jakob@unthought ~> uname -a
Linux unthought.net 2.4.0-test4 #1 SMP Fri Jul 14 01:56:30 CEST 2000 i686 unknown
I suppose that ain't too bad. Other than that, with real 2.4 kernels, on UP and SMP systems, I've been fairly satisfied.
There was a RAID bug (RAID-1) in 2.4.9 or there about, which they forgot in the article. I think, except for the fs/raid corruption problems (which are horrible when they happen), that the 2.4 kernel has been a nice experience.
Think back for a moment: How would you like *not* to have iptables, reiser, proper software RAID, etc. etc. etc.
I think I would miss 2.4 if I went back, although the fs/raid corruption bugs made me "almost" do that.
Tell me, Oestergaard == Oesterreich?
Is is a germanism to say: ", or?" at the end of a sentence (wahr, oder? und ja, ich spreche deutsch, und 2 andere "indogermanische" sprachen)
Nice try. If you had a look at my homepage you would know that this is in fact my name, and that I am not german or austrian.
In my country's and my people's moment of tragedy, you want to point out that we are not perfect either.
Exactly. And I hope that you will remember that the world at large is not perfect.
I hoped that this could make people reflect on the situation, and perhaps think a little before starting an all-out war on the middle east (with the possibility of finding out in a year from now that the tragedy was inflicted by a native U.S. militia).
Then I point out that the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned, and you say that it doesn't matter anyway, as you presumable know (or just don't care) that their governments did not take the threat seriously and refused to evacuate the area, so suddenly it doesn't count if the people don't heed the warning.
As I stated somewhere else in this thread, a warning does not matter if it does not make a difference. Clearly, you will not claim that the majority of the casualties in those two bombings were military personnel.
I could point out other bombings (such as the chemical factory bombing in 1998) where civilians were attacked without prior warning. But that doesn't matter. I am not trying to balance accounts here. I am trying to make you *think*.
Why don't you point out the Allied firebombing in Germany and Austria and the resulting civilian deaths? Or better, why don't you just fucking forget WWII? It's over and the people involved are almost all dead
I did not name the article under which this thread is living "Perl Harbor". I did not start talking about WWII. But I found that since we were talking past events anyway, the two japanese bombings would be a convenient analogy to make people *think*.
I am not saying that the actions here were justified in any way, and I can't believe you seem to think that was what I wanted to say.
You have the right to hate my country and my people, which is the only emotion I can think of for speaking out against my country in an incredible moment of tragedy (and then following up with inconsistent logic in your ridiculous reply).
Why is it that you think I hate you? This is exactly what worries me.
This was also the sentiment in the second one of Bush's addresses to the public. After world leaders had expressed their deepest sympathy for the U.S. and condemned the terrorist action, Bush replied with something that resembled a warning to countries of the world. That the U.S. would retaliate swiftly, and that the U.S. would find out who did this. That no non-U.S. country should feel safe.
This is exactly the same sentiment I feel in a lot of the posts here at/.
You are not alone - terrorism can hit any democracy in the world, and we all feel deeply with you.
And that is why I do not want you to retaliate with another terrorist action against some foreign nation, because of blood thirst and desire for vengence rather than because of solid proof.
And I have the right to think you are a prick.
Absolutely.
And I retain the right to be very very worried and hope that there are not too many of your kind in positions of authority in the U.S.
In 1998 you bombed a chemical factory on the grounds that "it produced chemical weapons" and it was "owned by Osama Bin Laden".
Both "facts" turned out to be untrue, later.
Sure it can't have been more than a few hundred workers. Accidents happen. But as far as I know, the U.S. is not at war with Afghanistan.
I'm not trying to balance accounts here - I'm just trying to make people reflect on what has happened, and why pointing your guns in random directions looking for a scapegoat will only backfire, again.
When you bite, make damn sure you bite the right dog.
I do by no means support attacks on civilians, no matter what weapon is used (and a passenger aircraft turned out to be an efficient weapon today). Let me repeat so that you maybe understand: I do not support murdering civilians !
What I'm worried about, is that some prejudicious freak is going to bomb half the world because not doing so would be the end of his political career - because his people expects retaliation.
It this your new Perl Harbour, or is it Nagasaki and Hiroshima coming back to haunt you ?
While the events today are of course a perverse display of violence aimed at civilians, no one should be ignorant of the fact that the U.S. themselves are not exactly virgin in the field of hitting very large amounts of civilians with no prior warning what so ever.
Another thing: There is a lot of sentiment that this is Islamic terrorists, or the like. Remember Timothy Mc. Vein ? The press was blowing that one up as a mid-east terrorist attack, until *investigation* reveiled it was in fact a genuine misguided U.S. citizen.
Think people. Don't get carried away in anger with a blind wish for vengence.
So while the U.S. is taking steps to ensure that the last few remnants of personal freedom in that country is being taken away, I can happily sit back satisfied with knowing that the beer is also better in europe anyway;)
Would anyone know the status of getting the DMCA to europe ? There was some talk about it, but I haven't heard anything lately. That can mean two things... Which is it ?
Notice how ordinary communication paths are re-named to "infection vectors" to make them sound technical and dangerous - way to go Hemos;)
Anyway, it will be fun to see if the crap media picks this one up "uh no! a worm on Linux, we always knew it would happen! we haven't seen it yet, but someone mentioned it may get worse than CodeRed!"
But I'm really happy/. warned me - otherwise I might just have saved the program, marked it as executable, su'ed to root, and run it on my main web/ftp servers or the firewalls. Year, right...
Ok, first of all, Linus cannot sell the rights to the kernel, because I like many others *own* part of it.
Now why is that and how can that be? Well, it's because the Linux kernel is licensed under the *G*N*U* Public License.
This, is why it is not completely unreasonable to think of Linux as somthing being a part of the GNU system, although, yes, I know, FSF does not have the copyright.
And this, is why it is a lot more reasonable to think of Linux as GNU, than GNU as Linux.
Free thought and speech doesn't imply that unfairness is allright.
The GPL allows copying, but it uses the copyright system to ensure that users as well as authors be guaranteed some rights. It is not about ripping each other off, it's about sharing politely and fairly.
Now, the "politely" and "fairly" parts are exactly where the GNU/ prefix gets justfified.
Imagine that you, 20 years ago, came up with the GPL. Imagine that you wrote GCC, Emacs, and a bunch of other utilities, put them under GPL, and started this whole movement to actually produce a Free Software operating system.
Now imagine, that the press screwed up and suddenly named your entire system after a single (but important) component that you didn't have anything to do with - other than the fact that it was licensed under the license that you came up with.
Imagine everyone naming your system after this single component.
So maybe I don't have hard evidence that google is indeed biased already.
But my initial point stands - are the search engines independent? It's pretty much indisputable (hmm.. indisputable on/.?) that it could indeed be a problem to the credibility of the web if say 99% of the information being returned by search engines is returned from engines controlled by one government.
Centralized control over information (or, pointers to information in this case) is a potential problem.
Am I wrong ?
So, how do we deal with this ? As a regular joe-user there's pretty darn little one can do to prevent this centralization from happening - or ?
Considering that (a) Marlboro is not a tobacco company but a brand of cigarettes, (b) they do not appear to have an official website, NO I am not surprised by the Google results.
IRIX is a product of SGI. Entering IRIX gives me SGI. Entering Marlboro does not give me Phillip Morris.
Now try searching for "Philip Morris," the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, and you will find they are the very first link -- just as expected.
If they didn't do this - the plot would be too obvious.;-)
Would any of the new search engines be controlled by a different government ?
Since the search-engines are becoming our pointers to information, they do have a lot of control over what information we see. I doesn't matter that some web-server in malaysia has a web page describing the complete meaning of life, the universe and everything, if it's not in the search engines.
If all search engines are controlled by the same government (and yes oh yes, they are controlled) the web suddenly becomes biased.
Try searching for "marlboro" on google. What would you expect ? The marlboro home-page ? Oh, no; we have the Marlboro College, poems, but no tobacco company home page. Coincidence? Well, a search for IRIX gives me the SGI home page, so I think the search engine works as designed - what do you think?
LINPACK is computationally O(n^3) and O(n^2) wrt. communications, for problem size n.
That's not a completely unfair benchmark - but of course you're right it's a benchmark and therefore it does not cover every possible problem out there. However, it is based on the common linear-algebra routines that are the core of a very large part of the scientific computing problems being run out there.
Of the top 500 supercomputers in the world, 47 are vector processor machines - the kind of processors that Cray became famous for.
Not one single of these are made in the U.S.
Cray today is a name. It's a brand. It's not a manufacturer of high performance computers.
Just for the record, IBM produced the two fastest computers currently, Intel the third, IBM the fourth, Hitachi the fifth, SGI, IBM, NEC, IBM, IBM, and Finally, number *11* is a Cray based on the Alpha processor (the T3E).
So, tell me again, who was playing catch-up with who ?
Ok, this one has various VM niceness tweaks that have made some people
much happier. It also does a upgrade to the XFree86-4.1.x style DRM code,
which means that people with XFree86-4.0.x can no longer use the built-in
kernel DRM by default.
However, never fear. It's actually very easy to get the old DRM code too:
if you used to use the standard kernel DRM and do not want to upgrade to a
new XFree86 setup, just get the "drm-4.0.x" package from the same place
you get the kernel from, and do
- unpack the kernel
- cd linux/drivers/char
- unpack the "drm-4.0.x" package here
- mv drm new-drm
- mv drm-4.0.x drm
and you should be all set.
Re:However, it it not remote root
on
Code Redux
·
· Score: 2
How about executing the following first:
echo "do while 1 = 1 loop" > do.vbs
and then executing do.vbs a very large number of times ?
Actually - I just executed it *ONCE* as normal user, and because VBScript runs in the scripting host I was unable to terminate the job myself.
Now, attempting to log in as administrator just hangs in the login dialog... Other sessions to the terminal server are still running normally.
Very interesting:)
Unfortunately VBScript does not allow for the creation of a fork bomb as I hoped - suggestions anyone ? The noble goal being to stop remote machines from attacking my poor Apache box by using their pre-installed root.exe "administration interface".
It is of course important that the administrative workaround for the broken boxes is not destructive. A reboot and hotfix must bring the box back to life - it's evil (although tempting at times) to break stuff beyond repair.
However, it it not remote root
on
Code Redux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot is currently fucking up my submissions, claiming junk character posts, duplicate posts 22000 hours ago and what not. Sorry if this appears twice somewhere...
On to what I wanted to say:
While the executable is called root.exe, it's far from a remote root.
"Unfortunately" (well, if you want to do anything with root.exe at least), recent IIS versions are running as some IIS user with very few privileges. It did use to run as "system" (meaning - more power than the administrator), but it doesn't anymore.
My attempts at shutting down machines attacking my Apache box by running various "net stop" commands etc. were futile. The IIS user simply doesn't have the privileges to shut down the system.
I suspect one could create the equivalent of a fork bomb in a very minimal executable - then write the executable to the remote machine in a number of HTTP requests, and finally get the attacker to stop simply by executing the fork bomb.
But I haven't gotten around to trying this just yet:) Things would have been so much easier if this was indeede remote root.
Read the original e-mail piece. It's long, but it's well worth the read.
There a numerous issues in this article that are significantly "re-formulated" our left out - and that actually matters a lot in this case.
This article gives the impression (in my oppinion) that it is disputable wether the flaws were serious at all, and it seeks to give the impression that microsoft offered help which the russians refused.
If you read the longer original transcript, you will see that there were several other significant flaws found in 7.0 which made it unusable, and that the fix microsoft offered was "upgrade to 7.0".
The original transcripts ends with the russians expressing their deepest concern and surprise over microsoft actually suggesting them to fiddle with numeric formats etc. in order to work around real bugs that show up in SQL server.
There's no clear definition - anyone is of course free to come up with their own clear definition, a privilege many exploit and enjoy.
Simple searching - for example, finding an element in a balanced tree, is artificial intelligence. Unless, of course, you're talking about another kind of artificial intelligence, which you may well be depending on who you're talking to.
Often people who don't have a clue too often makes the context of such a discussion imply that A.I. is not "artificial" intelligence, but "human" intelligence - meaning, self awareness, initiative, improvisation, etc.
Get over it. A.I. is a term that can be used to designate a very wide range of problem solving algorithms and systems. Anything from simple graph search to neural networks and what not are covered.
Just know, that depending on who you're talking to, A.I. may well be confused with H.I.
Luckily,/. is monitored, this historical event will be kept in the monitoring systems for ever and ever;)
Go to
the monitoring system page.
Click the www.slashdot.org link
Select services
This will give you some graphs showing the outtage.
You could easily monitor what she's looking at. Going thru the logs, or by some other mechanism. There are plenty of solutions.
But would you really want to ? You realize that the this is indifferent to monitoring (and recording) her phone calls, or placing a microphone on her and following her daily conversations with friends.
You would effectively be spying on your kid.
As a responsible parent (easy for me to say as I don't - to the best of my knowledge - have kids), of course you're interested in what goes on in her life. But don't cross the line.
Having the computer in a "family room" is probably a good idea if you're seriously worried that she will use it for something that would pose a problem if she could use it in full privacy.
Handle this, as you handle the other worries. What if she makes some poor friends that tries to get her into something you wouldn't approve of ? Do you seriously bug her and listen to her conversations ? No, I didn't think so either.
Try something: have conversations. Eat together, the family dinner is a great time for talking about what goes on in the lives of the family members. Move the TV out of the kitchen and spend a little time together.
Do you keep her from watching TV ? Or going to a theater ? There are few things you will find on the net that you won't see every day in TV. goatse.cx is no exception.
That's what we do where I work. We don't have non-technical people, but having those is not an excuse.
LaTeX is easy - there's windows environments for it. Even without it, a trained chimpanse should be able to write \chapter{Title} to start new chapters. For non-mathematical writing, that's about all there is to LaTeX. Maybe \textbf{bold} too, but then it's about covered. Argumenting it is too hard is going to take better arguments than "remembering a small handfull of words (so-called codes, even though they're often real words) is too hard".
And CVS ? Well, Cygwin (from sources.redhat.com) has CVS and it works beautifully. Don't tell me that writing "cvs update" is harder than locaing the correct share on a server. Just configure CVS for the non-technical people so they don't have to worry about CVSROOT.
Resolving CVS conflicts ? Anyone who's had their word document changes reversed because someone else corrected a spelling error in their document while they were working on it is going to be really encouraged to learn about conflicts. Usually though, conflicts are easy to resolve in non-code (documents).
If you have to argue against this, please make up a sane argument - saying "but people only know word" is not an argument. With this solution they don't even *have* to know word.
Slashdot Mirror
jakob@unthought ~> uptime
9:21am up 181 days, 13:25, 3 users, load average: 3.57, 3.33, 2.79
jakob@unthought ~> uname -a
Linux unthought.net 2.4.0-test4 #1 SMP Fri Jul 14 01:56:30 CEST 2000 i686 unknown
I suppose that ain't too bad. Other than that, with real 2.4 kernels, on UP and SMP systems, I've been fairly satisfied.
There was a RAID bug (RAID-1) in 2.4.9 or there about, which they forgot in the article. I think, except for the fs/raid corruption problems (which are horrible when they happen), that the 2.4 kernel has been a nice experience.
Think back for a moment: How would you like *not* to have iptables, reiser, proper software RAID, etc. etc. etc.
I think I would miss 2.4 if I went back, although the fs/raid corruption bugs made me "almost" do that.
Tell me, Oestergaard == Oesterreich?
/.
Is is a germanism to say: ", or?" at the end of a sentence (wahr, oder? und ja, ich spreche deutsch, und 2 andere "indogermanische" sprachen)
Nice try. If you had a look at my homepage you would know that this is in fact my name, and that I am not german or austrian.
In my country's and my people's moment of tragedy, you want to point out that we are not perfect either.
Exactly. And I hope that you will remember that the world at large is not perfect.
I hoped that this could make people reflect on the situation, and perhaps think a little before starting an all-out war on the middle east (with the possibility of finding out in a year from now that the tragedy was inflicted by a native U.S. militia).
Then I point out that the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned, and you say that it doesn't matter anyway, as you presumable know (or just don't care) that their governments did not take the threat seriously and refused to evacuate the area, so suddenly it doesn't count if the people don't heed the warning.
As I stated somewhere else in this thread, a warning does not matter if it does not make a difference. Clearly, you will not claim that the majority of the casualties in those two bombings were military personnel.
I could point out other bombings (such as the chemical factory bombing in 1998) where civilians were attacked without prior warning. But that doesn't matter. I am not trying to balance accounts here. I am trying to make you *think*.
Why don't you point out the Allied firebombing in Germany and Austria and the resulting civilian deaths? Or better, why don't you just fucking forget WWII? It's over and the people involved are almost all dead
I did not name the article under which this thread is living "Perl Harbor". I did not start talking about WWII. But I found that since we were talking past events anyway, the two japanese bombings would be a convenient analogy to make people *think*.
I am not saying that the actions here were justified in any way, and I can't believe you seem to think that was what I wanted to say.
You have the right to hate my country and my people, which is the only emotion I can think of for speaking out against my country in an incredible moment of tragedy (and then following up with inconsistent logic in your ridiculous reply).
Why is it that you think I hate you? This is exactly what worries me.
This was also the sentiment in the second one of Bush's addresses to the public. After world leaders had expressed their deepest sympathy for the U.S. and condemned the terrorist action, Bush replied with something that resembled a warning to countries of the world. That the U.S. would retaliate swiftly, and that the U.S. would find out who did this. That no non-U.S. country should feel safe.
This is exactly the same sentiment I feel in a lot of the posts here at
You are not alone - terrorism can hit any democracy in the world, and we all feel deeply with you.
And that is why I do not want you to retaliate with another terrorist action against some foreign nation, because of blood thirst and desire for vengence rather than because of solid proof.
And I have the right to think you are a prick.
Absolutely.
And I retain the right to be very very worried and hope that there are not too many of your kind in positions of authority in the U.S.
The civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were warned the day before the bombings to evacuate the area.
So there were no casualties other than military personnel I presume? Come on... If a waning doesn't make a difference, it doesn't matter.
I heard that some guy publishing a small magazine in NY was warned about this three weeks ago. Still, it made no difference.
Given that I'm sure you can point out plenty of other things that my country has done that you don't like.
Now you totally miss the point.
However the fact that you can attack my country in this day of tragedy is incredible.
I am not attacking you. I am trying to tell you that you should carefully consider your response to this.
The fact that you take this as an attack, is *exactly* what worries me.
"Oestergaard": very personally from an American to you: go fuck yourself.
That one you'll get for free.
In 1998 you bombed a chemical factory on the grounds that "it produced chemical weapons" and it was "owned by Osama Bin Laden".
Both "facts" turned out to be untrue, later.
Sure it can't have been more than a few hundred workers. Accidents happen. But as far as I know, the U.S. is not at war with Afghanistan.
I'm not trying to balance accounts here - I'm just trying to make people reflect on what has happened, and why pointing your guns in random directions looking for a scapegoat will only backfire, again.
When you bite, make damn sure you bite the right dog.
Hey, Mr. Polite AC, did you read my post ??
I do by no means support attacks on civilians, no matter what weapon is used (and a passenger aircraft turned out to be an efficient weapon today). Let me repeat so that you maybe understand: I do not support murdering civilians !
What I'm worried about, is that some prejudicious freak is going to bomb half the world because not doing so would be the end of his political career - because his people expects retaliation.
Retaliation without any form of justification.
That is my worry.
Let me phrase it differently then, without going into the politics:
I suggest you put up a memorial, reading:
"Let all souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil."
The text is taken from the diary of Michihiko Hachiya, written on the 8th of August 1945, when you "saved my country" in Hiroshima.
It this your new Perl Harbour, or is it Nagasaki and Hiroshima coming back to haunt you ?
While the events today are of course a perverse display of violence aimed at civilians, no one should be ignorant of the fact that the U.S. themselves are not exactly virgin in the field of hitting very large amounts of civilians with no prior warning what so ever.
Another thing: There is a lot of sentiment that this is Islamic terrorists, or the like. Remember Timothy Mc. Vein ? The press was blowing that one up as a mid-east terrorist attack, until *investigation* reveiled it was in fact a genuine misguided U.S. citizen.
Think people. Don't get carried away in anger with a blind wish for vengence.
So while the U.S. is taking steps to ensure that the last few remnants of personal freedom in that country is being taken away, I can happily sit back satisfied with knowing that the beer is also better in europe anyway ;)
Would anyone know the status of getting the DMCA to europe ? There was some talk about it, but I haven't heard anything lately. That can mean two things... Which is it ?
Notice how ordinary communication paths are re-named to "infection vectors" to make them sound technical and dangerous - way to go Hemos ;)
/. warned me - otherwise I might just have saved the program, marked it as executable, su'ed to root, and run it on my main web/ftp servers or the firewalls. Year, right...
Anyway, it will be fun to see if the crap media picks this one up "uh no! a worm on Linux, we always knew it would happen! we haven't seen it yet, but someone mentioned it may get worse than CodeRed!"
But I'm really happy
Ok, first of all, Linus cannot sell the rights to the kernel, because I like many others *own* part of it.
Now why is that and how can that be? Well, it's because the Linux kernel is licensed under the *G*N*U* Public License.
This, is why it is not completely unreasonable to think of Linux as somthing being a part of the GNU system, although, yes, I know, FSF does not have the copyright.
And this, is why it is a lot more reasonable to think of Linux as GNU, than GNU as Linux.
Free thought and speech doesn't imply that unfairness is allright.
;)
The GPL allows copying, but it uses the copyright system to ensure that users as well as authors be guaranteed some rights. It is not about ripping each other off, it's about sharing politely and fairly.
Now, the "politely" and "fairly" parts are exactly where the GNU/ prefix gets justfified.
Imagine that you, 20 years ago, came up with the GPL. Imagine that you wrote GCC, Emacs, and a bunch of other utilities, put them under GPL, and started this whole movement to actually produce a Free Software operating system.
Now imagine, that the press screwed up and suddenly named your entire system after a single (but important) component that you didn't have anything to do with - other than the fact that it was licensed under the license that you came up with.
Imagine everyone naming your system after this single component.
Now, would you be disappointed? I know I would.
But then again, I run GNU/Linux of course
Ok, ok, ok
/.?) that it could indeed be a problem to the credibility of the web if say 99% of the information being returned by search engines is returned from engines controlled by one government.
So maybe I don't have hard evidence that google is indeed biased already.
But my initial point stands - are the search engines independent? It's pretty much indisputable (hmm.. indisputable on
Centralized control over information (or, pointers to information in this case) is a potential problem.
Am I wrong ?
So, how do we deal with this ? As a regular joe-user there's pretty darn little one can do to prevent this centralization from happening - or ?
Considering that (a) Marlboro is not a tobacco company but a brand of cigarettes, (b) they do not appear to have an official website, NO I am not surprised by the Google results.
;-)
IRIX is a product of SGI. Entering IRIX gives me SGI. Entering Marlboro does not give me Phillip Morris.
Now try searching for "Philip Morris," the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, and you will find they are the very first link -- just as expected.
If they didn't do this - the plot would be too obvious.
Conspiracy theories... how quaint.
Thank you 8)
Would any of the new search engines be controlled by a different government ?
Since the search-engines are becoming our pointers to information, they do have a lot of control over what information we see. I doesn't matter that some web-server in malaysia has a web page describing the complete meaning of life, the universe and everything, if it's not in the search engines.
If all search engines are controlled by the same government (and yes oh yes, they are controlled) the web suddenly becomes biased.
Try searching for "marlboro" on google. What would you expect ? The marlboro home-page ? Oh, no; we have the Marlboro College, poems, but no tobacco company home page. Coincidence? Well, a search for IRIX gives me the SGI home page, so I think the search engine works as designed - what do you think?
LINPACK is computationally O(n^3) and O(n^2) wrt. communications, for problem size n.
That's not a completely unfair benchmark - but of course you're right it's a benchmark and therefore it does not cover every possible problem out there. However, it is based on the common linear-algebra routines that are the core of a very large part of the scientific computing problems being run out there.
Of the top 500 supercomputers in the world, 47 are vector processor machines - the kind of processors that Cray became famous for.
Not one single of these are made in the U.S.
Cray today is a name. It's a brand. It's not a manufacturer of high performance computers.
Just for the record, IBM produced the two fastest computers currently, Intel the third, IBM the fourth, Hitachi the fifth, SGI, IBM, NEC, IBM, IBM, and Finally, number *11* is a Cray based on the Alpha processor (the T3E).
So, tell me again, who was playing catch-up with who ?
As Linus wrote in his e-mail to LKML:
Ok, this one has various VM niceness tweaks that have made some people
much happier. It also does a upgrade to the XFree86-4.1.x style DRM code,
which means that people with XFree86-4.0.x can no longer use the built-in
kernel DRM by default.
However, never fear. It's actually very easy to get the old DRM code too:
if you used to use the standard kernel DRM and do not want to upgrade to a
new XFree86 setup, just get the "drm-4.0.x" package from the same place
you get the kernel from, and do
- unpack the kernel
- cd linux/drivers/char
- unpack the "drm-4.0.x" package here
- mv drm new-drm
- mv drm-4.0.x drm
and you should be all set.
How about executing the following first:
:)
echo "do while 1 = 1 loop" > do.vbs
and then executing do.vbs a very large number of times ?
Actually - I just executed it *ONCE* as normal user, and because VBScript runs in the scripting host I was unable to terminate the job myself.
Now, attempting to log in as administrator just hangs in the login dialog... Other sessions to the terminal server are still running normally.
Very interesting
Unfortunately VBScript does not allow for the creation of a fork bomb as I hoped - suggestions anyone ? The noble goal being to stop remote machines from attacking my poor Apache box by using their pre-installed root.exe "administration interface".
It is of course important that the administrative workaround for the broken boxes is not destructive. A reboot and hotfix must bring the box back to life - it's evil (although tempting at times) to break stuff beyond repair.
Slashdot is currently fucking up my submissions, claiming junk character posts, duplicate posts 22000 hours ago and what not. Sorry if this appears twice somewhere...
:) Things would have been so much easier if this was indeede remote root.
On to what I wanted to say:
While the executable is called root.exe, it's far from a remote root.
"Unfortunately" (well, if you want to do anything with root.exe at least), recent IIS versions are running as some IIS user with very few privileges. It did use to run as "system" (meaning - more power than the administrator), but it doesn't anymore.
My attempts at shutting down machines attacking my Apache box by running various "net stop" commands etc. were futile. The IIS user simply doesn't have the privileges to shut down the system.
I suspect one could create the equivalent of a fork bomb in a very minimal executable - then write the executable to the remote machine in a number of HTTP requests, and finally get the attacker to stop simply by executing the fork bomb.
But I haven't gotten around to trying this just yet
Lucifux anyone ? ;)
Read the original e-mail piece. It's long, but it's well worth the read.
There a numerous issues in this article that are significantly "re-formulated" our left out - and that actually matters a lot in this case.
This article gives the impression (in my oppinion) that it is disputable wether the flaws were serious at all, and it seeks to give the impression that microsoft offered help which the russians refused.
If you read the longer original transcript, you will see that there were several other significant flaws found in 7.0 which made it unusable, and that the fix microsoft offered was "upgrade to 7.0".
The original transcripts ends with the russians expressing their deepest concern and surprise over microsoft actually suggesting them to fiddle with numeric formats etc. in order to work around real bugs that show up in SQL server.
There's no clear definition - anyone is of course free to come up with their own clear definition, a privilege many exploit and enjoy.
Simple searching - for example, finding an element in a balanced tree, is artificial intelligence. Unless, of course, you're talking about another kind of artificial intelligence, which you may well be depending on who you're talking to.
Often people who don't have a clue too often makes the context of such a discussion imply that A.I. is not "artificial" intelligence, but "human" intelligence - meaning, self awareness, initiative, improvisation, etc.
Get over it. A.I. is a term that can be used to designate a very wide range of problem solving algorithms and systems. Anything from simple graph search to neural networks and what not are covered.
Just know, that depending on who you're talking to, A.I. may well be confused with H.I.
Luckily, /. is monitored, this historical event will be kept in the monitoring systems for ever and ever ;)
Go to the monitoring system page.
Click the www.slashdot.org link
Select services
This will give you some graphs showing the outtage.
You could easily monitor what she's looking at. Going thru the logs, or by some other mechanism. There are plenty of solutions.
But would you really want to ? You realize that the this is indifferent to monitoring (and recording) her phone calls, or placing a microphone on her and following her daily conversations with friends.
You would effectively be spying on your kid.
As a responsible parent (easy for me to say as I don't - to the best of my knowledge - have kids), of course you're interested in what goes on in her life. But don't cross the line.
Having the computer in a "family room" is probably a good idea if you're seriously worried that she will use it for something that would pose a problem if she could use it in full privacy.
Handle this, as you handle the other worries. What if she makes some poor friends that tries to get her into something you wouldn't approve of ? Do you seriously bug her and listen to her conversations ? No, I didn't think so either.
Try something: have conversations. Eat together, the family dinner is a great time for talking about what goes on in the lives of the family members. Move the TV out of the kitchen and spend a little time together.
Do you keep her from watching TV ? Or going to a theater ? There are few things you will find on the net that you won't see every day in TV. goatse.cx is no exception.
That's what we do where I work. We don't have non-technical people, but having those is not an excuse.
LaTeX is easy - there's windows environments for it. Even without it, a trained chimpanse should be able to write \chapter{Title} to start new chapters. For non-mathematical writing, that's about all there is to LaTeX. Maybe \textbf{bold} too, but then it's about covered. Argumenting it is too hard is going to take better arguments than "remembering a small handfull of words (so-called codes, even though they're often real words) is too hard".
And CVS ? Well, Cygwin (from sources.redhat.com) has CVS and it works beautifully. Don't tell me that writing "cvs update" is harder than locaing the correct share on a server. Just configure CVS for the non-technical people so they don't have to worry about CVSROOT.
Resolving CVS conflicts ? Anyone who's had their word document changes reversed because someone else corrected a spelling error in their document while they were working on it is going to be really encouraged to learn about conflicts. Usually though, conflicts are easy to resolve in non-code (documents).
If you have to argue against this, please make up a sane argument - saying "but people only know word" is not an argument. With this solution they don't even *have* to know word.