Honestly, I have no idea why the editors on Slashdot pay so much attention to Mozilla and every release that they ever make.
As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla is exactly not what you want to bring attention to
on an Open Source advocacy site, as it is one of the most unstable, bloated, slow pieces of donkey turd that have ever
bothered to show their ugly face in the community. I swear to God, I should not have to have a machine better than a K6/2 400 to render pages in a decent
amount of time. Also, there are tons of bugs in everything from not even rendering jpgs and gifs sometimes to crashing every time you move your mouse
Please don't cover Mozilla anymore, they're horrible. At least pay attention to a decent web browser, like Opera or Konquerer
Stories like this teach us that perhaps all that FUD that we hear from M$ all the time isn't all untrue. For a lot of the people out there, the only way to install Linux is to buy a full distribution set. This is further compounded by the fact that unlike M$, Linux distros force their users to update every 6 months or less.
Also, you have to consider the fact that a lot of these Linux distros that people are paying top dollar for every 5 or 6 months aren't nearly as complete (and sometimes not even as stable) as a full-fledged commercial OS like Windows 2000. Plus there's the problem with getting support, and what are people going to do when their Linux distro of choice goes out of business? Who here ran Stormix? And really, folks, when do you see M$ going out of business?
Sometimes, you just have to look at the bigger picture.
What's so funny about this? This looks like a serious leap
forward in the medical field, especially for gastroenterolgists (sp?) and the like.
How come the best thing you can think of for something like this is stupid
little web cam sites?
Goatse.cx has an excellent, nearly complete collection of HOW-TOs and even full-blown guides on just about anything related for Linux. Certainly worth more of my time than working for money to buy an overpriced O'Reilly book.
Disclaimer: I am a high school student who just finished up Algebra II
Question: Even though these rate highly on the scale of randomness, wouldn't it be a very bad idea to use these in encryption algorithms where randomness is required? It looks like all a potential attacker would have to do is run through a fairly large section of Pi (because the n-th place digit of Pi will always be the same value regardless of how many times you calculate it) and run through every possible size using any or all of the bits contiguously. This wouldn't take too long on a fairly high-powered cluster, would it?
--
At the end of the day,
I'd have to say
that Linux is fucking gay.
Seriously, though, how are they going to enforce the "kid-friendly" content of the sites that register for a domain? If it gets popular enough, they will probably have to install some kind of censorware like NetNanny or CyberSitter, and we all know how well that works out...
Too bad you're relying on one guy's coding skills to keep it all secure.
I dunno, no one has managed to claim the cash prize yet. Also, you aren't just relying on one man's coding skills, the programs are open source, and therefore many people can review the code for security.
So you'd best secure it, buddy. This one is so astoundingly dense I don't know where to begin.
Wrong again. The fact that there are millions of high bandwidth connections on much less secure systems (like all of those home broadband users who don't know that an Internet exists outside of email and the web) make it much less of a problem to me than if I was securing critical data. You are less likely to be carjacked if you park in a large parking lot.
Or, a previously unknown unchecked buffer could be found by crackers before it is found by security personnel.
That's why you use secure coding practices the first time around. Secure coding practices and application design are a major reason that applications like qmail and djbdns have not had a single security hole in them since they were released.
Would you give all potential attackers a complete list of your computers, all the software they run, and schematics for your internal network? Would you send them your ruleset on your firewall? Of course not! And keeping this information obscure is security through obscurity.
Of course I wouldn't, because my network is far from secure in terms of code quality (it runs Linux), but then again, I don't run a network containing sensitive information that could cause some serious damage, so I can get away with running Linux. Otherwise, I really wouldn't care whether someone got ahold of any of that information, as it wouldn't do them any good.
So what? That just makes the knowledge that is required at a higher level. You would have to get (or steal) the appropriate docs or write a disassembler. Not impossible, and besides, if an attacker is looking for a rootkit, he's already in and you're already screwed.
Anything that uses obscurity as part of its security scheme is trying to make up for what is essentially a design flaw. If there is nothing else that reading Slashdot has taught me, it is that companies cannot rely on keeping their encryption algorithms secret if they don't want people cracking them.
The real secure systems can let people know all that they want about them, regardless of their intentions. It really won't matter in the end, from a security standpoint, because well-designed security frameworks are undefeatable through principle, not through secrecy. To say otherwise would be just like Micro$oft denying that a security hole exists while they drag their feet in releasing a patch for said vulnerability.
making them less vulnerable to viruses and hacking...
Well, you can just forget about Linux getting included in this initiative. After all, it is the most hacked-on operating system. Just ask Alan Cox or Linus.
Wow, and I thought Apple was the one doing the huge markups on overrated hardware. Apparently, they aren't alone. The lowest end of these machines (400Mhz G3) will set you back a whopping $1649 (and they don't even have video cards). That's in the neighborhood of the price of a low-end G4 tower system.
Granted, the TerraSoft boxes are the size of a CD-ROM drive, but that is still a ridiculous price for outdated, overrated hardware.
NFS read times are around 20-25 MB/sec, just fine for us.
You've got to be kidding me. Most of the newer 10k RPM SCSI drives get better output than that from a single drive. Now, you may not have SCSI drives, but, please, there are 8 in a RAID 5 array. You oughta have that looked at.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't cover Mozilla anymore, they're horrible. At least pay attention to a decent web browser, like Opera or Konquerer
Also, you have to consider the fact that a lot of these Linux distros that people are paying top dollar for every 5 or 6 months aren't nearly as complete (and sometimes not even as stable) as a full-fledged commercial OS like Windows 2000. Plus there's the problem with getting support, and what are people going to do when their Linux distro of choice goes out of business? Who here ran Stormix? And really, folks, when do you see M$ going out of business?
Sometimes, you just have to look at the bigger picture.
--
What's so funny about this? This looks like a serious leap forward in the medical field, especially for gastroenterolgists (sp?) and the like. How come the best thing you can think of for something like this is stupid little web cam sites?
--
Oh. So, basically, it's just like Mosix? Doesn't sound too different to me.
--
Yeah... just like men!
Nope, guess not. Oh well, too late to add something relevant...
Jeez, when I saw the headline, I thought you were reviewing books on the obscure operating system.
--
Geekizoid already did this. Why do we need a windy, pointless review when someone's already gotten straight to the point?
--
Goatse.cx has an excellent, nearly complete collection of HOW-TOs and even full-blown guides on just about anything related for Linux. Certainly worth more of my time than working for money to buy an overpriced O'Reilly book.
--
Question: Even though these rate highly on the scale of randomness, wouldn't it be a very bad idea to use these in encryption algorithms where randomness is required? It looks like all a potential attacker would have to do is run through a fairly large section of Pi (because the n-th place digit of Pi will always be the same value regardless of how many times you calculate it) and run through every possible size using any or all of the bits contiguously. This wouldn't take too long on a fairly high-powered cluster, would it?
--
At the end of the day,
I'd have to say
that Linux is fucking gay.
What makes you think that Verizon isn't just coasting on their own inertia? I'm sure they'll swing around sooner or later.
--
At the end of the day,
I'd have to say
that Linux is fucking gay.
Looks like Canada did something right for a change! ;-)
--
At the end of the day,
I'd have to say
that Linux is fucking gay.
Oh, and in regards to the adress for your homepage, so did I ;)
Seriously, though, how are they going to enforce the "kid-friendly" content of the sites that register for a domain? If it gets popular enough, they will probably have to install some kind of censorware like NetNanny or CyberSitter, and we all know how well that works out...
I'm an American, you fuckwit.
I dunno, no one has managed to claim the cash prize yet. Also, you aren't just relying on one man's coding skills, the programs are open source, and therefore many people can review the code for security.
So you'd best secure it, buddy. This one is so astoundingly dense I don't know where to begin.
Wrong again. The fact that there are millions of high bandwidth connections on much less secure systems (like all of those home broadband users who don't know that an Internet exists outside of email and the web) make it much less of a problem to me than if I was securing critical data. You are less likely to be carjacked if you park in a large parking lot.
You are obviously talking out of your ass here, because otherwise you would have known that djb writes his own libraries for his programs.
well, why don't you just post your root passwords on your website then, since your network contains only "useless" data.
No, I don't need schmucks using my wireless T-1 for DDoSing EFNet. They have enough problems as it is.
Have you ever tested this theory yourself? Or are you just repeating what you've read in a book?
That's why you use secure coding practices the first time around. Secure coding practices and application design are a major reason that applications like qmail and djbdns have not had a single security hole in them since they were released.
Would you give all potential attackers a complete list of your computers, all the software they run, and schematics for your internal network? Would you send them your ruleset on your firewall? Of course not! And keeping this information obscure is security through obscurity.
Of course I wouldn't, because my network is far from secure in terms of code quality (it runs Linux), but then again, I don't run a network containing sensitive information that could cause some serious damage, so I can get away with running Linux. Otherwise, I really wouldn't care whether someone got ahold of any of that information, as it wouldn't do them any good.
So what? That just makes the knowledge that is required at a higher level. You would have to get (or steal) the appropriate docs or write a disassembler. Not impossible, and besides, if an attacker is looking for a rootkit, he's already in and you're already screwed.
The real secure systems can let people know all that they want about them, regardless of their intentions. It really won't matter in the end, from a security standpoint, because well-designed security frameworks are undefeatable through principle, not through secrecy. To say otherwise would be just like Micro$oft denying that a security hole exists while they drag their feet in releasing a patch for said vulnerability.
Or just a dyslexic editing staff?
Well, you can just forget about Linux getting included in this initiative. After all, it is the most hacked-on operating system. Just ask Alan Cox or Linus.
Granted, the TerraSoft boxes are the size of a CD-ROM drive, but that is still a ridiculous price for outdated, overrated hardware.
You've got to be kidding me. Most of the newer 10k RPM SCSI drives get better output than that from a single drive. Now, you may not have SCSI drives, but, please, there are 8 in a RAID 5 array. You oughta have that looked at.