and implementation flaws, but they are not inherit in the design of Unix.)
Move around configurations and configured items in the tree easily. For example imagine dragging the the apache object from server A to B and voila you've moved your webserver to run on the other computer instead.
Here you should look at the mv(1) command.
IN SUMMARY
Under Unix, everything is a file. Filesystem access controls enforce security. File editors change things. File revision control tracks changes. And file management commands move things around. Why design separate interfaces for everything if you already have them there in the filesystem?
I remember YEARS ago, at a Macworld Expo, GraphSim demoed F/A-18 Hornet (which was mac-only at the time) running on a Quadra 840AV (so this was about 1993) on four monitors ...
:-)
Cool. id Software's game "Doom" (remember that?) did something like this, too. If you had two extra PCs, you could position them left, center, and right, network them using IPX, and run the same game on all three. About as close to VR as first-person-shooters have gotten on the PC.
But if you have sufficient access to your own desktop, shouldn't you be able to kill the logger?
Sure, you could. But since you are (we presume) working at a government installation, processing sensitive and classified information, doing so would likely get you put under investigation for espionage.
Even if you are innocent, that is not something you want to have to go through. And if they find you were doing something bad (like selling secrets to the Chinese), you get an all expenses paid trip to Leavenworth.
Trust me on this: You DO NOT screw with the Security Police.
You would need to mount the hard drive inside a pressurized container on the spacecraft.
:-)
Actually, you would need to mount two disks, back-to-back, otherwise, when the drives spin up, the whole satilite will start rotating in the other direction. Newton's Third Law makes working in space a pain in the butt at times.
When I was working at the Space Science Center at Unnamed U., they were building instruments for data collection. They found it cheaper in the long run to simply use hundreds of megabytes of static RAM (what we computer geeks call "cache RAM"). RAM because disks are a pain to work with in space, and static RAM because it resists radiation better and doesn't need to be refreshed.
I wonder what 192 MB of cache RAM goes for?
Well, maybe not intentional Larry Niven references, but they are there!
Larry made the same error Microsoft did! (The first edition of Ringworld had the Earth spinning the wrong way. Later versions corrected it. The originals are worth money now.)
And now we find out that Jar Jar Binks is really Teela Brown!
It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
(Either that, or I'm waaaaaayyyy too tired.)
Would not a very effective reply be, "Well, what company is supporting FooProduct now that we aren't?", and leading into a brief push for the benefits of being able to choose your support vendor independently of the code provider, to the point of hiring your own programmers if need be.
:-)
Of course, I've been told I lack tact in such situations, so perhaps that would not be an effective reply.
Lunch-time doubly so.
Hours, minutes, seconds -- all were invented by man for his own convenience. How much of our perceived lack of time is just that -- pure perception? If we decide how to measure it -- if we decide to measure it at all -- do we not also decide that we do not have enough of it?
It is because They(TM) define the standard unit of time? Perhaps we should be lobbying for Open Source time instead of software?
(Yes, I'm waxing philosophical. So sue me.)
It isn't Linux companies; it is companies that were hugely over-valued at their IPO. The latest Wall Street insanity is Linux. Before that, it was portals. Before that, it was Internet commerce companies. Before that, it was general Internet companies. This isn't so much a reflection of Linux companies as it is a reflection of Wall Street's rather short attention span.
As an example: In the past year, Yahoo!, everyone's favorite Internet company, and one of the few Wall Street darlings to make a profit, as fallen 78 percent. Far more then any Linux company you mention. Yet I don't think Yahoo is going anywhere.
My, my. Are you really, really new to programming or something?
Um, no. Are you really, really new to the English language or something? You're missing my point entirely.
If you have a version of GCC without the source to match it, as in your given example, then you cannot be sure of what it is doing.
The whole point of KT's hypothetical hack was that it would be invisible from the programmer.
His hack was very much real, and not hypothetical as you insinuate. Again, it demonstrates the dangers of misplaced trust in pre-compiled binaries.
As KT demonstrated, you cannot trust the compiler.
If you are sure you have the source to the compiler you are using, and you have reviewed it -- or someone you trust has done the same -- then you can trust the compiler.
The problem in the KT case was, KT provided a pre-compiled binary that everyone assumed was good. Binary. Not source. Binary. Get it?
But don't take my word for it, go read the Thompson paper on inserting self-reproducing malicious code into a compiler. He proves that, even with the source code you can never be 100% sure of what a program is actually doing.
*sigh*
While it is true that Open Source is not a panacea, the Ken Thompson C compiler backdoor does not apply. That particular exploit was only possible because people did not have the source to the binary needed to bootstrap a new machine into running Unix. They had to use a binary provided by Ken Thompson, who they had to trust.
And that is the real matter at hand -- trust. If you are not reviewing every line of code and then compiling every binary yourself -- and let's face it, most people don't have the resources to do that -- you better make damn sure you trust the provider of your pre-compiled binaries.
What if Red Hat slipped a similar back door into their compiler package? What if one of the Debian maintainers decided to do it with their's? How about if both of the above are honest, but CheapBytes does? How about the company they subcontract to manufacture and distribute the boxed sets?
It is critical to remember that most "Open Source" installations are, in fact, using unreviewed, pre-compiled binaries, and not the source itself. If the provider of those binaries is trusted, then you can be confident of the benefits of Open Source. But if not... well, at least you can switch vendors easier then you can with Microsoft's products.
The single biggest question you have to concern yourself with in the security world is still: Who do you trust?
And don't forget the other games -- Studs, BRE and Lord
;-)
And LOD! Don't forget Land Of Devistation! Only door game I know of that supported inter-BBS compos and included an optional client-side GUI that could also play MOD (tracked music) files while you played! I've still got the LOD theme music in my MOD collection.
Can you remember your Fidonet node?
My point, or the BBS I fed off of? I was 1:177/132.4, a point off of Computer Castle BBS, the largest Fido BBS in the state of NH before we shutdown. 20 incoming phone lines, and a call-forwarding network extending accross three states!
NYNEX kept trying to raise our rates, but we kept fighting them off. They finally decided to go ahead and do it illegally. What can you do? They're The Phone Company(TM). The system shutdown when the SysOp got a $3000 phone bill that month.
Do you wish you could still code with PCBoard Programming Language?
Give me RemoteAccess and a copy of Turbo Pascal V7 anyday!
Ever miss playing with the volume slide on your USR Courier during connects?
'sniff.
Miss using TheDRAW or DuhDRAW?
Still got TheDRAW zipped up in case I need it. Though it prolly doesn't run under Linux natively, I bet DOSemu would do pretty well.
Wish you could still dial out with QMPro?
Telemate, man! Telemate! One of the only multithreaded DOS apps I ever saw. And the only DOS comm program that let you do other thing while downloading!
Man, those were the days!
Me: What is the point of having a cheap bicycle lock that you are absolutely, positively sure will not stand up to a determined attempt to break it?
You: Well, the point is, it stops a casual thief.
No. That answers the question, "What is the point of having a cheap bicycle lock?"
You said there is a place for a system with low security but high assurance. I am trying to figure out what that would be.
In other words, why would you buy a $20 bicycle lock, and then pay $5000 to verify that, yes, it really is a cheap bicycle lock?
Similarly, a situation where you don't do much to prevent people from coming and going, but are sure that their activities are on a security tape (for example, an ordinary bank) calls for low security, high assurance.
I'm starting to see where the confusion is coming from. You're using terms in a different way.
Security is a multi-part thing. Exact definitions vary, but it is generally defined to be the sum of integrity, availability, authenticity, and accountability. Accountability includes audit. In other words, keeping careful track of who comes and goes is a part of security.
Assurance is how sure you can be that the security features of your system actually work as advertised. Not, "Do we know who took the money?" but "How sure are we that this camera we're thinking of buying will do the job?"
I suspect that levels like A1 describe even better assurance than C2 -- but that you can't get credit for those levels of assurance without also having A1 security.
Moving from Class B to Class A is entirely about adding assurance, and not about adding new security features. IIRC, the big thing about Class A1 is that it requires a formal mathematical proof that your security features work.
Imminent Death of the Internet Predicted!
:-)
Film at eleven.
*yawn* This again? The Internet has been changing and evolving since it was created. It will continue to do so, likely forever. Yet, for some reason, people drag out these doom-and-gloom, the-world-as-we-know-it-is-going-to-end prophecies on a regular basis.
Wake me up when some real news breaks.