It's called the Internet. Maybe you've heard of it? You can thank BSD for a good portion of it, including TCP/IP and Sendmail. Let's not forget Apache. Linux is probably somewhere in there too.;)
They didn't post the story, only the headline. It was probably just RSSed right into the ca.msn.com page. The controversy over the original article's content involved MSNBC, not MSN.
It's true that it doesn't contradict their intent or the point, but it DOES contradict their literal statements. In the end, that's all they can be held accountable for. That's what the reporter was hitting on.
He clearly DID read Gibson's article. Did you? It was MS's implementation (ie, not to spec) that prevented spoofing. Whether it was faulty by design or by accident, it's still to 'blame', and evidence that it was not in fact BSD code. THAT is the point blirp made.
"He said that it's impossible for an application...to "spoof" its source IP...not because the TCP/IP implementation was limited in its ability to DDOS."
That's _exactly_ what Gibson said. Being able to DDoS requires the ability to spoof it's source IP.
That is what blirp was driving at, even though he worded it poorly. It's less important than his primary point regarding the non-use of BSD code in the stack.
You needn't be so zealotist that you see zealotry where it doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean that if_fxp is a poor driver currently. Everything can be improved however which is what the mii rewrite is doing. if_fxp is already a very excellent driver and is the best card/driver combo under FreeBSD (and probably most OS's).
It wasn't tuning per-se, just the raising of maxfiles because Unix defaults to lower settings. They point out that it wasn't necessayr under Windows, presumably because the equivalent is uncessary.
While this is one form of 'Security through Obscurity' that I would support as a parent, I feel that in general, encouraging anonymity while at the same time warning against it smells of hypocracy. And I'm just a 29 yr old future parent..kids will pick up on it right away.
It's unfortunate that you have to protect your identity online, but what good is a global community of total strangers?
Ah, so philosophically stolen, as opposed to 'outright stolen', which is what the parent of my comment said, and the context in which my reply was made.
You can't steal something you yourself create. Those who went on to found Netscape Communications (Marc Andreeson and friends) are the very people who created Mosaic at UIUC.
What are you sorry for? I clearly referred to OpenHack III and not the InfoSec/London challenge.
The flaw in the OS isn't Solaris specific. Any x86 OS is/was potentially at risk.
For info on the LDT vulnerability, see this NetBSD Advisory.
Additionally, Argus doesn't even sell a version of PitBull for Solaris/x86. Their Solaris/x86 version is only for R&D and it was the one that was used in the InfoSec challenge.
ACLs are most commonly associated with Trusted Operating Systems (Where TrustedBSD gets it's name) ala the rainbow series of books.
The NSA's SE Linux has been covered here many times.
Also mentioned in the past is PitBull from Argus Systems (I work across the street from their offices) which stood up to the OpenHack III challenge a few moths back. PitBull gives Trusted OS extentions to Solaris, AIX and Linux. (There's free non-com licenses at Argus Revolution.)
And Sun also already has a Trusted Solaris.
There's others as well.
It occurs to me that you might have meant is it a first to provide ACL support via Samba, in which case I appologize. This was of course already answered by someone else.
56K modems aren't any better than 33.6 when it comes to playing online games.
All the traffic that matters is upstream. I've graphed it with MRTG.
x2, Klfex, and V.90 are limited to 33.6K in the upstream direction. (Even though the ISP's end is digital (channelized T1's or ISDN PRIs) the users end is analog.)
That's why ISDN (even when using only 1 64K B channel) gamers are such LPBs. The extra 11K (64 - 53) they get on the downside doesn't explain the several hundred ms ping advantage they enjoy over HPBs.
It's the extra 31.4K (64 - 33.6) they get in the upstream.
I'm blessed/cursed by @Home service now, but my analog handicap wasn't ever that bad really. I had pings in the 200 range, depending on the server. Like has already been mentioned in other comments, the ISP really matters. The biggest factor is compatibilty with their remote dialup equipment. V.90 is great, but 3Com modems still do best with Total Controls, and Rockwell/Lucents still do best with Maxen/Portmasters. (Your own local line conditions certainly matter, as does your ISPs upstream connnection, but I've found it's the equipment that matters most.)
* The salvation for modem gamers is V.92, which pushes the upstream limit to 48K.
You didn't get a bad attitude, you got bad answers. And you went to IRC for help to boot. Use the established and recommended avenues of FreeBSD support: The Handbook, FAQ, books, and mailing lists.
It wasn't the "FreeBSD community" you talked to but what sounds like a bunch of brain dead losers who happen to use FreeBSD.
Having said that, you're welcome to come to Undernet's #FreeBSD where I'll gladly help. We have the best damned FreeBSD IRC help channel around.
That is that the mergemaster step does. Deals with conf files you havn't touched, and gives you diff's for the rest.
Just to point out that mergemaster is specifically for upgrading FreeBSD's/etc. Third party (ie, "local") apps config files are installed in (typically)/usr/local/etc. Ports/Packages handles upgrades by installing the vendor supplied config files as "foo.conf.default". You would "cp foo.conf.default foo.conf" and edit it. Since "foo.conf" isn't in the Package List, it won't be deleted when you pkg_delete a program before "make install"ing a new version. You would then wind up with a NEW "foo.conf.default" which you would use to merge in any config changes into YOUR "foo.conf".
Automatic upgrades are not to be trusted IMHO. Software configs _and_ behavior can change from release to release. Blindly running any command that updates software without my knowing ahead of time what I'm installing is asking for trouble.
The Debian project not only has the "Debian GNU/Linux" distro, they also have "Debian GNU/HURD". I can't think of any reason why the
BSD folks couldn't make their own "Debian GNU/BSD" distro, and if they did, I would be willing to run servers with that. Why not? The vast
majority of your day-to-day work is with system utilities, most of which come from the GNU project. If I were running BSD, I could still have
my tcsh, the arguments to ls wouldn't be any different, and so on. How often do you really care which kernel you are running?
There can never be a GNU/BSD. BSD's nature as an integrated OS prevents it. The kernel and userland are designed to be integrated. Linux's nature as just a kernel LENDS itself to being packaged with other people's userland utilities (Whence distributions are born as everyone thinks their choice of userland is better.) The Debian developer who first thought up the idea of a GNU/BSD was forced to rethink his position. His misunderstandings about BSD's development were pointed out to him and made him change his mind. Follow the original thread on the matter.
If ls is ls and tcsh is tcsh, then what does it matter what userland you use? Or did you think tcsh isn't really tcsh on BSD?
But maybe the BSD folks don't want to do things the Debian way. (For example, I believe the/etc directory in a Debian GNU/Linux system
looks very different from/etc in a BSD system. The BSD folks probably like it just the way it is.)
It's not the "Debian way" but the SysV way. Debian, like just about every other Linux distro (Except Slackware which is BSDish) out there uses a SysV style init. BSD, being BSD, naturally uses the BSD style init. You just have limited Unix experience, which is ok, but your frame of reference suffers for it.
They still have a chance at winning me over:
they just need to code up a BSD version of apt-get. (This implies Debian-style packages... does BSD even have packages?)
Be careful there, that's almost inflamatory. Of COURSE it does. The much touted Ports Collection is the preferred way to install third party programs, but pre-compiled packages (themselves made from Ports) are available. Does it really matter if you type "apt-get install postfix" or "pkg_add -r postfix" (for example)?
FreeBSD already emulates most Linux software out there.
It doesn't EMULATE anything:
1) Most "Linux software" isn't "Linux software" but "Unix software" and compiles and runs on FreeBSD just fine.
2) FreeBSD has Linux BINARY support, so if the source isn't available (StarOffice, VMWare, etc) you can still run your choice of programs. It doesn't do this via "emulation" but by translating Linux syscalls into FreeBSD syscalls where everything is executed natively.
3) It would be _more_ accurate to say that FreeBSD emulates Linux as opposed to "emulating Linux software", but it's still wrong (See #2.)
Yes, your comment was pro-BSD, which is good, but your information is bad, which is not.
"make world" isn't about GNOME or Ports. It's how a source based upgrade of the OS is done. If you want the latest GNOME package, you get the latest GNOME package, period.
--
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX
on
How Qwest Runs Things
·
· Score: 2
It's not a myth if Linux is only now catching up.
And good for Linux! It _is_ possible to speak well of one OS without speaking poorly of another.
Slashdot Mirror
What was the editors part in this again?
--
Maybe not surprising to us, but certainly to the readers of WSJ.
--
The BSD license isn't about stealing, it's about _giving_. It's not even about 'stealing'.
--
It's called the Internet. Maybe you've heard of it? You can thank BSD for a good portion of it, including TCP/IP and Sendmail. Let's not forget Apache. Linux is probably somewhere in there too. ;)
--
They didn't post the story, only the headline. It was probably just RSSed right into the ca.msn.com page. The controversy over the original article's content involved MSNBC, not MSN.
--
The advertising clause is just that..materials used for advertising. Compiled programs are STILL going to have identifiable strings.
--
It's true that it doesn't contradict their intent or the point, but it DOES contradict their literal statements. In the end, that's all they can be held accountable for. That's what the reporter was hitting on.
--
"He said that it's impossible for an application...to "spoof" its source IP...not because the TCP/IP implementation was limited in its ability to DDOS."
That's _exactly_ what Gibson said. Being able to DDoS requires the ability to spoof it's source IP.
That is what blirp was driving at, even though he worded it poorly. It's less important than his primary point regarding the non-use of BSD code in the stack.
You needn't be so zealotist that you see zealotry where it doesn't exist.
--
That doesn't mean that if_fxp is a poor driver currently. Everything can be improved however which is what the mii rewrite is doing. if_fxp is already a very excellent driver and is the best card/driver combo under FreeBSD (and probably most OS's).
--
If there were a Geek Speek generator on the net similar to the Mission Statement generators, that's what it would sound like.
How embarrased you must be.
--
It wasn't tuning per-se, just the raising of maxfiles because Unix defaults to lower settings. They point out that it wasn't necessayr under Windows, presumably because the equivalent is uncessary.
--
Looks like *someone* didn't put on their thinking cap today.
--
While this is one form of 'Security through Obscurity' that I would support as a parent, I feel that in general, encouraging anonymity while at the same time warning against it smells of hypocracy. And I'm just a 29 yr old future parent..kids will pick up on it right away.
It's unfortunate that you have to protect your identity online, but what good is a global community of total strangers?
--
Ah, so philosophically stolen, as opposed to 'outright stolen', which is what the parent of my comment said, and the context in which my reply was made.
--
You can't steal something you yourself create. Those who went on to found Netscape Communications (Marc Andreeson and friends) are the very people who created Mosaic at UIUC.
--
The flaw in the OS isn't Solaris specific. Any x86 OS is/was potentially at risk.
For info on the LDT vulnerability, see this NetBSD Advisory.
Additionally, Argus doesn't even sell a version of PitBull for Solaris/x86. Their Solaris/x86 version is only for R&D and it was the one that was used in the InfoSec challenge.
--
The NSA's SE Linux has been covered here many times.
Also mentioned in the past is PitBull from Argus Systems (I work across the street from their offices) which stood up to the OpenHack III challenge a few moths back. PitBull gives Trusted OS extentions to Solaris, AIX and Linux. (There's free non-com licenses at Argus Revolution.)
And Sun also already has a Trusted Solaris.
There's others as well.
It occurs to me that you might have meant is it a first to provide ACL support via Samba, in which case I appologize. This was of course already answered by someone else.
--
KDE2.1 and the QT threading issues under X4 have been dealt with. Will@FreeBSD.Org committed fixes this past weekend.
Things have been fine under X3, and things were even ok under X4 for the first few days after KDE2.1's release.
I stopped using GNOME since KDE2's first release, so I can't comment on that.
--
All the traffic that matters is upstream. I've graphed it with MRTG.
x2, Klfex, and V.90 are limited to 33.6K in the upstream direction. (Even though the ISP's end is digital (channelized T1's or ISDN PRIs) the users end is analog.)
That's why ISDN (even when using only 1 64K B channel) gamers are such LPBs. The extra 11K (64 - 53) they get on the downside doesn't explain the several hundred ms ping advantage they enjoy over HPBs.
It's the extra 31.4K (64 - 33.6) they get in the upstream.
I'm blessed/cursed by @Home service now, but my analog handicap wasn't ever that bad really. I had pings in the 200 range, depending on the server. Like has already been mentioned in other comments, the ISP really matters. The biggest factor is compatibilty with their remote dialup equipment. V.90 is great, but 3Com modems still do best with Total Controls, and Rockwell/Lucents still do best with Maxen/Portmasters. (Your own local line conditions certainly matter, as does your ISPs upstream connnection, but I've found it's the equipment that matters most.)
* The salvation for modem gamers is V.92, which pushes the upstream limit to 48K.
July 4th, 2000
July 21st, 2000
--
You didn't get a bad attitude, you got bad answers. And you went to IRC for help to boot. Use the established and recommended avenues of FreeBSD support: The Handbook, FAQ, books, and mailing lists.
It wasn't the "FreeBSD community" you talked to but what sounds like a bunch of brain dead losers who happen to use FreeBSD.
Having said that, you're welcome to come to Undernet's #FreeBSD where I'll gladly help. We have the best damned FreeBSD IRC help channel around.
--
That is that the mergemaster step does. Deals with conf files you havn't touched, and gives you diff's for the rest.
Just to point out that mergemaster is specifically for upgrading FreeBSD's /etc. Third party (ie, "local") apps config files are installed in (typically) /usr/local/etc. Ports/Packages handles upgrades by installing the vendor supplied config files as "foo.conf.default". You would "cp foo.conf.default foo.conf" and edit it. Since "foo.conf" isn't in the Package List, it won't be deleted when you pkg_delete a program before "make install"ing a new version. You would then wind up with a NEW "foo.conf.default" which you would use to merge in any config changes into YOUR "foo.conf".
Automatic upgrades are not to be trusted IMHO. Software configs _and_ behavior can change from release to release. Blindly running any command that updates software without my knowing ahead of time what I'm installing is asking for trouble.
--
There can never be a GNU/BSD. BSD's nature as an integrated OS prevents it. The kernel and userland are designed to be integrated. Linux's nature as just a kernel LENDS itself to being packaged with other people's userland utilities (Whence distributions are born as everyone thinks their choice of userland is better.) The Debian developer who first thought up the idea of a GNU/BSD was forced to rethink his position. His misunderstandings about BSD's development were pointed out to him and made him change his mind. Follow the original thread on the matter.
If ls is ls and tcsh is tcsh, then what does it matter what userland you use? Or did you think tcsh isn't really tcsh on BSD?
But maybe the BSD folks don't want to do things the Debian way. (For example, I believe the /etc directory in a Debian GNU/Linux system
looks very different from /etc in a BSD system. The BSD folks probably like it just the way it is.)
It's not the "Debian way" but the SysV way. Debian, like just about every other Linux distro (Except Slackware which is BSDish) out there uses a SysV style init. BSD, being BSD, naturally uses the BSD style init. You just have limited Unix experience, which is ok, but your frame of reference suffers for it.
They still have a chance at winning me over: they just need to code up a BSD version of apt-get. (This implies Debian-style packages... does BSD even have packages?)
Be careful there, that's almost inflamatory. Of COURSE it does. The much touted Ports Collection is the preferred way to install third party programs, but pre-compiled packages (themselves made from Ports) are available. Does it really matter if you type "apt-get install postfix" or "pkg_add -r postfix" (for example)?
--
It doesn't EMULATE anything:
1) Most "Linux software" isn't "Linux software" but "Unix software" and compiles and runs on FreeBSD just fine.
2) FreeBSD has Linux BINARY support, so if the source isn't available (StarOffice, VMWare, etc) you can still run your choice of programs. It doesn't do this via "emulation" but by translating Linux syscalls into FreeBSD syscalls where everything is executed natively.
3) It would be _more_ accurate to say that FreeBSD emulates Linux as opposed to "emulating Linux software", but it's still wrong (See #2.)
Yes, your comment was pro-BSD, which is good, but your information is bad, which is not.
--
"make world" isn't about GNOME or Ports. It's how a source based upgrade of the OS is done. If you want the latest GNOME package, you get the latest GNOME package, period.
--
It's not a myth if Linux is only now catching up.
And good for Linux! It _is_ possible to speak well of one OS without speaking poorly of another.
--