Good points, all. But I would like to make a reply to your final sentence:
Even if all of the Joe Sixpacks in the world were running Linux it still would be a good deal less dangerous than what Windows users currently face.
Windows should not be the yardstick. Hell, even Linus more or less thinks so. We (as Linux users/admins/programmers/whatever) should be attempting to achieve the ideal solution; we should not simply be trying to be better than Microsoft.
IIRC, Plato talked about ideal forms. That is what we should be striving for.
Scan through the rest of the thread. It works, except that you don't necessarily know when you were infected. So restoring that backup might just mean that you've restored the virus.
Why would you be kept from opening a fake smtp/ftp/http server? If I understand correctly, you'd only be prevented from running on ports below 1024. If I write a virus that creates an open mail relay on port 60000, couldn't I then just say to the spammers "hey, check out port 60000 when looking for relays".
For some reason, I seem to remember that there was something special about ports1024 other than that they need root access, but I don't know the specifics. Little help?
I agree that it should be harder to create virii for Linux. Not only do the plethora of distros make this more difficult, but so do the version numbers of programs within a distro (some Debian packages seem to update at least once or twice per week). But this also strikes me as at least a little bit 'security through obscurity'.
And I'm not arguing for a change in that. What I'm arguing for (and not strongly at that) is that while the Linux community is relatively safe, wouldn't now be the time to put in various safety features? Wouldn't now be the time to put in virus scanners? Because of the small number, it should be easier to compile a fairly comprehensive list of signatures, so work can be devoted to the signature checker, rather than on writing signatures.
Wish I had included this in my earlier post. I do okay backups, but backing all of that up is expensive for my broke ass. (Of course, I guess I could do the cheap hard drive bit.)
But how do you know when the infection occured? At the very least, you'd have to check your crontab to ensure that you did set 'rm -rf ~/' to run every twenty minutes starting five days from now. IOW, yes, backups are nice, but wouldn't it be better to prevent the barn door from opening rather than closing it after the horses are out?
(Again, I'm not trying to flame. I just think that a back up is only one part of a useful anti-virus policy.)
Do virus checkers currently check SWF, java, etc files that are downloaded through web browsers?
It seems that while everyone says we have 'more than enough processing power' it is going to be sucked up by virus scanners and "do you want to run this" pop-up boxes.
Except of course (for now) on Linux.
A side point: everyone says "don't run as root, only run as a regular user". Sure. No problem. But suppose I run as a regular user, and get some virus/trojan/whatever. I've got a lot of stuff in my home directory. In fact, I'll even say that it's easier to replace / than/home/*. Are people doing development work under one account, reading email in another, browsing the web in a third, and ripping CD's in a fourth account? Didn't think so. And for that reason, sooner or later, we need more helpful Linux virus solutions than "don't run as root".
Because everyone saying "boohoo, this sucks, why do we need it" are going and dl'ing it.
Re:Well, before we all run off and buy Gundam suit
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
I don't even think you need 22kg of nuclear material. Wouldn't a much, much smaller amount be able to generate a sufficient EMP to disable any 'terminator' style machines? Yeah, it would be somewhat unsafe for humans, but it would probably, at this point, be a nearly trivial task to dismantle the now scarecrow like terminators.
IANAL, but looking at the k5 link, it seems that distributing the key is only legal in CA. And that only for the time being. The decision(s) of the CA Supreme Ct. are only binding there, not over the rest of the US. And certainly not the rest of the world.
Although, it is not unusual for the US to demand that other countries prosecute foreign citizens for breaking US law, even though the US doesn't always do the same (ie, prosecute USians for breaking the same law in the US)
When I was in college, for at least one semester, I had a 16 hour sleep with about 24+ hours awake. Felt quite natural. I was also lucky enough to have a class schedule that basically permitted this. Weekends, I just piled on more sleep.
Christ, what a pack of fucking assholes. And they expect me (or you, or anyone) to give them money for anything other than slitting their own throats? Right.
Okay, look, you totally misconstrued the IRC chat. Well, okay, in retrospect, you were probably correct. But it was VERY easy to read that log, and see the responses as matter-of-fact and to-the-point. No reason to complain of poor treatment. I get worse at McDonald's. It's just boorishness.
But Richard... What a collossal prick.
And as you imply, he seems to have quite the collection of groupies.
You've probably got it right, unless there is some clause saying that they can't change their rules (and what are the odds of that happening?) Even if they do not change it, it is also possible that they can deny it. You sue them. They point to US Sup. Ct. Case XYZ, and show that even though you are disabled by their terms, by broader legal terms, you aren't.
What will actually happen is that the insurance company will use a combination of both interpretations, and not pay you in any event. That's how they work.
(You don't think I got rich by writing a lot of checks?)
See, it's not only the 'liberal' judges who believe in judicial activism. If my reading of the summary (linked above) is correct, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the ADA in a rather severe way. This law was meant to protect and help people who have difficulty performing their job. But the Supreme Court demanded a higher standard, requiring that the person have difficulty not only at work but in other areas. Sounds like a crock of it to me...
Now, since I am too lazy to read the history, what exactly was Toyota suing for? What sort of accomadations was the woman seeking?
And another point: should their be an OSHA investigation? I know as part of our company training, protecting employees from CTS and other RSI's is largely the responsibility of the employer. Failure to provide keyboards, desks, etc. that ameliorate these conditions is an OSHA violation. (And, yes, much of OSHA is big brotherism at its worst. I'm not saying, in this case, whether or not OSHA's decisions are correct, but that it seems Toyota contributed to this woman's condition).
And I tell you what: there's about five minutes worth of my shower that gets pretty darned impaired if my wrists are flaring up too badly. If that doesn't count as a disability, what does?
(Yup, think that covers it all: troll, insightful, humourous, Oh, need a flame: You suck, your momma sucks, your computer sucks, your OS sucks, and your editor sucks)
There are two persons. One is a human being, the other a corporation. Let's say the corporation sells a product called a quarter pounder, and represents it as being a quarter pound of vegetables on a bun. It turns out to be a quarter pound of ground kangaroo on a bun. The corporation lied to the human, and now will not return the money.
Under libertarian system, obviously, the human can complain loudly and frequently about the actions of the corporations. I believe that *some* libertarians would also say that the human has a right to appear before court. There is a verbal contract: corporation will provide a quarter pound of vegetables on a bun to human in exchange for $1.99. Corporation did not fulfill their end of the bargain. Courts are supposed to solve disagreements between people. Here is such a case.
And the other part (about disallowing public discourse) was indeed a type on my part. Sorry.
Also, I should note that I'm not an expert on Libertarians. This is just my understanding of their views.
Ironically, I believe that the libertarian view is that private lawsuits and public disclosure would take care of the loss of food and drug protection (and personal safety, etc.)
BUT, the Republicans, in their twisted world, want to remove the government protections, allow licenses and agreements that allow public disclosure (the software licensing that prevents printing of statistics, for example), and put a cap on damages and fees awarded to plaintiffs and their attorneys.
I have no idea if the LP has similar views regarding lawsuits, software licenses, etc.
However, government does meddle in the marketplace: by purchasing M$ products, they validate the actions of the company. They are also a large purchaser, whose actions have repurcussions on the market as a whole.
Yes, Econ 101 might say that government interference is bad. But take a later course (or a special seminar), and you will see that many of the assumptions of Econ 101 are not so simple in the real world. First: perfect information. Consumers do not have perfect information. FUD is spread all around. More importantly: no buyer or seller has the power to individually alter the market. In this case, both M$ and the government have this power. The former through marketshare, and the latter by both legal means and methods of purchase. Finally, there must be no significant barriers to entry. There haven't been. Until the past... couple of years. There are substantial barriers to entry (patents, copyright, and other IP law).
America is not a free market. It is, in some cases, a slightly freer market than many others. But don't presume that this case is a prime example of basic economics. Outside of the classroom, those basic principles do not have effect on companies with 90% marketshare.
I was not implying that Ramadan is normally a part of the holiday season. However, take a look at the popular press, and many are including it this year, because, just by happenstance, it coincides quite well with Xmas and Hanukkah.
Actually, I've never gotten anything for Hanukkah, being a devout Epsicopaleon (That's a joke. I don't think Episcapaleons can be devout. If we were, we'd be Roman Catholics:)
But, a roommate in college (ca. 1991) would have gotten a Sega or some such.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should get themselves a server that doesn't get slashdotted.
I'm sure the GeForce really helped there.
Good points, all. But I would like to make a reply to your final sentence:
Even if all of the Joe Sixpacks in the world were running Linux it still would be a good deal less dangerous than what Windows users currently face.
Windows should not be the yardstick. Hell, even Linus more or less thinks so. We (as Linux users/admins/programmers/whatever) should be attempting to achieve the ideal solution; we should not simply be trying to be better than Microsoft.
IIRC, Plato talked about ideal forms. That is what we should be striving for.
Scan through the rest of the thread. It works, except that you don't necessarily know when you were infected. So restoring that backup might just mean that you've restored the virus.
But, that's basically what I do.
Why would you be kept from opening a fake smtp/ftp/http server? If I understand correctly, you'd only be prevented from running on ports below 1024. If I write a virus that creates an open mail relay on port 60000, couldn't I then just say to the spammers "hey, check out port 60000 when looking for relays".
For some reason, I seem to remember that there was something special about ports1024 other than that they need root access, but I don't know the specifics. Little help?
I agree that it should be harder to create virii for Linux. Not only do the plethora of distros make this more difficult, but so do the version numbers of programs within a distro (some Debian packages seem to update at least once or twice per week). But this also strikes me as at least a little bit 'security through obscurity'.
And I'm not arguing for a change in that. What I'm arguing for (and not strongly at that) is that while the Linux community is relatively safe, wouldn't now be the time to put in various safety features? Wouldn't now be the time to put in virus scanners? Because of the small number, it should be easier to compile a fairly comprehensive list of signatures, so work can be devoted to the signature checker, rather than on writing signatures.
Just a thought.
Wish I had included this in my earlier post. I do okay backups, but backing all of that up is expensive for my broke ass. (Of course, I guess I could do the cheap hard drive bit.)
But how do you know when the infection occured? At the very least, you'd have to check your crontab to ensure that you did set 'rm -rf ~/' to run every twenty minutes starting five days from now. IOW, yes, backups are nice, but wouldn't it be better to prevent the barn door from opening rather than closing it after the horses are out?
(Again, I'm not trying to flame. I just think that a back up is only one part of a useful anti-virus policy.)
Do virus checkers currently check SWF, java, etc files that are downloaded through web browsers?
/home/*. Are people doing development work under one account, reading email in another, browsing the web in a third, and ripping CD's in a fourth account? Didn't think so. And for that reason, sooner or later, we need more helpful Linux virus solutions than "don't run as root".
It seems that while everyone says we have 'more than enough processing power' it is going to be sucked up by virus scanners and "do you want to run this" pop-up boxes.
Except of course (for now) on Linux.
A side point: everyone says "don't run as root, only run as a regular user". Sure. No problem. But suppose I run as a regular user, and get some virus/trojan/whatever. I've got a lot of stuff in my home directory. In fact, I'll even say that it's easier to replace / than
Because everyone saying "boohoo, this sucks, why do we need it" are going and dl'ing it.
I don't even think you need 22kg of nuclear material. Wouldn't a much, much smaller amount be able to generate a sufficient EMP to disable any 'terminator' style machines? Yeah, it would be somewhat unsafe for humans, but it would probably, at this point, be a nearly trivial task to dismantle the now scarecrow like terminators.
to be a woman in such a male dominated field? How do you keep ahead of the game?
A followup: Age? Appearance? Have any naked photos? Do any photo shoots with Stevie Case?
IANAL, but looking at the k5 link, it seems that distributing the key is only legal in CA. And that only for the time being. The decision(s) of the CA Supreme Ct. are only binding there, not over the rest of the US. And certainly not the rest of the world.
Although, it is not unusual for the US to demand that other countries prosecute foreign citizens for breaking US law, even though the US doesn't always do the same (ie, prosecute USians for breaking the same law in the US)
When I was in college, for at least one semester, I had a 16 hour sleep with about 24+ hours awake. Felt quite natural. I was also lucky enough to have a class schedule that basically permitted this. Weekends, I just piled on more sleep.
Christ, what a pack of fucking assholes. And they expect me (or you, or anyone) to give them money for anything other than slitting their own throats? Right.
Okay, look, you totally misconstrued the IRC chat. Well, okay, in retrospect, you were probably correct. But it was VERY easy to read that log, and see the responses as matter-of-fact and to-the-point. No reason to complain of poor treatment. I get worse at McDonald's. It's just boorishness.
But Richard... What a collossal prick.
And as you imply, he seems to have quite the collection of groupies.
You've probably got it right, unless there is some clause saying that they can't change their rules (and what are the odds of that happening?) Even if they do not change it, it is also possible that they can deny it. You sue them. They point to US Sup. Ct. Case XYZ, and show that even though you are disabled by their terms, by broader legal terms, you aren't.
What will actually happen is that the insurance company will use a combination of both interpretations, and not pay you in any event. That's how they work.
(You don't think I got rich by writing a lot of checks?)
See, it's not only the 'liberal' judges who believe in judicial activism. If my reading of the summary (linked above) is correct, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the ADA in a rather severe way. This law was meant to protect and help people who have difficulty performing their job. But the Supreme Court demanded a higher standard, requiring that the person have difficulty not only at work but in other areas. Sounds like a crock of it to me...
Now, since I am too lazy to read the history, what exactly was Toyota suing for? What sort of accomadations was the woman seeking?
And another point: should their be an OSHA investigation? I know as part of our company training, protecting employees from CTS and other RSI's is largely the responsibility of the employer. Failure to provide keyboards, desks, etc. that ameliorate these conditions is an OSHA violation. (And, yes, much of OSHA is big brotherism at its worst. I'm not saying, in this case, whether or not OSHA's decisions are correct, but that it seems Toyota contributed to this woman's condition).
And I tell you what: there's about five minutes worth of my shower that gets pretty darned impaired if my wrists are flaring up too badly. If that doesn't count as a disability, what does?
(Yup, think that covers it all: troll, insightful, humourous, Oh, need a flame: You suck, your momma sucks, your computer sucks, your OS sucks, and your editor sucks)
I honestly don't think he's a troll. I think he's just a fucktard who believes the spew that he wrote.
First point:
There are two persons. One is a human being, the other a corporation. Let's say the corporation sells a product called a quarter pounder, and represents it as being a quarter pound of vegetables on a bun. It turns out to be a quarter pound of ground kangaroo on a bun. The corporation lied to the human, and now will not return the money.
Under libertarian system, obviously, the human can complain loudly and frequently about the actions of the corporations. I believe that *some* libertarians would also say that the human has a right to appear before court. There is a verbal contract: corporation will provide a quarter pound of vegetables on a bun to human in exchange for $1.99. Corporation did not fulfill their end of the bargain. Courts are supposed to solve disagreements between people. Here is such a case.
And the other part (about disallowing public discourse) was indeed a type on my part. Sorry.
Also, I should note that I'm not an expert on Libertarians. This is just my understanding of their views.
Ironically, I believe that the libertarian view is that private lawsuits and public disclosure would take care of the loss of food and drug protection (and personal safety, etc.)
BUT, the Republicans, in their twisted world, want to remove the government protections, allow licenses and agreements that allow public disclosure (the software licensing that prevents printing of statistics, for example), and put a cap on damages and fees awarded to plaintiffs and their attorneys.
I have no idea if the LP has similar views regarding lawsuits, software licenses, etc.
Old Slogan:
Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
New Slogan:
Slashdot: Do as We Say, Not as We Do.
However, government does meddle in the marketplace: by purchasing M$ products, they validate the actions of the company. They are also a large purchaser, whose actions have repurcussions on the market as a whole.
Yes, Econ 101 might say that government interference is bad. But take a later course (or a special seminar), and you will see that many of the assumptions of Econ 101 are not so simple in the real world. First: perfect information. Consumers do not have perfect information. FUD is spread all around. More importantly: no buyer or seller has the power to individually alter the market. In this case, both M$ and the government have this power. The former through marketshare, and the latter by both legal means and methods of purchase. Finally, there must be no significant barriers to entry. There haven't been. Until the past... couple of years. There are substantial barriers to entry (patents, copyright, and other IP law).
America is not a free market. It is, in some cases, a slightly freer market than many others. But don't presume that this case is a prime example of basic economics. Outside of the classroom, those basic principles do not have effect on companies with 90% marketshare.
An A for Econ 101. A D for Econ 401.
I was not implying that Ramadan is normally a part of the holiday season. However, take a look at the popular press, and many are including it this year, because, just by happenstance, it coincides quite well with Xmas and Hanukkah.
The only caveat I would mention about RedHat is that Suse is very entrenched in Europe, and TurboLinux has much of the Pacific Rim countries.
There is also the 'so what' factor. IOW, 'So what if RedHat wipes out the other distros?' Does that really mean anything?
He calls that a yawn because he has already sold out, and has no other ideas to sell.
From the original:
>>My only complaint is the ridiculous sensitivity of the DVD drive.
And like I said: I had an original NES. I had no problems. Roommate in college had an original NES. No problems.
Any more childish prattling you'd like to do?
Never had those problems with the NES. Only one memory loss on Zelda.
Actually, I've never gotten anything for Hanukkah, being a devout Epsicopaleon (That's a joke. I don't think Episcapaleons can be devout. If we were, we'd be Roman Catholics:)
But, a roommate in college (ca. 1991) would have gotten a Sega or some such.