They are definitely out of the running in 2040, because by then they (and other planes, cars and industry) will have used up the last bit of fossil fuels on this earth. So it couldn't even fly longer even it they wanted to.
They list a lot of stuff, but they forgot to mention Windows XP, which incorporates all kind of new inventions by Microsoft in 2001:
remote desktop: work remotely with graphical apps
multimedia: play dvd's, burn cdr's
nice GUI: lots of aqua-colored blue-ish gui stuff
and many many more innovative stuff which make you forget how computers worked...
etc, etc, etc...
You will still be able to overflow the authentication server and the the authentication token for root. Please explain why you would only get root "at the user level one", whatever you mean by that.
Bruce left me know that he's written a piece on ZDNet (original home of the for the Window of Exposure idea is on Counterpane?) about the problems of not following full disclosure. Very well written [and does a great job of summarizing why full disclosure works. The original piece from Culp @ Microsoft is also availible, along with the PowerPoint that they did.
That's at least two spelling errors I could catch, and the style as a whole sucks.
I recommend spending at least 10 seconds on writing a Slashdot post.
You would get a root token on the SYSTEM'S authentication server, therefore granting you root access to the complete system.
The authentication scheme can prohibit you from becoming root by overflowing the authentication server and 'becoming it' because it doesn't run as root. It doesn't prevent you, however, from overflowing it and getting the root token after which you can abuse that one accordingly. Therefore this scheme only partly solves UNIX' inherent security problems.
I don't think you understand my point. Which is that the authentication system still is vulnerable to attacks where tokens are illegally obtained. Therefore a buffer overflow will not make you root because the server is running as root, but it might give your root (or any other users) password, which has the same effect.
The whole micro-kernel idea exists in MINIX, with user-space FS, MM etc..
The authentication part looked nice, but I thought I saw a contradiction when he first spoke of the safety of the system because the authentication daemons ups priviliges and second talks about a user-owned authentication daemon which is secure because cracked passwd's cannot be used on daemon's outside this users' space. This would imply that the public authentication server is hackable also in a way that authentication tokens can be had illegally.
Nevertheless I like the removal of root access necessity for a lot of stuff.
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
I'm thinking of buying an Athlon XP (when the Asus A7V266-E with the new fast VIA chipset becomes available). I'm not that afraid of loosing the CPU or even the board. The chance that my heatsink falls of it not very high. On the other hand, I am afraid of fire hazards in my house. And I'm not sure whether the chance of an Athlon setting fire to my house is zero. If it's not, it's not really an option for me to buy one and I'll probably go the P4 route.
I wish I had some certainty about the actual danger of these chips. Again: I don't mind the very small risk of loosing a CPU/board . I do mind any risk of a fire.
I've noticed that the "The Base" group of bin Laden communicates through Slashdot by hiding encrypted messages in ASCII pictures of men bending over and stretching a certain body part.
It's the best Windows up to now, strenthening on point where Windows was not that good (remote access improved with Terminal Services, stability in 9x/ME series improved with NT-based kernel, etc) and where it was pretty good (a bit less memory use and a bit faster than W2K when using the Classic interface, ClearType fonts rock on my Sony picturebook).
Some minor stuff I don't like that much: Internet time synchronizing can only be switched on or off, and a server can be defined. You can not, however, define the interval with which it updates. This is hardcoded at once every week, braindead of course..
Still wouldn't use it for 'standard' services like HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc etc etc, my FreeBSD station handles that much too well. That said, for a desktop operating system, presenting Internet Explorer, Office, Visio, WinAMP, Explorer and X-Win32 for remote UNIX access, it's a very good solution for my purposes.
I'm making very good money doing quick hacks to push out websites, but it's not very project oriented as much as it's become 'throw in pre-written, pre-used functions'.
Dude, trowing out pre-written, pre-used functions is what good software engineering is about. That's the whole point of good design, preventing you from having to re-invent the wheel every time.
If you're getting bored, try to get higher up the design hierarchy instead of sticking in your lowly code production job.
It's a hack when you have to write from scratch essentially the same thing again and again. NOT when your are re-using stuff. Get with the program.
The paperless office is a vision that belongs in the same category as the flying car. Sure, one day it will happen, but it'll take just a little longer than anyone predicted. I suspect we'll be using paper for at least another 50 to 100 years, when electronic paper might be cheaper than the wooden version.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I thought not..
On a weblog that frequented by mainly computer scientists, it is..
Too bad is was modded down.. :-(
a Beowulf cluster of these? :)
They are definitely out of the running in 2040, because by then they (and other planes, cars and industry) will have used up the last bit of fossil fuels on this earth. So it couldn't even fly longer even it they wanted to.
http://www.stevebarr.com/
You're right, there is no.
:)
Now we agree on that, would you send the P4-2000 system to me? Not that it has a use, but I'll take care of it for you..
Actually I had a TRS-80 model I. It surely beat the crap out of any Amiga (which were made years later).
Jeez, you must be one humourless person...
remote desktop: work remotely with graphical apps
multimedia: play dvd's, burn cdr's
nice GUI: lots of aqua-colored blue-ish gui stuff
and many many more innovative stuff which make you forget how computers worked... etc, etc, etc...
I'm not familiar with "Troolean" logic, but the first that comes up in my mind is this:
01120
| 10201
-------
11221
Should read: "and get the authentication token for root".
No.
You will still be able to overflow the authentication server and the the authentication token for root. Please explain why you would only get root "at the user level one", whatever you mean by that.
That's at least two spelling errors I could catch, and the style as a whole sucks.
I recommend spending at least 10 seconds on writing a Slashdot post.
I'm still not getting through.
You would get a root token on the SYSTEM'S authentication server, therefore granting you root access to the complete system.
The authentication scheme can prohibit you from becoming root by overflowing the authentication server and 'becoming it' because it doesn't run as root. It doesn't prevent you, however, from overflowing it and getting the root token after which you can abuse that one accordingly. Therefore this scheme only partly solves UNIX' inherent security problems.
I don't think you understand my point. Which is that the authentication system still is vulnerable to attacks where tokens are illegally obtained. Therefore a buffer overflow will not make you root because the server is running as root, but it might give your root (or any other users) password, which has the same effect.
The whole micro-kernel idea exists in MINIX, with user-space FS, MM etc..
The authentication part looked nice, but I thought I saw a contradiction when he first spoke of the safety of the system because the authentication daemons ups priviliges and second talks about a user-owned authentication daemon which is secure because cracked passwd's cannot be used on daemon's outside this users' space. This would imply that the public authentication server is hackable also in a way that authentication tokens can be had illegally.
Nevertheless I like the removal of root access necessity for a lot of stuff.
Try it without SSH, it slows down significantly. 800 Kbps is very dissappointing..
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
I'm thinking of buying an Athlon XP (when the Asus A7V266-E with the new fast VIA chipset becomes available). I'm not that afraid of loosing the CPU or even the board. The chance that my heatsink falls of it not very high. On the other hand, I am afraid of fire hazards in my house. And I'm not sure whether the chance of an Athlon setting fire to my house is zero. If it's not, it's not really an option for me to buy one and I'll probably go the P4 route.
I wish I had some certainty about the actual danger of these chips. Again: I don't mind the very small risk of loosing a CPU/board . I do mind any risk of a fire.
Too bad Linux actually uses MORE memory than XP with X and Netscape/Mozilla loaded. Or were you gonna run that VMware in text mode?
I've noticed that the "The Base" group of bin Laden communicates through Slashdot by hiding encrypted messages in ASCII pictures of men bending over and stretching a certain body part.
But then, who will believe me..
XP rocks!
It's the best Windows up to now, strenthening on point where Windows was not that good (remote access improved with Terminal Services, stability in 9x/ME series improved with NT-based kernel, etc) and where it was pretty good (a bit less memory use and a bit faster than W2K when using the Classic interface, ClearType fonts rock on my Sony picturebook).
Some minor stuff I don't like that much: Internet time synchronizing can only be switched on or off, and a server can be defined. You can not, however, define the interval with which it updates. This is hardcoded at once every week, braindead of course..
Still wouldn't use it for 'standard' services like HTTP, SMTP, POP3, etc etc etc, my FreeBSD station handles that much too well. That said, for a desktop operating system, presenting Internet Explorer, Office, Visio, WinAMP, Explorer and X-Win32 for remote UNIX access, it's a very good solution for my purposes.
Dude, trowing out pre-written, pre-used functions is what good software engineering is about. That's the whole point of good design, preventing you from having to re-invent the wheel every time.
If you're getting bored, try to get higher up the design hierarchy instead of sticking in your lowly code production job.
It's a hack when you have to write from scratch essentially the same thing again and again. NOT when your are re-using stuff. Get with the program.
The paperless office is a vision that belongs in the same category as the flying car. Sure, one day it will happen, but it'll take just a little longer than anyone predicted. I suspect we'll be using paper for at least another 50 to 100 years, when electronic paper might be cheaper than the wooden version.