Assuming the netmask is 255.255.255.0. If the netmask is anything from 255.0.0.0 through 255.255.254.0 inclusive, his 10.0.0.255 would be perfectly valid. If the LAN was small and lightly loaded he would probably be quite survivable even sitting on the broadcast address.
Propaganda is the idea that saying the word [and repeating it] makes it true. There is also the BIG LIE, which is so preposterous that it leaves your opponents speachless.
innovation. sounds impressive, but: innovation n. Act of introducing something new or novel as in customs, rites, etc. A different color of mouse-pad is innovative. Getting slashes backwards is innovative. Standing when you should be kneeling is innovative. The latest teenage fad is innovative. There is no sense of improvement or invention or skill.
>Great, but who is going to often do complex enough searches for files that makes any sort of RDBMS worthwhile? %gt;The vast majority of searches would be simple keyed terms. The vast majority of searches are simple keyed terms because anything else would take far too long with current retrieval mechanisms.
Take 2 minutes to display a folder and a half second to retrieve the contents of the file you're after. I would much rather spend a half second to locate the file I'm after and two seconds to retrieve it.
IBM selling Linux? RedHat, SuSE, and a bunch of others sell Linux. Not IBM. There's even a TrueBlue Linux for IBM mainframes, but it's not by IBM.
IBM is dumping a lot of money into Linux and it's not IBM that's selling it.
they're simply saving tens of millions on software development by letting gullible, naive college kids work for free. And IBM is dumping in the neighborhood of $1b/year into Linux. I fail to see your "savings".
I'm not sure, but with the patents and all, I suspect SCO will wind up with no rights to distribute anything, including their own software. In any event, SCO is functionally dead. There are enough big names who take umbrage at SCO's actions that when SCO systems have problems, all they need to do is get a little bit deaf. It doesn't even take anything overtly identifiable. SCO is dead. It's just a question of how and when they find out about it.
So IBM have the right idea here. Try and get across the basic philosophy of Linux, namely, openness and sharing - the rest is just minor technical details ultimately of interest to few.
It's not just Linux, although Linux is a key ingredient. The real money has to be in business-to-business-to-business-to-business, etc. (OT, Why is "Supply Chain" taken as having just one business-to-business link?) You will not get everybody to upgrade at the same time. You won't even get them to run the same brand of software. You won't even get them to run the same kind of software. But all this mess must communicate. Quickly, reliably, accurately. IBM will be thick in the middle of it all, but it will not be all IBM. With all Microsoft all you get is a mess of worms. I think even IBM is afraid of an all IBM.
here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel But the definition of a VM is that one or more kernels run under the VM.
Other than backdoors into the VM, the kernel is incapable of even knowing that it is running under a VM.
Boot into DOS. This is DOS running in Real Mode. Load a memory manager. Now the memory manager has control of the hardware. DOS is running in V86 Mode, the exact same DOS. If the memory manager decided to excercise it's control, it would be capable of doing anything it wanted, mostly without the knowledge of and certainly without any cooperation from DOS.
By default, Apache discovers the MIME-type by looking at the file extension. That's right, it uses file extensions And with very little configuration Apache uses different sets of file extensions in different contexts (folders).
Hack. Precisely. Some hacks are better than others, but short of the metaphysical equivalent of the philosopher's stone, metinks that's all there is to be had.
All China has to do is wait, and there culture will dominate the world. And they know how to wait. They have a long history and tend to see things with a much longer time-scale, as in generations rather than decades.
If you buy a picture frame from a dime store (or whatever the modern equivalent is), you also get a picture in the frame. Maybe it doesn't occur to them that they should put their own picture there? I know I'm not getting any smarter, but is the world really getting that much dumber?
Actually, it should be pretty safe and unbuggy software since you know several somebodies will be going over it with a fine tooth comb looking for anything out of place.
That should answer most of your questions Granted, but then why does the Linux malware never seem to accomplish anything significant? Surely the business of engineering the malware to accomplish something should be enhanced by access to all of the code. And I don't buy the rot about Linux users being better than Windows users. Sure someone with no skill can set up a Microsoft and have something that looks like a system, but it seems like it takes rather more skill to accomplish anything on Microsoft than on Linux. Microsoft tends to be a monoculture and to promote the idea of a monoculture as the ideal. Patches are only official patches and they must come from Microsoft. If Linux had its own version of Slammer, several people would be on it and on top of it quickly. I would be downloading something to help (AC link on/.) from somebody I've never heard of before RedHat got halfway woke up. (If that sounds dangerous, realize that that's exactly how the Secret Service selects foodstuffs for the presidential party.)
As soon as we saw our routers get wonky I investigated to see what it was, saw more than a dozen cable clients spewing garbage like crazy and promptly blocked them at the routers.
Bravo! That works against tomorrow's worms. Anti-virus is effective against yesterday's worms.
From my very unpatched NT4 Workstation (which doesn't run the latest Microsoft worms very good;), I'd say that it is the tendency for Microsoft to hide as much as possible and the lookee-lookee, clickee-clickee mentality that's causing the majority of the problems. If anything, it seems like the better grade of wormage has been directed at Linux, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much of anything. I'm not saying that Linux or even OpenBSD is immune, but they seem to fare much better, and the reasons are not as simple as fewer of them, better and faster patching, or even better educated users. The idea of smart users, dumb computer still works. Smart computers, dumb users seems to fare even worse than Wyle E. Coyote.
Your point is quite valid and probably the better point. Mine is that I'm seeing a nice glimmer of the death of the pop music scene. Music's fine, but I prefer live music to dead music.
It's the neglected side of security. And probably the more important side.
Companies have been destroyed by lost data. I'm not aware of any that have suffered catastrophic loss due to unauthorized read access to data. For a real cheap shot at offsite backup, occasionally put backups onto owners, managers, sysadmins, etc. laptops. If they can't be trusted, you've got bigger problems than the data they're carrying. Any backup is better than no backup, Several poor backups generally beat one almost excellent backup, and it's much easier.
There's a statement "There is the "right way" to do things and the "real world" way to do things." elsewhere in this thread. That bothers me somehow. The "right way" means essentially ten times the storage for one-tenth the cost. Something's gotta give. When you need the backups, almost by definition, something isn't right, and there is no way to know beforehand what that something will be. I've always felt more comfortable with multiple backups, done different ways at different times, with much more attention paid to the physically smaller and more important things, but none of them done with a lot of effort.
Question: Do you have backups? Answer: Yes, if anybody has ever done anything remotely resemblin a backup;-(
Whether he keeps it and plays it where he can or he returns it as defective, there is a large amount of hassle involved in what was supposed to be a non-mind-taxing enjoyable experience. Without drawing fine distinctions, the new music cd's sometimes don't work. There are even rumors of new music cd's doing bad things to computers that attempt to play them. For an industry that pretty much depends on the tacit assumption that the current music scene is the "in" thing, this seems incredibly stupid. Add a bit of hassle, and a few adverse twitches by the current leaders of the "in" crowd, and the current music scene becomes an "out" thing. Think of MTV as quaint and old-fashioned and you get the picture. The "gotta have", if you actually examine it closely, turns ugly.
resistance to incorporating changes to proprietary software too. Resistance is far too mild a term. Old proprietary software will not be improved. There is a small window where a potential buyer has an opportunity to affect the proprietary product with his own (usually stupid) ideas. The point I was trying to make is that over time, Open Source tends toward a quality level that is far too expensive for proprietary software to achieve. If it's free you have the option of maintaining your own version. If your changes are advantageous to the core, it is strongly advantageous that they be in the core, otherwise you've orphaned yourself from anyone else's improvements to the core. The end result is some very expensive software (in terms of what it is (value)) that is obtained at a very reasonable cost.
It's to be expected. Microsoft software is designed so that someone with no idea what they are doing can throw something at the computer and have it come out looking pretty decent. In this context, even repeatability is not necessarily an asset let alone a requirement. It's useful, very useful, provided you don't really care what it looks like.
If you care what it looks like, or if you need it to be readable 5, 10, 20 years from now you need something else. PDFs will still be readable, with or without Adobe. With no idea what I'm talking about, TeX and friends will still be readable. (Totally unfamiliar territory, but whatever it is they do and however they do it, they will still be around for a long, long time.)
Slashdot Mirror
So, you think the asian governments are going to pay to produce millions of software CDs and flood the U.S. market with them? Seems far-fetched to me.
Sounds reasonable to me. The first time I got Tomcat running was on RedFlag Linux 1.1.
No I do not understand Chinese.
Short-term sucker, not an all-day sucker.
Assuming the netmask is 255.255.255.0.
If the netmask is anything from 255.0.0.0 through 255.255.254.0 inclusive, his 10.0.0.255 would be perfectly valid.
If the LAN was small and lightly loaded he would probably be quite survivable even sitting on the broadcast address.
Has one advantage. The primary server is 172.30.0.30
It's also obscure enough that it's unlikely to clash with anyone elses LAN.
Propaganda is the idea that saying the word [and repeating it] makes it true.
There is also the BIG LIE, which is so preposterous that it leaves your opponents speachless.
innovation. sounds impressive, but:
innovation n. Act of introducing something new or novel as in customs, rites, etc.
A different color of mouse-pad is innovative. Getting slashes backwards is innovative. Standing when you should be kneeling is innovative. The latest teenage fad is innovative.
There is no sense of improvement or invention or skill.
Only as long as you're still alive.
>Great, but who is going to often do complex enough searches for files that makes any sort of RDBMS worthwhile?
%gt;The vast majority of searches would be simple keyed terms.
The vast majority of searches are simple keyed terms because anything else would take far too long with current retrieval mechanisms.
Take 2 minutes to display a folder and a half second to retrieve the contents of the file you're after. I would much rather spend a half second to locate the file I'm after and two seconds to retrieve it.
IBM selling Linux?
RedHat, SuSE, and a bunch of others sell Linux. Not IBM.
There's even a TrueBlue Linux for IBM mainframes, but it's not by IBM.
IBM is dumping a lot of money into Linux and it's not IBM that's selling it.
they're simply saving tens of millions on software development by letting gullible, naive college kids work for free.
And IBM is dumping in the neighborhood of $1b/year into Linux. I fail to see your "savings".
I'm not sure, but with the patents and all, I suspect SCO will wind up with no rights to distribute anything, including their own software.
In any event, SCO is functionally dead. There are enough big names who take umbrage at SCO's actions that when SCO systems have problems, all they need to do is get a little bit deaf. It doesn't even take anything overtly identifiable. SCO is dead. It's just a question of how and when they find out about it.
So IBM have the right idea here. Try and get across the basic philosophy of Linux, namely, openness and sharing - the rest is just minor technical details ultimately of interest to few.
It's not just Linux, although Linux is a key ingredient. The real money has to be in business-to-business-to-business-to-business, etc. (OT, Why is "Supply Chain" taken as having just one business-to-business link?) You will not get everybody to upgrade at the same time. You won't even get them to run the same brand of software. You won't even get them to run the same kind of software. But all this mess must communicate. Quickly, reliably, accurately. IBM will be thick in the middle of it all, but it will not be all IBM. With all Microsoft all you get is a mess of worms. I think even IBM is afraid of an all IBM.
here's a tip, a kernel doesn't run under anything, otherwise it's not a kernel
But the definition of a VM is that one or more kernels run under the VM.
Other than backdoors into the VM, the kernel is incapable of even knowing that it is running under a VM.
Boot into DOS. This is DOS running in Real Mode.
Load a memory manager. Now the memory manager has control of the hardware. DOS is running in V86 Mode, the exact same DOS. If the memory manager decided to excercise it's control, it would be capable of doing anything it wanted, mostly without the knowledge of and certainly without any cooperation from DOS.
By default, Apache discovers the MIME-type by looking at the file extension. That's right, it uses file extensions
And with very little configuration Apache uses different sets of file extensions in different contexts (folders).
Hack.
Precisely. Some hacks are better than others, but short of the metaphysical equivalent of the philosopher's stone, metinks that's all there is to be had.
Good point.
Question: Could a sub-par third grade class beat the current standard in web setup?
All China has to do is wait, and there culture will dominate the world.
And they know how to wait. They have a long history and tend to see things with a much longer time-scale, as in generations rather than decades.
If you buy a picture frame from a dime store (or whatever the modern equivalent is), you also get a picture in the frame. Maybe it doesn't occur to them that they should put their own picture there?
I know I'm not getting any smarter, but is the world really getting that much dumber?
Actually, it should be pretty safe and unbuggy software since you know several somebodies will be going over it with a fine tooth comb looking for anything out of place.
That should answer most of your questions /.) from somebody I've never heard of before RedHat got halfway woke up. (If that sounds dangerous, realize that that's exactly how the Secret Service selects foodstuffs for the presidential party.)
Granted, but then why does the Linux malware never seem to accomplish anything significant? Surely the business of engineering the malware to accomplish something should be enhanced by access to all of the code. And I don't buy the rot about Linux users being better than Windows users. Sure someone with no skill can set up a Microsoft and have something that looks like a system, but it seems like it takes rather more skill to accomplish anything on Microsoft than on Linux.
Microsoft tends to be a monoculture and to promote the idea of a monoculture as the ideal. Patches are only official patches and they must come from Microsoft. If Linux had its own version of Slammer, several people would be on it and on top of it quickly. I would be downloading something to help (AC link on
As soon as we saw our routers get wonky I investigated to see what it was, saw more than a dozen cable clients spewing garbage like crazy and promptly blocked them at the routers.
Bravo!
That works against tomorrow's worms.
Anti-virus is effective against yesterday's worms.
Delivered by Butterfly?
From my very unpatched NT4 Workstation (which doesn't run the latest Microsoft worms very good;), I'd say that it is the tendency for Microsoft to hide as much as possible and the lookee-lookee, clickee-clickee mentality that's causing the majority of the problems. If anything, it seems like the better grade of wormage has been directed at Linux, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much of anything. I'm not saying that Linux or even OpenBSD is immune, but they seem to fare much better, and the reasons are not as simple as fewer of them, better and faster patching, or even better educated users. The idea of smart users, dumb computer still works. Smart computers, dumb users seems to fare even worse than Wyle E. Coyote.
Your point is quite valid and probably the better point.
Mine is that I'm seeing a nice glimmer of the death of the pop music scene. Music's fine, but I prefer live music to dead music.
No, what amazes me is that this is news.
;-(
It's the neglected side of security. And probably the more important side.
Companies have been destroyed by lost data. I'm not aware of any that have suffered catastrophic loss due to unauthorized read access to data. For a real cheap shot at offsite backup, occasionally put backups onto owners, managers, sysadmins, etc. laptops. If they can't be trusted, you've got bigger problems than the data they're carrying. Any backup is better than no backup, Several poor backups generally beat one almost excellent backup, and it's much easier.
There's a statement "There is the "right way" to do things and the "real world" way to do things." elsewhere in this thread. That bothers me somehow. The "right way" means essentially ten times the storage for one-tenth the cost. Something's gotta give. When you need the backups, almost by definition, something isn't right, and there is no way to know beforehand what that something will be. I've always felt more comfortable with multiple backups, done different ways at different times, with much more attention paid to the physically smaller and more important things, but none of them done with a lot of effort.
Question: Do you have backups?
Answer: Yes, if anybody has ever done anything remotely resemblin a backup
Whether he keeps it and plays it where he can or he returns it as defective, there is a large amount of hassle involved in what was supposed to be a non-mind-taxing enjoyable experience.
Without drawing fine distinctions, the new music cd's sometimes don't work. There are even rumors of new music cd's doing bad things to computers that attempt to play them. For an industry that pretty much depends on the tacit assumption that the current music scene is the "in" thing, this seems incredibly stupid. Add a bit of hassle, and a few adverse twitches by the current leaders of the "in" crowd, and the current music scene becomes an "out" thing. Think of MTV as quaint and old-fashioned and you get the picture. The "gotta have", if you actually examine it closely, turns ugly.
resistance to incorporating changes to proprietary software too.
Resistance is far too mild a term. Old proprietary software will not be improved. There is a small window where a potential buyer has an opportunity to affect the proprietary product with his own (usually stupid) ideas.
The point I was trying to make is that over time, Open Source tends toward a quality level that is far too expensive for proprietary software to achieve.
If it's free you have the option of maintaining your own version. If your changes are advantageous to the core, it is strongly advantageous that they be in the core, otherwise you've orphaned yourself from anyone else's improvements to the core. The end result is some very expensive software (in terms of what it is (value)) that is obtained at a very reasonable cost.
It's to be expected.
Microsoft software is designed so that someone with no idea what they are doing can throw something at the computer and have it come out looking pretty decent. In this context, even repeatability is not necessarily an asset let alone a requirement. It's useful, very useful, provided you don't really care what it looks like.
If you care what it looks like, or if you need it to be readable 5, 10, 20 years from now you need something else. PDFs will still be readable, with or without Adobe. With no idea what I'm talking about, TeX and friends will still be readable. (Totally unfamiliar territory, but whatever it is they do and however they do it, they will still be around for a long, long time.)