BTW, the following message I just got back from www dot kernel dot org:
The Linux Kernel Archives is currently offline due to a hardware failure. However, mirror sites are receiving updates; please use a mirror site instead.
May be this is the beginning of the end to direct access to them?!
More likely, it's the problem referred to in the email.
First, the non-VM scenario: let's say in a given period, there's a 1:3 chance that a box will go down, and you have 1 customer upset. If you have three customers, the odds are 1:1 that one of the machines will go down. Over three periods, three customers will experience downtime.
Okay, VM now: There's still a 1:3 chance that a box will go down, but if you have 3 customers, three customers will be upset if it happens. Over three periods, the odds of the machine going down are 1:1, so over three periods, three customers will experience downtime.
It reduces the odds and raises the stakes in equal proportion. Of course, dealing with three upset customers may be more than 3x as difficult as dealing with 1 upset customer 3 times.
This achitecture has huge advantages when it comes to making backups, since the host OS can access and back up all the partitions in one swell foop. And with the cost savings, you could afford to get a second, identically-configured box. So there are plus sides, too. I guess VM giveth and VM taketh away. . .
The reason there's a value to virtual machines is because you can't buy half a computer [from reputable vendors!]. If you have four jobs that only require 1/4 of the resources of a modern PC, but they all need different security contexts, you must a) buy four servers or b) buy one server and run 4 virtual machines.
There's probably even some value in a beowulf cluster of virtual machines-- if you want to write and test cluster-based software when you don't have access to a cluster.
Don't be a dink. By the same logic I could say that the existence of tailless dogs makes the statement "dogs have tails" absurd. OSX is a special case of Unix, in every sense of the word "special".
Some interesting examples of the strangeness of the law. Still, I don't think that the right to privacy or to a jury trial should ever be lost in an EULA.
I know what you mean, but it depends what you give them. For instance, if yo* L support only for nvidia gForce 2/3
* No Gamepad Support yet
u give them a deadly disease. ..[but imagine being sued for giving someone the flu!]
All I said was that there was a basis for comparison. Flash costs more money. Microdrive costs more battery life. Which is worse depends on your situation and opinion.
I think you're wrong about that. If a system prevents applications from reading or writing data that they did not create, it can be optional, and vary from program to program.
For example, "rm" would need the ability to delete files that it had not created. But it wouldn't need the ability to read or write files it hadn't created. Bash would need the ability to execute other programs. But it wouldn't need the ability to delete files.
I'm not sure how many spanners scripts throw into the works-- in theory, rm just becomes a replacement for your unlink() call, and any program(script) can delete any file. This is because your shell has and requires the ability to run any executable on the system. (Something which, again, rm doesn't need.) A mechanism is required that prevents bash's (or rm's) permissions from exceeding the bash script itself.
Okay-- what if permissions are subtractive? rm can't read other-app files, so neither can any program rm runs. Bash does have the right to delete any file, and so does rm, so if you run rm through Bash, you delete the file. However, cp does not have the right to delete any file, so even if you run cp through Bash, it can't delete a file it did not create.
And when a file contains #!/bin/bash, any permissions the script does not have, are subtracted from the permissions of bash when it runs.
Ah, that's a more clever answer.
Still, it strikes me that in a court of law, they could probably determine whether character stream was actually the image in question during the "discovery phase".
This is the phase in which evidence is gathered. For example, in a software copyright infringement suit, you could obtain access to the source code of the allegedly-infringing software in the discovery phase.
"Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited."
They own the copyright to the image. You can take your own picture of an iMac Sunflower (yeah, right!) or make a computer model based on the photo and render an image of that, or draw an abstract painting of it in blood and Orange Crush, but you don't have the right to distribute this particular image unless they explicitly release it into the public domain.
That's the rules. I don't make them up. I wish I did.
Yes, you CAN get RAM that you remove from your computer, plug it into another device and stil access the data; they're called flash ram cards. And they're getting pretty high in capacity, so it's fair to compare them to the microdrive.
Ah, but the distributor could get infected, if they didn't do a line-by line review of all the software they distribute.
I should have elaborated in my previous post; I think the reason Linux hasn't had many widespread viruses is because Linux is run by tech-savvy people, not just because of its security model. Savvy users understand what root is for. Clueless users are almost as capable of spreading viruses on Linux as on Windows.
Clueless Linux users could be the dark side of World Domination
Yes, but the tuner on the TV card in the x86 in front of me is smaller than any settop box I've ever seen!
[I think we disagree on what tuner means-- I think it's the thing that turns a broadcast TV signal on channel X into a into a composite video signal and audio signal]
I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with Windows' security or lack thereof. Anytime you run a binary you did not compile yourself (including a compiler), there's a chance that it will do heinous things to your computer. Like adding lines to ~/.bash_profile that run spyware.
See, this is the thing: I'm having a lot of trouble envioning circumstances where Code Morphing is actually good for something.
You can't clone Macs, so it's not useful for budget Mac laptops. Maybe you could use it to run in some vmware-like state so you could run Mac apps on a PC, but that's rarely needed. Most mainstream apps for Mac are also available on PC. The other way around is not the case, but we can't do Mac clones.
And you can't simulate a Geforce3, since bandwidth's the most important part.
I guess if you're running Java or C#, it could provide a "native implementation". . .
Code morphing is cool and all, but what's it for if it isn't power savings? Isn't that their main selling point?
And can't they think bigger than that? Wouldn't it be cool to have a machine that could run every platform from Windows XP to MAME to Commodore BASIC to PDP-11 Unix? Wouldn't that be a more fitting use of their tech? Sure, nobody would buy it, but wouldn't it be cooler?
Actually, I too have McAffe auto-updating, but it's running on a Linux server. Every night, a cron script sucks down the latest definitions using wget.
While McAffe runs on Linux, it doesn't do much for Linux users. The reason it's there is to filter mail for Windows viruses. There would be no point in making a similar product for Linux.
If there are other ways that intelligent life can develop, that just means there would be more intelligent life in the universe than this equation predicts.
Slashdot Mirror
The theoretical customer downtime doesn't change.
First, the non-VM scenario: let's say in a given period, there's a 1:3 chance that a box will go down, and you have 1 customer upset. If you have three customers, the odds are 1:1 that one of the machines will go down. Over three periods, three customers will experience downtime.
Okay, VM now: There's still a 1:3 chance that a box will go down, but if you have 3 customers, three customers will be upset if it happens. Over three periods, the odds of the machine going down are 1:1, so over three periods, three customers will experience downtime.
It reduces the odds and raises the stakes in equal proportion. Of course, dealing with three upset customers may be more than 3x as difficult as dealing with 1 upset customer 3 times.
This achitecture has huge advantages when it comes to making backups, since the host OS can access and back up all the partitions in one swell foop. And with the cost savings, you could afford to get a second, identically-configured box. So there are plus sides, too. I guess VM giveth and VM taketh away. . .
The reason there's a value to virtual machines is because you can't buy half a computer [from reputable vendors!]. If you have four jobs that only require 1/4 of the resources of a modern PC, but they all need different security contexts, you must a) buy four servers or b) buy one server and run 4 virtual machines.
There's probably even some value in a beowulf cluster of virtual machines-- if you want to write and test cluster-based software when you don't have access to a cluster.
Perhaps they were afraid that "Star Ballz" would be more entertaining than "Droids"?
Don't be a dink. By the same logic I could say that the existence of tailless dogs makes the statement "dogs have tails" absurd. OSX is a special case of Unix, in every sense of the word "special".
No, system() invokes a shell and passes your string to it, which makes it far more dangerous.
Say I use system() to echo a message:
gets(message);
sprintf(buffer, "echo %s" message);
system(buffer);
Now, suppose for my message I enter
"foo; rm -R *"
The shell will do "echo foo", then "rm -R *".
The exec family will never permit this to happen. It's far safer to use exec than to try to sanitize the user input.
Furthermore, there are much safer ways than system() to execute an external command-- fork() followed by exec(), for example.
Some interesting examples of the strangeness of the law. Still, I don't think that the right to privacy or to a jury trial should ever be lost in an EULA.
I know what you mean, but it depends what you give them. For instance, if yo* L support only for nvidia gForce 2/3 .[but imagine being sued for giving someone the flu!]
* No Gamepad Support yet
u give them a deadly disease. .
No. X-Box games run on the X-Box only, and some of them (e.g. Halo) are not expected to ever be released for PC.
I believe the post you're referring to is the top-level post in this thread. That wasn't me, it was Dragon218.
All I said was that there was a basis for comparison. Flash costs more money. Microdrive costs more battery life. Which is worse depends on your situation and opinion.
I think you're wrong about that. If a system prevents applications from reading or writing data that they did not create, it can be optional, and vary from program to program.
For example, "rm" would need the ability to delete files that it had not created. But it wouldn't need the ability to read or write files it hadn't created. Bash would need the ability to execute other programs. But it wouldn't need the ability to delete files.
I'm not sure how many spanners scripts throw into the works-- in theory, rm just becomes a replacement for your unlink() call, and any program(script) can delete any file. This is because your shell has and requires the ability to run any executable on the system. (Something which, again, rm doesn't need.) A mechanism is required that prevents bash's (or rm's) permissions from exceeding the bash script itself.
Okay-- what if permissions are subtractive? rm can't read other-app files, so neither can any program rm runs. Bash does have the right to delete any file, and so does rm, so if you run rm through Bash, you delete the file. However, cp does not have the right to delete any file, so even if you run cp through Bash, it can't delete a file it did not create.
And when a file contains #!/bin/bash, any permissions the script does not have, are subtracted from the permissions of bash when it runs.
You know, this actually sounds feasible. . .
Ah, that's a more clever answer.
Still, it strikes me that in a court of law, they could probably determine whether character stream was actually the image in question during the "discovery phase".
This is the phase in which evidence is gathered. For example, in a software copyright infringement suit, you could obtain access to the source code of the allegedly-infringing software in the discovery phase.
"Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited."
They own the copyright to the image. You can take your own picture of an iMac Sunflower (yeah, right!) or make a computer model based on the photo and render an image of that, or draw an abstract painting of it in blood and Orange Crush, but you don't have the right to distribute this particular image unless they explicitly release it into the public domain.
That's the rules. I don't make them up. I wish I did.
Yes, you CAN get RAM that you remove from your computer, plug it into another device and stil access the data; they're called flash ram cards. And they're getting pretty high in capacity, so it's fair to compare them to the microdrive.
Ah, but the distributor could get infected, if they didn't do a line-by line review of all the software they distribute.
I should have elaborated in my previous post; I think the reason Linux hasn't had many widespread viruses is because Linux is run by tech-savvy people, not just because of its security model. Savvy users understand what root is for. Clueless users are almost as capable of spreading viruses on Linux as on Windows.
Clueless Linux users could be the dark side of World Domination
Yes, but the tuner on the TV card in the x86 in front of me is smaller than any settop box I've ever seen!
[I think we disagree on what tuner means-- I think it's the thing that turns a broadcast TV signal on channel X into a into a composite video signal and audio signal]
I'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with Windows' security or lack thereof. Anytime you run a binary you did not compile yourself (including a compiler), there's a chance that it will do heinous things to your computer. Like adding lines to ~/.bash_profile that run spyware.
Posted from Mozilla on Debian GNU/Linux machine.
Yeah, that's the Saintsong Cappucino mentioned in the write-up.
See, this is the thing: I'm having a lot of trouble envioning circumstances where Code Morphing is actually good for something.
You can't clone Macs, so it's not useful for budget Mac laptops. Maybe you could use it to run in some vmware-like state so you could run Mac apps on a PC, but that's rarely needed. Most mainstream apps for Mac are also available on PC. The other way around is not the case, but we can't do Mac clones.
And you can't simulate a Geforce3, since bandwidth's the most important part.
I guess if you're running Java or C#, it could provide a "native implementation". . .
Code morphing is cool and all, but what's it for if it isn't power savings? Isn't that their main selling point?
And can't they think bigger than that? Wouldn't it be cool to have a machine that could run every platform from Windows XP to MAME to Commodore BASIC to PDP-11 Unix? Wouldn't that be a more fitting use of their tech? Sure, nobody would buy it, but wouldn't it be cooler?
You're aware that there are services that will do dynamic domains for you, right?
www.dyndns.org
Actually, I too have McAffe auto-updating, but it's running on a Linux server. Every night, a cron script sucks down the latest definitions using wget.
While McAffe runs on Linux, it doesn't do much for Linux users. The reason it's there is to filter mail for Windows viruses. There would be no point in making a similar product for Linux.
If there are other ways that intelligent life can develop, that just means there would be more intelligent life in the universe than this equation predicts.