Moose and Caribou and Polar Bears. We even have grain (for beer)! Imagine! Grain! In the mean time, we are crumpling styrafome on an industrial scale to increase global warming (the global Canadian conspiracy). At some point we expect to be able to grow flowers and maybe even grow grass on our lawns (astroturf is getting boring).
At least Canada will serve some purpose in the mission to Mars. ("Wanna know what Mars is like?? Go to Canada") What a great tourist attraction, eh?
An initial mail is sent to the Microsoft Office family of email clients, wherein the SPAM reads their email address book, and propagates itself to all members of that address book. After propagation, the SPAM logically deletes or renames certain files, such as.dll and.vxd files and displays an advertisement for the charity of choice of the origin.
Contrary to the popular Melissa and I-Love-You advertising schema, the SPAM method involves a unique advertisement method of overwriting particular files for the explicit purpose of advertising.
This application for patent 31337-68797968 comes in lieu of the failure of the Java Remote File Deletion Function.
I would conjecture that it is in the interests of Red Hat to leave Sun with an appropriate niche, if they are to forge a mutually beneficial alliance in the future. This is only conjecture, of course, but business-wise it makes more sense for Red Hat to not press Sun on "sacred ground".
With Red Hat subscription they will have people serving up to demand. What's that mean? That means security, pretty themes, new email clients and bulletins about all the stuff that people find interesting, all in one package. If I want to find stuff on Debian, I have to KNOW what I'm looking for, by name pretty much. With the Red Hat update service, I suspect they will have recommendations of themes and of email clients and all that crap. And that's pretty cool when you don't know what you're doing. When you're a techie, that's not something you need or want, when you get towards "expert" or "pro" classification, your view of the field becomes somewhat ascew to that of the average-joe.
better question: will the install be secure by default??? Or can we expect piranah again?:p But seriously, anonymous ftp, web server, rpc, etc,etc,etc, have no real use on a desktop, to which I'm sure Red Hat has some market goals!
Actually, I think their technical concept is quite old, going way back to the original ideas of the internet (but stagnated by MS misinnovation:p ). The business model is new, however.
I think Red Hat will be moving away from "versions" altogether, and simply offer the "Red Hat Linux Operating System" as a subscription. That's where the money is. For $10/mo I'd be more than content with a forever-super-fast evolving OS like GNU/Linux. That's why I use Debian' unstable branch at home - apt-get and *poof* latest of the latest. (for better or worse...)
Sure, the technical concepts are as old as the internet, and have previously been successifully implemented by both Debian and commercial entities (IBM & MS for example), but the subscription service as a business model is brand new, and it's what Microsoft.net is all about, and it's what MMOG's are all about (massively multiplayer online games), and it's what Red Hat should be looking at. The days of shelf-software profits are drawing to an end, and they need to be providing a proactive-payment services, like Debian's apt-get, but to the corporations and others who seem to be more confident in "commercial software", for some semblance of security.
At the AAAI-2000 (Americal Association for Artificial Intelligence) conference in Austin, Tx. back in August, almost exclusively the robots were running Linux. I actually made a note of what was running what, and in a very informal poll, I found that there were significantly more Linux computers in the symposium than any other operating system. Windows was relatively common on the desktops, there were a few Macs, a couple of SGI's, and a QNX which was a real surprise, and I think a thin OS I never heard of before. I don't recall seeing a single robot running anything but Linux (or a variation of QNX, or the thin OS).
It was actually quite encouraging to see so much acceptance of Linux. I really didn't expect it -- I asked a few people, just out of curiosity, what operating system they were running, and the more people I asked, the more positive responses I received to Linux. Anyone that really knew anything about Linux was using it. (maybe that's why they knew something about it... ??? duh...) But the real kicker was the overall attitude people had towards it. They just loved it. No one had techno-rage at a Linux machine.:)
Just an addition: Computers cannot be burnt, legally at any rate, since their emmissions have a dangerous amount of mustard gas, which is a highly potent mutagen and "extremely effective" carcinogen (ie. oxidant catalyst, if I remember correctly). Or at least, the 1980 counterparts of modern computers did, which I believe is what the issue here is with.
Yep. My mother and Unix don't get along. Come to think of it, my mother and computers don't get along.
One of the best points I noticed here was that Linux distributions are not being segregated by what they are specialized for. The one size fits all distribution is good in theory, but not particularly practical for most instances of implementation, nor does it have a great business model. (Specialization is where the money's at, man.:) )
It goes like this:
"Mom, open your slash-etc-slash-i-n-e-t-dot-d"
"What's a slash?"
"It's the same key as the question mark"
"Oh ok. Found it. What do I hit after that?"
"Well are you root?"
"Maybe. What's root? Brian, this is too complicated for me."
And so on and so forth. All those securities enabled in the rootprompt article should be, in my humble opinion, enabled by default. Admittedly, I'm not giving my mother Linux anytime soon (maybe for Xmas, if I'm particularly cruel), but still, the only services that should be allowed are those necessary for a client. If you want your machine to act as a server, you should really have the know-how to set it up with the serving-serivces. If you don't know how to set up those services, you probably shouldn't be using them. I think OpenBSD is a good example of how to do a distribution properly. Secure by default.
That's in the past 2 years, I believe. I'd *much* rather play a Linux game, but I'm also keen on Diablo 2, and it pains me that there is no Linux version yet. But, alas, all in due time. I believe the gaming market for Linux is going to *boom* because you can make cheap game consoles with Linux. Sorry... that's speculation, but I also believe it's a very probable scenario.
Re:Guinness didn't want to be remembered for Obi W
on
Sir Alec Guinness Dies
·
· Score: 2
I know nothing about the circumstances surrounding Guinness becoming part of Star Wars, but he was a renowned actor (from Dr. Zhivago, in the least:) ), but I have heard of other established actors becoming black-marked for turning down roles. Robert Stack (ala Unsolved Mysteries), for example, was apparently black marked for turning down a role.
Disclaimer: I can't substantiate this, but I have no doubt in my mind that Hollywood is accustomed to heavy handing and scapegoating. I have no reason to believe that Guinness was heavy-handed into Star Wars, but it is a possibility that we must accept. In all likelyhood however, Guinness took the part because he was initially interested in it, and later discovered his animosity.
You still can't beat a firewall, in my humble opinion. But alas, as the argument goes, to have a secure network, you need a secure router. It seems a shame that the two cannot be integrated better, though.
What sort of security *is* important on a router? I would've thought that a router would be relatively benign, but can't (once compromised) it provide a gateway to ip spoofing, source and destination address spoofing, packet sniffing, and ip source routing? (and denial of service attacks, of course, we won't forget those!) Why else secure a router if you've got a secure firewall?
We had a similar situation where we had to decided on a particular system to implement VPN as well as all the firewall and DMZ (demilitarized zone) rulesets.
We finally decided on OpenBSD although we considered Linux, Tru64, Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Irix, NT and Windows 2000. By considered, I mean we thought about it. But we finally decided on OpenBSD because throughout all the security bulletins that we've seen, this was the one that touted the best security, and was notably lacking in security bulletins.
We have been extremely satisfied with OpenBSD, and use it as a real bastion firewall, and as a transparent bridge to our production servers. It has an incredible amount of power, and is very versatile. Combined with Snort, Nessus, Nmap, IPF, and Perl (or any scripting language), it makes an wonderful IDS (Intrusion Detection System). I have yet to see a commercial system rival the power of this open source system in terms of complexity and diversity.
How much of this can ICANN enforce? In particular, can they emplore companies like E-Toys, the Olympic Committee,etc., to not enforce copyright on things like.org,.net, etc. And can ICANN emplore companies to litigate copyright enforcement simply on.com, or.shop, or.org (in the case of the Olypmic committee) where appropriate.
My question, I guess, comes down to whether or not.xxx will represent all the legitimite pornography on the internet by providing a classification based on domain name.:) What I mean is, will the ICANN domain names have any real merit in classification, whereas the.coms,.nets, and.orgs for gumbi are all owned by the same copyright holder.
It would be interesting to throw in Solaris or Tru64 as well, because they are not Open Source, but highly regarded as 'enterprise level', and thus expected to perform better than Win2k at least, and in all probability comparably or better than Linux.
Personally, I want to see the BSD's go head to head. (as if they don't have enough rifts between them as-is);-)
Sell your product, or do what the company I am working for does, give it away, then charge a marginal fee per customer for support, security fixes, customer feedback and enchancement requests. This is a much more proactive model than the charge-once-and-forget all-so-often abused model. But it does reap huge benefits, in that for one, you receive a monthly or annual fee from every customer, you have more loyal customers, and you are supporting an existing producting, rather than repairing one that's been considered out-the-door by the people who made it.
There are probably downsides to this model as well, and I'm sure someone will point them out here. One of the chief benefits of this model, which I have not mentioned, is that the organization that supports the software need not be the one that made it (although there would be benefit to having made it), encouraging competition for support. Case in point where this model succeeds: IBM's Global Support Branch.
I agree with your argument. The trick now will be to see if individual musicians can afford to license the patented encryption by Mr. Hoffstein et al.
I'm sure RIAA can afford to license this patented technology, and if it protects their assets, it will be. In fact, you can probably be assured that RIAA will go to great lengths to prevent others from using this technology (such as independent musicians distributing over the web) if, again, it threatens their assets.
This will probably be the standard of the future, and I think that the Linux community, in particular, should be paying close attention. In reality, *nix does this anyway (you just need good authentication) over LAN's; the step to WAN (ie. Internet) isn't nearly as great as MS's kernel rewrite. *Nix just doesn't use XML (mostly, I think, because it doesn't need to.)
I think that the ubiquitous desktop is the wave of the future because it makes things better for people who don't adjust as quickly. I really don't have much of an opinion on MS doing it, but I think that everyone will go this way eventually. If MS published this as their idea, it would be quite false, since this has been around as an idea, as far as I know, since the mainframe days. Them employing that idea is fine, if it makes computers easier for the average person to use.
Real issues may arise because of bugs and viri: everyone using the same software makes bugs and viri easy to create (ala nature w/uniform genetics) If only MS can use their desktop settings, then it may prove to be a hive for bugs and viri, like Outlook et al. That's a bit of another topic altogether, though. This settings-anywhere has a ton of issues that MS probably isn't even aware of (often because they like to reinvent the wheel, poorly). But, if they get it right, it would be quite neat.
The only other issue I have is with the recurring charge that would accompany something online like that; this is something that average-joe would probably pay for on a recurring monthly basis, and that's fundamentally wrong, in my very humble opinion.
I don't think it's really relevent whether or not the technology is obsolete. There are still valid reasons to use a VAX, although I don't know any off hand, mostly for legacy compatibility with existing systems. Is the x86 architecture obsolete? I think so; it's old, and it has a great number of architectural issues that have no easy resolution.
But technical obsolesence isn't really that relevent; the market factors governing success are really the presence of a transparent upgrade process, like Transmeta's Crusoe chip, for example. Something may be technically obsolete, but it is not socially or economically obsolete. Since we live in an economically governed society, not a technically governed one, the principles that affect the growth and distribution of new technology are economic, not technical.
Thus, we see x86 and DOS compatibility, two of the first and most popular (economically) primary personal computer architectures, resilient to even today. One might note that it is the presence of propietary technology that is indignant to change, and that open architectures (like ARPANet => Internet:TCP/IP) evolved dramatically. One can only speculate, of course, what would have happened if the internet was composed of closed minds and standards (and we can only agree to disagree at this time), or equivalently if DOS/x86 were developed by open minds with open standards in mind (again, only agree to disagree if you do).
So is x86 obsolete? Yes. But there is no clear economicly sound upgrade path at this time, but we are certainly seeing ones arise, especially with the advent of the internet and the universal movement "community", on that internet.
Building OpenBSD and Linux Firewalls, Sonnerreich and Yates. This will tell you enough to get a solid OpenBSD firewall up. Building Internet Firewalls, Second Edition Zwicky, Cooper, Chapman. This will provide you with more background information, but nothing on OpenBSD. (I was, not so much disappointed, as surprised, at this, for the first time with an O'Reilly book).
See the prior of the web pages for a mailing list (Majordomo). The author (Darren Reed) of IPFilter actively participates in this mailing list, which is helpful, and often appreciated.
Now, don't get me wrong, but I believe most projects require someone central to the system. Linus Torvolds, for example, are central to the Linux Kernel, and David Dawes is central to XFree86, and Miguel de Icaza is central to GNOME. Now, this isn't to say that these are the most important people there, the best developers, etc.. Not at all. But, they are key players in maintaining and updating releases of the software, and are integral to the project in management, programming, and communications. Somewhat like a volunteer COO.
On large enough projects (like the ones mentioned), the division of operations can be divvied up, like with Alan Cox on the Kernel, etc.. But for projects just starting out, or for smaller projects, like Blackbox's Brad Hughes and Jeff Raven, where they codeveloped the whole system (other credits acknowledged, of course), it is imperative that there be a real person at the centre calling the shots, and that a real person make the code usable on several platforms, if it is demanded on several platforms, and that someone be there to answer the other free-world(tm) developers questions, when they come knocking with their "what the hell is that?" and "why not do this, instead" type questions and comments.
Many projects fall by the wayside, or are forgotten altogether before they are really picked up en masse. Many people do not feel comfortable contributing to a project that may disappear in a few days, or weeks, or even months. The stubbornness of the person at the wheel and their determiniation and grit will bring new people on, and that will lead to a healthy development environment.
Tru64 is a type of Unix owned by Compaq. If I recall correctly, it was developed by Digital, for the Alpha processor. That's if I recall correctly...:/
Slashdot Mirror
At least Canada will serve some purpose in the mission to Mars. ("Wanna know what Mars is like?? Go to Canada") What a great tourist attraction, eh?
An initial mail is sent to the Microsoft Office family of email clients, wherein the SPAM reads their email address book, and propagates itself to all members of that address book. After propagation, the SPAM logically deletes or renames certain files, such as .dll and .vxd files and displays an advertisement for the charity of choice of the origin.
Contrary to the popular Melissa and I-Love-You advertising schema, the SPAM method involves a unique advertisement method of overwriting particular files for the explicit purpose of advertising.
This application for patent 31337-68797968 comes in lieu of the failure of the Java Remote File Deletion Function.
I would conjecture that it is in the interests of Red Hat to leave Sun with an appropriate niche, if they are to forge a mutually beneficial alliance in the future. This is only conjecture, of course, but business-wise it makes more sense for Red Hat to not press Sun on "sacred ground".
With Red Hat subscription they will have people serving up to demand. What's that mean? That means security, pretty themes, new email clients and bulletins about all the stuff that people find interesting, all in one package. If I want to find stuff on Debian, I have to KNOW what I'm looking for, by name pretty much. With the Red Hat update service, I suspect they will have recommendations of themes and of email clients and all that crap. And that's pretty cool when you don't know what you're doing. When you're a techie, that's not something you need or want, when you get towards "expert" or "pro" classification, your view of the field becomes somewhat ascew to that of the average-joe.
better question: will the install be secure by default??? Or can we expect piranah again? :p But seriously, anonymous ftp, web server, rpc, etc,etc,etc, have no real use on a desktop, to which I'm sure Red Hat has some market goals!
I think Red Hat will be moving away from "versions" altogether, and simply offer the "Red Hat Linux Operating System" as a subscription. That's where the money is. For $10/mo I'd be more than content with a forever-super-fast evolving OS like GNU/Linux. That's why I use Debian' unstable branch at home - apt-get and *poof* latest of the latest. (for better or worse ...)
Sure, the technical concepts are as old as the internet, and have previously been successifully implemented by both Debian and commercial entities (IBM & MS for example), but the subscription service as a business model is brand new, and it's what Microsoft.net is all about, and it's what MMOG's are all about (massively multiplayer online games), and it's what Red Hat should be looking at. The days of shelf-software profits are drawing to an end, and they need to be providing a proactive-payment services, like Debian's apt-get, but to the corporations and others who seem to be more confident in "commercial software", for some semblance of security.
It was actually quite encouraging to see so much acceptance of Linux. I really didn't expect it -- I asked a few people, just out of curiosity, what operating system they were running, and the more people I asked, the more positive responses I received to Linux. Anyone that really knew anything about Linux was using it. (maybe that's why they knew something about it ... ??? duh ...) But the real kicker was the overall attitude people had towards it. They just loved it. No one had techno-rage at a Linux machine. :)
Just an addition: Computers cannot be burnt, legally at any rate, since their emmissions have a dangerous amount of mustard gas, which is a highly potent mutagen and "extremely effective" carcinogen (ie. oxidant catalyst, if I remember correctly). Or at least, the 1980 counterparts of modern computers did, which I believe is what the issue here is with.
One of the best points I noticed here was that Linux distributions are not being segregated by what they are specialized for. The one size fits all distribution is good in theory, but not particularly practical for most instances of implementation, nor does it have a great business model. (Specialization is where the money's at, man. :) )
"Mom, open your slash-etc-slash-i-n-e-t-dot-d"
"What's a slash?"
"It's the same key as the question mark"
"Oh ok. Found it. What do I hit after that?"
"Well are you root?"
"Maybe. What's root? Brian, this is too complicated for me."
And so on and so forth. All those securities enabled in the rootprompt article should be, in my humble opinion, enabled by default. Admittedly, I'm not giving my mother Linux anytime soon (maybe for Xmas, if I'm particularly cruel), but still, the only services that should be allowed are those necessary for a client. If you want your machine to act as a server, you should really have the know-how to set it up with the serving-serivces. If you don't know how to set up those services, you probably shouldn't be using them. I think OpenBSD is a good example of how to do a distribution properly. Secure by default.
Probably referring to the possibility that one can use Debian/Hurd as well as Debian/Linux and still call it Debian.
- Diablo 2
Games bought for Linux:- Heroes of Might and Magic III
- Soldier of Fortune
- Myth II
That's in the past 2 years, I believe. I'd *much* rather play a Linux game, but I'm also keen on Diablo 2, and it pains me that there is no Linux version yet. But, alas, all in due time. I believe the gaming market for Linux is going to *boom* because you can make cheap game consoles with Linux. SorryDisclaimer: I can't substantiate this, but I have no doubt in my mind that Hollywood is accustomed to heavy handing and scapegoating. I have no reason to believe that Guinness was heavy-handed into Star Wars, but it is a possibility that we must accept. In all likelyhood however, Guinness took the part because he was initially interested in it, and later discovered his animosity.
What sort of security *is* important on a router? I would've thought that a router would be relatively benign, but can't (once compromised) it provide a gateway to ip spoofing, source and destination address spoofing, packet sniffing, and ip source routing? (and denial of service attacks, of course, we won't forget those!) Why else secure a router if you've got a secure firewall?
We finally decided on OpenBSD although we considered Linux, Tru64, Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Irix, NT and Windows 2000. By considered, I mean we thought about it. But we finally decided on OpenBSD because throughout all the security bulletins that we've seen, this was the one that touted the best security, and was notably lacking in security bulletins.
We have been extremely satisfied with OpenBSD, and use it as a real bastion firewall, and as a transparent bridge to our production servers. It has an incredible amount of power, and is very versatile. Combined with Snort, Nessus, Nmap, IPF, and Perl (or any scripting language), it makes an wonderful IDS (Intrusion Detection System). I have yet to see a commercial system rival the power of this open source system in terms of complexity and diversity.
My question, I guess, comes down to whether or not .xxx will represent all the legitimite pornography on the internet by providing a classification based on domain name. :) What I mean is, will the ICANN domain names have any real merit in classification, whereas the .coms, .nets, and .orgs for gumbi are all owned by the same copyright holder.
Personally, I want to see the BSD's go head to head. (as if they don't have enough rifts between them as-is) ;-)
There are probably downsides to this model as well, and I'm sure someone will point them out here. One of the chief benefits of this model, which I have not mentioned, is that the organization that supports the software need not be the one that made it (although there would be benefit to having made it), encouraging competition for support. Case in point where this model succeeds: IBM's Global Support Branch.
I'm sure RIAA can afford to license this patented technology, and if it protects their assets, it will be. In fact, you can probably be assured that RIAA will go to great lengths to prevent others from using this technology (such as independent musicians distributing over the web) if, again, it threatens their assets.
I think that the ubiquitous desktop is the wave of the future because it makes things better for people who don't adjust as quickly. I really don't have much of an opinion on MS doing it, but I think that everyone will go this way eventually. If MS published this as their idea, it would be quite false, since this has been around as an idea, as far as I know, since the mainframe days. Them employing that idea is fine, if it makes computers easier for the average person to use.
Real issues may arise because of bugs and viri: everyone using the same software makes bugs and viri easy to create (ala nature w/uniform genetics) If only MS can use their desktop settings, then it may prove to be a hive for bugs and viri, like Outlook et al. That's a bit of another topic altogether, though. This settings-anywhere has a ton of issues that MS probably isn't even aware of (often because they like to reinvent the wheel, poorly). But, if they get it right, it would be quite neat.
The only other issue I have is with the recurring charge that would accompany something online like that; this is something that average-joe would probably pay for on a recurring monthly basis, and that's fundamentally wrong, in my very humble opinion.
But technical obsolesence isn't really that relevent; the market factors governing success are really the presence of a transparent upgrade process, like Transmeta's Crusoe chip, for example. Something may be technically obsolete, but it is not socially or economically obsolete. Since we live in an economically governed society, not a technically governed one, the principles that affect the growth and distribution of new technology are economic, not technical.
Thus, we see x86 and DOS compatibility, two of the first and most popular (economically) primary personal computer architectures, resilient to even today. One might note that it is the presence of propietary technology that is indignant to change, and that open architectures (like ARPANet => Internet:TCP/IP) evolved dramatically. One can only speculate, of course, what would have happened if the internet was composed of closed minds and standards (and we can only agree to disagree at this time), or equivalently if DOS/x86 were developed by open minds with open standards in mind (again, only agree to disagree if you do).
So is x86 obsolete? Yes. But there is no clear economicly sound upgrade path at this time, but we are certainly seeing ones arise, especially with the advent of the internet and the universal movement "community", on that internet.
Building Internet Firewalls, Second Edition Zwicky, Cooper, Chapman. This will provide you with more background information, but nothing on OpenBSD. (I was, not so much disappointed, as surprised, at this, for the first time with an O'Reilly book).
The best, in my very humble opinion, references are online, but they aren't as nice to read as the Building Linux and OpenBDS Firewalls book, but are an excellent suppliment.
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/ipfilter
http://www.obfuscation.org/ipf/
See the prior of the web pages for a mailing list (Majordomo). The author (Darren Reed) of IPFilter actively participates in this mailing list, which is helpful, and often appreciated.
Hope that helps
Brian
On large enough projects (like the ones mentioned), the division of operations can be divvied up, like with Alan Cox on the Kernel, etc.. But for projects just starting out, or for smaller projects, like Blackbox's Brad Hughes and Jeff Raven, where they codeveloped the whole system (other credits acknowledged, of course), it is imperative that there be a real person at the centre calling the shots, and that a real person make the code usable on several platforms, if it is demanded on several platforms, and that someone be there to answer the other free-world(tm) developers questions, when they come knocking with their "what the hell is that?" and "why not do this, instead" type questions and comments.
Many projects fall by the wayside, or are forgotten altogether before they are really picked up en masse. Many people do not feel comfortable contributing to a project that may disappear in a few days, or weeks, or even months. The stubbornness of the person at the wheel and their determiniation and grit will bring new people on, and that will lead to a healthy development environment.
I'm waiting for the Force Feedback version.
Tru64 is a type of Unix owned by Compaq. If I recall correctly, it was developed by Digital, for the Alpha processor. That's if I recall correctly ... :/