Now is the time to contact your representative, your senators and probably even your local media and tell them exactly how much damage this legislation could do.
Tell them about encryption used to protect your online banking transactions. Tell them about encryption used to protect company secrets. Tell them that this is bad for trade. Tell them that this is bad for innovation (unless you're Microsoft I guess)... Tell them how you feel about it.
Don't just sit back and let this go through. If nobody says "this is bad" then it will be passed...
While telling your congress critters, be polite, spell check before sending. Fax and/or write rather than e-mail. Call them and talk to them. But however you do it, make sure that your voice is heard.
Zwack.
p.s. Yes, I've already written to my congress critters.
Having come to the US from the UK I have a slightly different attitude about this...
I've lived my entire life under the shadow of terrorism (thanks in part to American organisations like NORAID, which fund the IRA) and I am STILL not willing to give up my privacy to have total security.
A minor accounting of some of the times that terrorism has come close to me... I was in Manchester city centre a few hours before the corn exchange bombing... I lived in Warrington until about a month before a bomb went off in the city centre killing two small boys... About the same time a plan to blow up a natural gas storage tank was thwarted about a mile from where I had been living. I travelled through Lockerbie the day after Pan-Am 103 fell on it (I was on my way home for Christmas Break at the time)... I don't want to get any closer to terrorism than I already have.
BUT, I do not feel that giving up any of my privacy would have made me any more secure. In fact if I was to give up my freedoms to stop terrorist attacks I might as well just tell the terrorists that they've won and give them what they want. After all, they can't want more from me than O've let the government take away from me.
"-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity."
If you're a card-carrying Mensa member, then you should know how to spell "Tolerance".
"I value my privacy as much as anyone else, but SOMETHING must be done to protect the safety and security of this country."
I only ask that that "SOMETHING" be something that will actually help. So, let me see... Terrorists don't use curbside check-in. Let's ban curbside check-in. There is no evidence that the authorities need more comprehensive wire-tap laws. I have heard no evidence (some speculation, but no proof) that the Terrorists used encryption/e-mail/the internet to communicate, so let's monitor that.
"Given the choice of having the NSA/FBI read my e-mail, and having more terrorist attacks like those on 9/11, I would gladly concede a bit of my privacy. If it would save the lives of other innocent people, I would personally print out all of my communications and hand them to the FBI."
Please report to your nearest FBI office for the surgical attachment of your freedom-cam. YOur Freedom-cam guarantees your security and freedom by making your life available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to your freedom loving friends at the FBI. Don't worry, you are only giving up your privacy, and this might save lives.
Now are you still willing to do this? Would you rather live a life under constant surveillance, or have SOME privacy?
Despite having seen it stated several times here, the RTM internet worm of 1988 was NOT the first worm. It wasn't even the first worm to crash machines, or the first network distributed attack...
In 1980 Xerox Parc published a paper called 'Notes on the "Worm" Programs -- Some Early Experience with a Distributed Computation' by John F. Shoch and Jon A. Hupp. This describes some WORM programs that were written at Xerox PARC and used for useful things. Unfortunately an error in one of their programs caused a lot of dead machines.
I think that the BITNET christmas card "virus" of December 1987 predates the Morris Worm of 1988. This was more of a trojan than a worm, but when you ran the "card" it mailed itself to everyone it could.
This is a long post (for me)... It basically contains the majority of a letter that I sent to my representative and senators... It basically states a number of reasons that I think this proposal is inoperable. I encourage all of you to contact your elected representatives as well.
Adam/Zwack
As I feared when I first saw the attack on the World Trade Center, it has been reported (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,0 0.html) that "Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without back doors for government surveillance."
Media reports have made it appear that Osama Bin Laden may have used encryption, but it is more likely that he relied on a lack of technology. According to the media, Bin Laden held face-to-face meetings in a private room rather than trusting that the communications channel was not intercepted. One journalist who has met him had some newspapers with him and Bin Laden is reported to have pounced on them and read them as he was so out of touch with the outside world.
Even if there is a ban on encryption products, older encryption products already exist without those back doors. Writing encryption software is not too complicated (Applied Cryptography is about $40) and terrorists and criminals are not going to worry about breaking yet another law. So who would this effect? Criminals? No. Terrorists? No. Penry, The Mild Mannered Janitor? Could Be.
Anyone can do a little research and find out that there are other techniques that cannot be legislated against that are just as effective for secret communications.
Ronald Rivest, one of America's foremost cryptographers published a paper in 1998 called "Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption." (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/chaffing.txt) In it he describes a method for plain text communication which does not rely on encryption to hide the message. He then goes on to add more twists to the method, which mean that if someone demanded the actual message you could give them a completely false, and presumably inoffensive, message.
If that wasn't enough to make legislation on encryption pointless, then steganography, the practice of hiding one message inside another, could be used either independently or with "Chaffing and Winnowing". It is possible for messages to be hidden within pictures, movies, sound files and even Stream of Consciousness-like poems easily. The sophistication of some of the programs is astounding. One program (http://www.outguess.org/) actually performs a statistical analysis on the image first to ensure that in hiding the message it does not modify the image too much.
There are numerous other non-technological techniques that could make this law pointless. For example, the terrorists could choose a book, say Hamlet, and spell out their message with the words or letters in that book. A message like "42 23 17 65" is not going to mean much to anyone until they know that in a specific edition of a specific book they should read the twenty third word on page 42, the 65th word on page seventeen... and so on.
They could use a simple code where phrases mean certain things. So "I went to see the new production of Oscar Wilde's Importance of Being Earnest" might mean "The birthday cake arrives tomorrow". As long as only the parties involved know the code phrases, and their meanings this kind of communication is impossible to break.
If encryption software without back doors is outlawed, what will terrorists do? If they're paranoid they'll use illegal encryption to encrypt a code phrase, hide it in an image, and then mix it with several completely innocent, and some totally random streams using chaffing techniques.
That way, by the time the NSA have worked out which streams contain real messages, figured out that one or more of the images contains a steganographically hidden message and broken the encryption on it, they will have wasted weeks in order to get a perfectly normal sentence that isn't going to mean anything to them anyway.
In that same period of time, several companies who are obeying the law and not using encryption will have had their company secrets stolen by other companies, as they couldn't encrypt confidential messages between two of their office. The French Secret Service was known to pass trade secrets to French companies when the French government was strictly controlling encryption. Add to that the many completely innocent uses of encryption for security and confidentiality: communicating with banks, logging on to remote servers, protecting medical records, implementing Virtual Private Networks and so on. Banning encryption that the government can't decode is more likely to cause harm to the law abiding citizen than it is to stop or reduce terrorist or criminal activities.
In short, any attempt to regulate the free flow of ideas, whether encrypted or unencrypted is only going to hinder law abiding citizens, and effectively punish them, without providing any additional safety. Remember that these highjackings were very low tech, no computers were hacked, no high technology weapons were used, just people armed with knives and the willingness to die.
Ummm... But RTLinux is trading on the goodwill of the trademarked operating system name Linux isn't it?
Interestingly you don't have to run Linux on RTLinux you can use NetBSD instead. So, other than trading on the good name of Linux (in contravention of the trademark) Why is this called RTLinux?
So, Who IS "THE" copyright holder? Linus? A consortium? Would some of the larger distributions be interested in combining together to fight this thing? RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake would do for a start...
If this is a BIG IBM mainframe then it will take
more floor space than a single rack of twin processor CPUs.
I assume that VM programmers are in short enough supply that paying one $90k p.a. is reasonable. It's not far from what I get paid as a Unix SA.
And the hardware is WAY more expensive.
The second set of figures shows how much less you will be paying if you already have an IBM mainframe (for some other purpose) that you can use for a Linux partition (virtual machine, whatever you want to call it) compared to bringing in an NT server farm with exchange. You've already paid for the hardware, the floor space, the support staff. You're just pushing your hardware a little harder.
The average Slashdot reader can't bleed into a syringe? Can't donate to Red Cross? Hmmmm
INSIGHTFUL My Arse! I'm deeply offended by this comment. I would imagine that I am a fairly average Slashdot reader, and I can't "bleed into a syringe." I'm not allowed to. There are several categories of people that the US just doesn't want blood from. In my case I just happen to have lived in the UK for more than six months.
Please don't claim that giving blood is something that everyone can do. I'm not obese, I'm not underweight, I'm healthy... but I'm a Brit in the US.
It sounds like what the poster was needing is just something to do portforwarding.
Maybe, maybe not...
Imagine this scenario... You have a mail server and a web server on different boxes. You wish to run a web server on your mail server so that you can use some webmail software when you are not capable of using a standalone mail client.
Now, do you portforward port 80 to the web server or the mail server?
There are other solutions, but portforwarding wouldn't help here.
Nor do I feel that I needed to include the cost of a hub. He talks about having a lan already.
If he doesn't have a switch/hub yet then he probably doesn't need one (coax?) If he does have a switch/hub then he doesn't need to buy one either.
So, given that he has ethernet out of his DSL router (one port) and a cross over cable (most DSL routers come with one included) and a hub then all he needs to do is plug the cross over cable into the DSL router. Plug the other end into the 486 firewall, and plug the other card of the 486 into the hub he already has.
"A decent 3COM or Intel NIC can not be found (easily) for $10."
I won't argue as to whether 3com NICS are decent, but I have bought second hand 3com cards before for much less than ten dollars.
As an AC posted a non decent network card can easily take the load of a T1... A T1 is nowhere near the bandwidth of a 10BaseT network.
Not every packet will travel through the firewall anyway. Some will be locally routed. Some will be stopped by the firewall.
Most importantly, the poster was looking for a way of doing NAT on some addresses and passing others through. I haven't seen one of these little boxes allow that from the ones I've used/looked at. That's not to say that there aren't any... But if there aren't then for the features that we are talking about a cheap 486 WILL outperform a standalone box that can't do what is being asked for.
"So, yes, congratulations on your first post, but you're wrong. typical."
Hmmm... $45 for a machine... let me see... Cheap network cards can be had new for around $10... I can get a working 486 from the goodwill down the road from me for anything from $5 to $30...
So I guess I could get a 486 with two network cards for $45 or under. Possibly even in a slimline case
Greetings,
HP-UX comes in two different varieties and does some things that Linux can't yet afaik. So I doubt that they'll drop it. They might drop Tru-64, and I can't think of a reason to do so.
In the past I've worked on a CMW version of HP-UX which later became VVOS. This is a highly secure (Military grade security) Operating system with capabilities and privileges and labelling of data and... I can't see HP just ditching it in favour of a version of Linux with none of those features. Can you?
HP already support some Linux development with hardware donations, so why they wouldn't continue I don't know. I would imagine that they would continue to develop and sell HP-UX. They will probably add some sort of Linux support, and I would imagine that they will ditch Tru-64...
But, I don't work for HP or Compaq, and I don't make their decisions for them. I'm probably wrong.
Z.
You forgot Fibre Channel and Network attached Storage. Both Compaq and HP have such things (I think HP's might be a rebadged Hitachi one, but I can't remember...
It's funny that (especially those from the 60's) despise corporations, and somehow fail to realize corporations provide us with jobs, health coverage, a place in which to feel pride, et cetera. Companies aren't evil.
Call me a Socialist, but in many countries corporations don't provide health coverage, The government does. Having had the opportunity to compare nationalised health coverage with the US corporate version I know which I prefer...
Call me a cynic but I don't feel pride in all of the "corporations" I've worked for. I used to work for an ISP in the UK, and I was proud of our achievements there (lots of good stuff with little capital outlay)... I have worked for a very large American corporation and the amount of Bureaucracy astounded me... it also hindered myself and my colleagues from doing our jobs properly. I currently work for a health care non profit, and I have no pride in the company acheivements. I have some pride in some of what we are doing, but we are hampered by budgetary constraints combined with expensive software.
The one thing that you said that I agree with in that paragraph was "corporations provide us with jobs". Yes, they do, but at what cost? The US works the longest hours (I officially work 40 hours per week here compared to 35 in the UK) has shorter vacation time (I have had anything from no pto (as a contractor) to 10 days, compared to the UK where I started with 24 days. Sick leave is worse (I currently have none as a contractor), In fact all in all employment here seems to be to provide the corporation with exactly what they want at the least cost. It's certainly not mutual. One of my previous managers went as far as to say "Weekends are optional". That wasn't in my contract, but he wanted us to work weekends and late nights, and... and not be compensated for it.
He came here and spoke about his program, hence he trafficked his information here, which is illegal under the DMCA.
I don't believe that talking about weaknesses in software is illegal. It certainly isn't trafficking.
The trafficking in this case is the sale in the US of software that he first wrote. The fact that he was outside the US is allegedly irrelevant as he/Elcomsoft used a US based server/service to sell the software.
Claiming he is guilty is surely against US judicial protocol as he is "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty".
Proclaiming him one way or the other merely makes one look uninformed.
Suse did this back in the old days before FHS was
partcularly known... I'm not going to say existed...:-)
They've since moved/sbin/init.d to/etc/init.d. I suspect the original placement came from someone familiar with hp-ux. hp-ux uses/sbin/init.d for the startup scripts. It also uses/etc/rc.config.d for customization of those scripts.
If you want to turn sendmail on or off you run the
script/sbin/init.d/sendmail. If you want to make the change permanent then you edit/etc/rc.config.d/mailservs and change the value for SENDMAIL_SERVER (1 for on, 0 for off).
That way when you want to change the boot time defualt you don't need to remember was sendmail started at/etc/rc2.d/S15sendmail or/etc/rc2.d/S20sendmail? I much prefer this to the way that Redhat deal with rc scripts... But that's MY personal opinion.
Definitely when I first looked at SUSE it had compatibility links to bring it more in line with the then draft FHS...
As for installing software into/opt The version I'm currently using here hasn't... But I know that if I had installed some of the optional bundled software it would have.
Much as I like standards I can't see what is wrong with, for example, SuSE installing the bundled copy of Applixware under/opt. This is a sensible place for it IMHO. It's optional, it's not required for the OS, it certainly shouldn't be in/usr/bin if you ask me...
Ah well, As Horace would say, De Gustibus Non Est Disputandem.
You don't want to know how upset my wife got when I received an e-mail from "Jenny" with the subject of "Re: You have got to look at this."
It was formatted to look like a complaint from
someone about an e-mail that I sent out saying to look at some pornographic website.
It wasn't until I showed her the full headers showing that "Jenny" had sent the complaint about the website from the same domain that she calmed down a bit.
As if it wasn't bad enough sending me spam, making it look like a complaint about ME sending spam is MUCH worse.
The rc.config is basically used for local configuration changes. The/etc/init.d/* are used for the start-up/shutdown scripts themselves.
BTW older versions used/sbin/init.d exactly what hp-ux uses. Admittedly hp-ux use rc.config.d with lots of little scripts for local configuration, but the effect is the same.
If it was BSD like init then it would just have a single large script per run level.
In case anyone is wondering, I just sorted my password out... I was that AC...
Slashdot Mirror
And I will keep on saying it.
Now is the time to contact your representative, your senators and probably even your local media and tell them exactly how much damage this legislation could do.
Tell them about encryption used to protect your online banking transactions. Tell them about encryption used to protect company secrets. Tell them that this is bad for trade. Tell them that this is bad for innovation (unless you're Microsoft I guess)... Tell them how you feel about it.
Don't just sit back and let this go through. If nobody says "this is bad" then it will be passed...
While telling your congress critters, be polite, spell check before sending. Fax and/or write rather than e-mail. Call them and talk to them. But however you do it, make sure that your voice is heard.
Zwack.
p.s. Yes, I've already written to my congress critters.
Having come to the US from the UK I have a slightly different attitude about this...
I've lived my entire life under the shadow of terrorism (thanks in part to American organisations like NORAID, which fund the IRA) and I am STILL not willing to give up my privacy to have total security.
A minor accounting of some of the times that terrorism has come close to me... I was in Manchester city centre a few hours before the corn exchange bombing... I lived in Warrington until about a month before a bomb went off in the city centre killing two small boys... About the same time a plan to blow up a natural gas storage tank was thwarted about a mile from where I had been living. I travelled through Lockerbie the day after Pan-Am 103 fell on it (I was on my way home for Christmas Break at the time)... I don't want to get any closer to terrorism than I already have.
BUT, I do not feel that giving up any of my privacy would have made me any more secure. In fact if I was to give up my freedoms to stop terrorist attacks I might as well just tell the terrorists that they've won and give them what they want. After all, they can't want more from me than O've let the government take away from me.
Z.
O.K. I guess I've fallen for this Troll, But...
"-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity."
If you're a card-carrying Mensa member, then you should know how to spell "Tolerance".
"I value my privacy as much as anyone else, but SOMETHING must be done to protect the safety and security of this country."
I only ask that that "SOMETHING" be something that will actually help. So, let me see... Terrorists don't use curbside check-in. Let's ban curbside check-in. There is no evidence that the authorities need more comprehensive wire-tap laws. I have heard no evidence (some speculation, but no proof) that the Terrorists used encryption/e-mail/the internet to communicate, so let's monitor that.
"Given the choice of having the NSA/FBI read my e-mail, and having more terrorist attacks like those on 9/11, I would gladly concede a bit of my privacy. If it would save the lives of other innocent people, I would personally print out all of my communications and hand them to the FBI."
Please report to your nearest FBI office for the surgical attachment of your freedom-cam. YOur Freedom-cam guarantees your security and freedom by making your life available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to your freedom loving friends at the FBI. Don't worry, you are only giving up your privacy, and this might save lives.
Now are you still willing to do this? Would you rather live a life under constant surveillance, or have SOME privacy?
I know which one I would choose.
Z.
Despite having seen it stated several times here, the RTM internet worm of 1988 was NOT the first worm. It wasn't even the first worm to crash machines, or the first network distributed attack...
In 1980 Xerox Parc published a paper called 'Notes on the "Worm" Programs -- Some Early Experience with a Distributed Computation' by John F. Shoch and Jon A. Hupp. This describes some WORM programs that were written at Xerox PARC and used for useful things. Unfortunately an error in one of their programs caused a lot of dead machines.
I think that the BITNET christmas card "virus" of December 1987 predates the Morris Worm of 1988. This was more of a trojan than a worm, but when you ran the "card" it mailed itself to everyone it could.
Neither of these was Unix based.
Z.
You should know(remember?) that the first worm ever written infected many *NIX systems
The First worm ever written?
Well, let me see, the term worm was invented by John Brunner, in his classic book, "Shockwave Rider"
And the guys at Xerox Parc wrote some network based programs... which they called worms after the John Brunner usage.
And WAY later, Robert Tappan Morris Jr. wrote the Internet worm.
So, No. The first worms didn't run on Unix
Incidentally, at least one of the xerox worms got out of hand and crashed a lot of machines at PARC.
Z.
This is a long post (for me)... It basically contains the majority of a letter that I sent to my representative and senators... It basically states a number of reasons that I think this proposal is inoperable. I encourage all of you to contact your elected representatives as well.
0 0.html) that "Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) called for a global prohibition on encryption products without back doors for government surveillance."
Adam/Zwack
As I feared when I first saw the attack on the World Trade Center, it has been reported (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,
Media reports have made it appear that Osama Bin Laden may have used encryption, but it is more likely that he relied on a lack of technology. According to the media, Bin Laden held face-to-face meetings in a private room rather than trusting that the communications channel was not intercepted. One journalist who has met him had some newspapers with him and Bin Laden is reported to have pounced on them and read them as he was so out of touch with the outside world.
Even if there is a ban on encryption products, older encryption products already exist without those back doors. Writing encryption software is not too complicated (Applied Cryptography is about $40) and terrorists and criminals are not going to worry about breaking yet another law. So who would this effect? Criminals? No. Terrorists? No. Penry, The Mild Mannered Janitor? Could Be.
Anyone can do a little research and find out that there are other techniques that cannot be legislated against that are just as effective for secret communications.
Ronald Rivest, one of America's foremost cryptographers published a paper in 1998 called "Chaffing and Winnowing: Confidentiality without Encryption." (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/chaffing.txt) In it he describes a method for plain text communication which does not rely on encryption to hide the message. He then goes on to add more twists to the method, which mean that if someone demanded the actual message you could give them a completely false, and presumably inoffensive, message.
If that wasn't enough to make legislation on encryption pointless, then steganography, the practice of hiding one message inside another, could be used either independently or with "Chaffing and Winnowing". It is possible for messages to be hidden within pictures, movies, sound files and even Stream of Consciousness-like poems easily. The sophistication of some of the programs is astounding. One program (http://www.outguess.org/) actually performs a statistical analysis on the image first to ensure that in hiding the message it does not modify the image too much.
There are numerous other non-technological techniques that could make this law pointless. For example, the terrorists could choose a book, say Hamlet, and spell out their message with the words or letters in that book. A message like "42 23 17 65" is not going to mean much to anyone until they know that in a specific edition of a specific book they should read the twenty third word on page 42, the 65th word on page seventeen... and so on.
They could use a simple code where phrases mean certain things. So "I went to see the new production of Oscar Wilde's Importance of Being Earnest" might mean "The birthday cake arrives tomorrow". As long as only the parties involved know the code phrases, and their meanings this kind of communication is impossible to break.
If encryption software without back doors is outlawed, what will terrorists do? If they're paranoid they'll use illegal encryption to encrypt a code phrase, hide it in an image, and then mix it with several completely innocent, and some totally random streams using chaffing techniques.
That way, by the time the NSA have worked out which streams contain real messages, figured out that one or more of the images contains a steganographically hidden message and broken the encryption on it, they will have wasted weeks in order to get a perfectly normal sentence that isn't going to mean anything to them anyway.
In that same period of time, several companies who are obeying the law and not using encryption will have had their company secrets stolen by other companies, as they couldn't encrypt confidential messages between two of their office. The French Secret Service was known to pass trade secrets to French companies when the French government was strictly controlling encryption. Add to that the many completely innocent uses of encryption for security and confidentiality: communicating with banks, logging on to remote servers, protecting medical records, implementing Virtual Private Networks and so on. Banning encryption that the government can't decode is more likely to cause harm to the law abiding citizen than it is to stop or reduce terrorist or criminal activities.
In short, any attempt to regulate the free flow of ideas, whether encrypted or unencrypted is only going to hinder law abiding citizens, and effectively punish them, without providing any additional safety. Remember that these highjackings were very low tech, no computers were hacked, no high technology weapons were used, just people armed with knives and the willingness to die.
Why this is called RTLinux. It's a real-time OS that is very lightweight that can run Linux or NetBSD as a pre-emptible process.
Isn't this an infringement of the Linux trademark?
Won't Linus lose the rights to the trademark if he doesn't follow this one up?
Ummm... But RTLinux is trading on the goodwill of the trademarked operating system name Linux isn't it?
Interestingly you don't have to run Linux on RTLinux you can use NetBSD instead. So, other than trading on the good name of Linux (in contravention of the trademark) Why is this called RTLinux?
Z.
So, Who IS "THE" copyright holder? Linus? A consortium? Would some of the larger distributions be interested in combining together to fight this thing? RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake would do for a start...
I wonder what RTLinux have to say too...
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Z.
I guess you must have... Although the article is confusing...
There are basically three sets of figures...
One for a bunch of dual pentium servers running exchange.
One for a brand new IBM ZSeries with four support staff.
One assuming that you already had the IBM and support staff and were just adding another partition with Linux running on it.
Of course if you aren't paying for any more staff or hardware you can guess which one is cheaper... Not earth shattering news.
Z.
Not entirely...
If this is a BIG IBM mainframe then it will take
more floor space than a single rack of twin processor CPUs.
I assume that VM programmers are in short enough supply that paying one $90k p.a. is reasonable. It's not far from what I get paid as a Unix SA.
And the hardware is WAY more expensive.
The second set of figures shows how much less you will be paying if you already have an IBM mainframe (for some other purpose) that you can use for a Linux partition (virtual machine, whatever you want to call it) compared to bringing in an NT server farm with exchange. You've already paid for the hardware, the floor space, the support staff. You're just pushing your hardware a little harder.
Does it make sense now?
Z.
The average Slashdot reader can't bleed into a syringe? Can't donate to Red Cross? Hmmmm
INSIGHTFUL My Arse! I'm deeply offended by this comment. I would imagine that I am a fairly average Slashdot reader, and I can't "bleed into a syringe." I'm not allowed to. There are several categories of people that the US just doesn't want blood from. In my case I just happen to have lived in the UK for more than six months.
Please don't claim that giving blood is something that everyone can do. I'm not obese, I'm not underweight, I'm healthy... but I'm a Brit in the US.
Z.
There are circumstances where this won't work...
You visit a site that doesn't allow anything but port 80... I've worked at one such site.
Imagine I had said allow ssh to both servers from externally. How are you going to do that? saying "use a different port" doesn't always work.
From what was said this guy has 3 IP addresses at least. He wants to use two for servers and one for NAT.
And a PC can be "a real router"...
Z.
It sounds like what the poster was needing is just something to do portforwarding.
Maybe, maybe not...
Imagine this scenario... You have a mail server and a web server on different boxes. You wish to run a web server on your mail server so that you can use some webmail software when you are not capable of using a standalone mail client.
Now, do you portforward port 80 to the web server or the mail server?
There are other solutions, but portforwarding wouldn't help here.
Z.
Nor do I feel that I needed to include the cost of a hub. He talks about having a lan already.
If he doesn't have a switch/hub yet then he probably doesn't need one (coax?) If he does have a switch/hub then he doesn't need to buy one either.
So, given that he has ethernet out of his DSL router (one port) and a cross over cable (most DSL routers come with one included) and a hub then all he needs to do is plug the cross over cable into the DSL router. Plug the other end into the 486 firewall, and plug the other card of the 486 into the hub he already has.
Z.
"A decent 3COM or Intel NIC can not be found (easily) for $10."
I won't argue as to whether 3com NICS are decent, but I have bought second hand 3com cards before for much less than ten dollars.
As an AC posted a non decent network card can easily take the load of a T1... A T1 is nowhere near the bandwidth of a 10BaseT network.
Not every packet will travel through the firewall anyway. Some will be locally routed. Some will be stopped by the firewall.
Most importantly, the poster was looking for a way of doing NAT on some addresses and passing others through. I haven't seen one of these little boxes allow that from the ones I've used/looked at. That's not to say that there aren't any... But if there aren't then for the features that we are talking about a cheap 486 WILL outperform a standalone box that can't do what is being asked for.
Z.
"So, yes, congratulations on your first post, but you're wrong. typical."
Hmmm... $45 for a machine... let me see... Cheap network cards can be had new for around $10... I can get a working 486 from the goodwill down the road from me for anything from $5 to $30...
So I guess I could get a 486 with two network cards for $45 or under. Possibly even in a slimline case
Not new equipment, but it's up to the task.
Z.
We should just ban everything that might possibly in some inconciveable way be used for anything even remotely illegal.
What, you mean, like Guns?
After all Guns can be used to rob banks, and robbing banks is illegal. Yeah, let's ban Guns...
Now if we can only get some of the politicians to use that analogy... Then the real fun will begin.
Z.
Greetings,
HP-UX comes in two different varieties and does some things that Linux can't yet afaik. So I doubt that they'll drop it. They might drop Tru-64, and I can't think of a reason to do so.
In the past I've worked on a CMW version of HP-UX which later became VVOS. This is a highly secure (Military grade security) Operating system with capabilities and privileges and labelling of data and... I can't see HP just ditching it in favour of a version of Linux with none of those features. Can you?
HP already support some Linux development with hardware donations, so why they wouldn't continue I don't know. I would imagine that they would continue to develop and sell HP-UX. They will probably add some sort of Linux support, and I would imagine that they will ditch Tru-64...
But, I don't work for HP or Compaq, and I don't make their decisions for them. I'm probably wrong.
Z.
You forgot Fibre Channel and Network attached Storage. Both Compaq and HP have such things (I think HP's might be a rebadged Hitachi one, but I can't remember...
Z.
It's funny that (especially those from the 60's) despise corporations, and somehow fail to realize corporations provide us with jobs, health coverage, a place in which to feel pride, et cetera. Companies aren't evil.
Call me a Socialist, but in many countries corporations don't provide health coverage, The government does. Having had the opportunity to compare nationalised health coverage with the US corporate version I know which I prefer...
Call me a cynic but I don't feel pride in all of the "corporations" I've worked for. I used to work for an ISP in the UK, and I was proud of our achievements there (lots of good stuff with little capital outlay)... I have worked for a very large American corporation and the amount of Bureaucracy astounded me... it also hindered myself and my colleagues from doing our jobs properly. I currently work for a health care non profit, and I have no pride in the company acheivements. I have some pride in some of what we are doing, but we are hampered by budgetary constraints combined with expensive software.
The one thing that you said that I agree with in that paragraph was "corporations provide us with jobs". Yes, they do, but at what cost? The US works the longest hours (I officially work 40 hours per week here compared to 35 in the UK) has shorter vacation time (I have had anything from no pto (as a contractor) to 10 days, compared to the UK where I started with 24 days. Sick leave is worse (I currently have none as a contractor), In fact all in all employment here seems to be to provide the corporation with exactly what they want at the least cost. It's certainly not mutual. One of my previous managers went as far as to say "Weekends are optional". That wasn't in my contract, but he wanted us to work weekends and late nights, and... and not be compensated for it.
Zwack
He came here and spoke about his program, hence he trafficked his information here, which is illegal under the DMCA.
I don't believe that talking about weaknesses in software is illegal. It certainly isn't trafficking.
The trafficking in this case is the sale in the US of software that he first wrote. The fact that he was outside the US is allegedly irrelevant as he/Elcomsoft used a US based server/service to sell the software.
Claiming he is guilty is surely against US judicial protocol as he is "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty".
Proclaiming him one way or the other merely makes one look uninformed.
Zwack
Suse did this back in the old days before FHS was :-)
/sbin/init.d to /etc/init.d. I suspect the original placement came from someone familiar with hp-ux. hp-ux uses /sbin/init.d for the startup scripts. It also uses /etc/rc.config.d for customization of those scripts.
/sbin/init.d/sendmail. If you want to make the change permanent then you edit /etc/rc.config.d/mailservs and change the value for SENDMAIL_SERVER (1 for on, 0 for off).
/etc/rc2.d/S15sendmail or /etc/rc2.d/S20sendmail? I much prefer this to the way that Redhat deal with rc scripts... But that's MY personal opinion.
/opt The version I'm currently using here hasn't... But I know that if I had installed some of the optional bundled software it would have.
/opt. This is a sensible place for it IMHO. It's optional, it's not required for the OS, it certainly shouldn't be in /usr/bin if you ask me...
partcularly known... I'm not going to say existed...
They've since moved
If you want to turn sendmail on or off you run the
script
That way when you want to change the boot time defualt you don't need to remember was sendmail started at
Definitely when I first looked at SUSE it had compatibility links to bring it more in line with the then draft FHS...
As for installing software into
Much as I like standards I can't see what is wrong with, for example, SuSE installing the bundled copy of Applixware under
Ah well, As Horace would say, De Gustibus Non Est Disputandem.
Zwack
I'd agree...
You don't want to know how upset my wife got when I received an e-mail from "Jenny" with the subject of "Re: You have got to look at this."
It was formatted to look like a complaint from
someone about an e-mail that I sent out saying to look at some pornographic website.
It wasn't until I showed her the full headers showing that "Jenny" had sent the complaint about the website from the same domain that she calmed down a bit.
As if it wasn't bad enough sending me spam, making it look like a complaint about ME sending spam is MUCH worse.
Zwack
Well, have a look at HP-UX sometime...
/etc/init.d/* are used for the start-up/shutdown scripts themselves.
/sbin/init.d exactly what hp-ux uses. Admittedly hp-ux use rc.config.d with lots of little scripts for local configuration, but the effect is the same.
The rc.config is basically used for local configuration changes. The
BTW older versions used
If it was BSD like init then it would just have a single large script per run level.
In case anyone is wondering, I just sorted my password out... I was that AC...