You've apparently got the 'everyone else but me is stupid' syndrome. What makes you think any given distro wouldn't set _reasonable_ default limits? There is absolutely no reason why any user-centric distribution would need no default limits on its user-resource-usage. How many processes do you really need? How much memory? How many open files? These are all resources that can be common-sensically limited, and it's _easy_ to raise those limits.
I mean, what would you rather have: a machine that's vulnerable by default to resource exhaustion, or a machine that's _not_ vulnerable by default.
Set it to something relatively low by default. If you have a need for more process space than that, you probably also have the knowledge necessary to raise it, or have it raised.
Browsers ignore the TTL on records. If you have a DNS-based balancing solution, like this or GSLB, it's going to bite you in the ass every time. You have to restart the browser (possibly even reboot the computer) in order to clear the cache.
It's only a 'crime' if you distribute the copy you made of the DVD you ripped so you could watch it without having to use fascist, Fair Use-infringing software or hardware.
In rental situations, the ethics are hazy, but if you buy the DVD you can do whatever you damn well please with it.
If you read the article, you'll notice that there was no indication that Apple was altering their firmware to break Harmony. They just slipped it in. Why do that if you think what you're doing is on the up-and-up?
Yes, just like nobody forced users to upgrade to newer versions of MS-DOS that broke applications that competed with Microsoft applications.
Now if Apple removed the ability, for example, to play MP3s, then you might have a point.
You don't understand. For Apple to remove the ability to do anything from a piece of equipment it does not own is (I can't say illegal, because I really have no idea) unethical, especially since what they removed is the ability to interface with a competitor.
Whether it's illegal or not has nothing to do with its wrongness. If people were merely renting the iPods then Apple would have a moral basis, but that's not the case.
This is being discussed on NANOG. Consensus is that (surprise, surprise) this is a PR move by Sandvine, who just happens to have a bandwidth management product. Several network managers in charge of large, multithousand-user networks, and including one large university campus, and a couple of ISPs, have chimed in saying that they've seen no real increase in bandwidth usage since Halo 2 was launched, and in fact, in a couple cases, have seen usage drop, attributable to the migration of PC/Mac Halo 1 players to the Xbox-only Halo 2.
That's what checksums are for. Anybody can compile it, get an md5 checksum of the binary, and compare it to what everyone else has. Binaries on active voting machines can be checked the same way.
Which article? The CERT Advisory?
Excerpt from the "Vendors" section of that advisory:
"Summary:
All Microsoft implementations of SNMP v1 are affected by the vulnerability."
True, it's not installed or enabled by default, but that's true for many other vendors as well; hence, the '...just as vulnerable as just about everyone else...'
If you enable it on Microsoft, you're just as vulnerable as if you'd installed and run it on Linux, or *BSD, or have it enabled on Cisco, or whatever.
If you actually read the advisory, you'll see that Microsoft is just as vulnerable as just about everyone else with an SNMP implementation. The bug is in SNMP, not any particular platform that the service resides on.
it's got a lot of what you stated above, including all of the really useful patches already merged in, and the page includes instructions for what else you need to install to get everything working right. src rpm and src tarball are both available.
Slashdot Mirror
You've apparently got the 'everyone else but me is stupid' syndrome. What makes you think any given distro wouldn't set _reasonable_ default limits? There is absolutely no reason why any user-centric distribution would need no default limits on its user-resource-usage. How many processes do you really need? How much memory? How many open files? These are all resources that can be common-sensically limited, and it's _easy_ to raise those limits.
I mean, what would you rather have: a machine that's vulnerable by default to resource exhaustion, or a machine that's _not_ vulnerable by default.
Set it to something relatively low by default. If you have a need for more process space than that, you probably also have the knowledge necessary to raise it, or have it raised.
Smoking prevents Alzheimer's!
:D
So which would you rather do: die young, or die as an old, shambling zombie?
Don't you mean "slave"?
Browsers ignore the TTL on records. If you have a DNS-based balancing solution, like this or GSLB, it's going to bite you in the ass every time. You have to restart the browser (possibly even reboot the computer) in order to clear the cache.
It's only a 'crime' if you distribute the copy you made of the DVD you ripped so you could watch it without having to use fascist, Fair Use-infringing software or hardware.
In rental situations, the ethics are hazy, but if you buy the DVD you can do whatever you damn well please with it.
If you read the article, you'll notice that there was no indication that Apple was altering their firmware to break Harmony. They just slipped it in. Why do that if you think what you're doing is on the up-and-up?
Yes, just like nobody forced users to upgrade to newer versions of MS-DOS that broke applications that competed with Microsoft applications.
Now if Apple removed the ability, for example, to play MP3s, then you might have a point.
You don't understand. For Apple to remove the ability to do anything from a piece of equipment it does not own is (I can't say illegal, because I really have no idea) unethical, especially since what they removed is the ability to interface with a competitor.
Whether it's illegal or not has nothing to do with its wrongness. If people were merely renting the iPods then Apple would have a moral basis, but that's not the case.
The hell it's not wrong.
Apple doesn't own those iPods, therefore they have exactly zero right to make any sort of modifications to them whatsoever.
It would be exactly the same thing if Apple modified that Sony NW-blahbX42fnordwhatever portable MP3 player to not be able to playback Real's tracks.
It's anti-competitive and pseudo-monopolistic (since iPods are more or less ubiquitous in the portable player market).
Don't be an Apple-apologist just because you're a rabid Apple fanboy.
This is being discussed on NANOG. Consensus is that (surprise, surprise) this is a PR move by Sandvine, who just happens to have a bandwidth management product. Several network managers in charge of large, multithousand-user networks, and including one large university campus, and a couple of ISPs, have chimed in saying that they've seen no real increase in bandwidth usage since Halo 2 was launched, and in fact, in a couple cases, have seen usage drop, attributable to the migration of PC/Mac Halo 1 players to the Xbox-only Halo 2.
The sky is not falling.
That's what checksums are for. Anybody can compile it, get an md5 checksum of the binary, and compare it to what everyone else has. Binaries on active voting machines can be checked the same way.
Oh, I see what you mean. Your objection was with this:
"The bug is in SNMP..."
not this:
"...Microsoft is just as vulnerable..."
You're right, I should have been more clear; the bug is in the implementation, not the protocol.
That's interesting, but I'm unsure what relevance it has to the simple fact that Microsoft's SNMPv1 implementation isn't excluded from this advisory.
I'm confused as to what your objection is, actually. Are we talking about the same thing?
Which article? The CERT Advisory?
Excerpt from the "Vendors" section of that advisory:
"Summary:
All Microsoft implementations of SNMP v1 are affected by the vulnerability."
True, it's not installed or enabled by default, but that's true for many other vendors as well; hence, the '...just as vulnerable as just about everyone else...'
If you enable it on Microsoft, you're just as vulnerable as if you'd installed and run it on Linux, or *BSD, or have it enabled on Cisco, or whatever.
If you actually read the advisory, you'll see that Microsoft is just as vulnerable as just about everyone else with an SNMP implementation. The bug is in SNMP, not any particular platform that the service resides on.
rumors are flying about a recut by kevin smith that completely removes jar-jar from the movie. from all accounts, it's pretty masterfully done.
i haven't seen it, however, so i've no way of knowing if that's true, or if the redone film even exists.
check out bruce guenter's qmail+patches package.
here
it's got a lot of what you stated above, including all of the really useful patches already merged in, and the page includes instructions for what else you need to install to get everything working right. src rpm and src tarball are both available.