Ping??? Ummmm.... NO. It can send and recieve packets fine and dandy as an unpriveleged user. Unless you want to ping-flood, which it will only let root do.
Umm... Yes. Ping uses ICMP packets via raw sockets. Normal users can't use raw sockets, you gotta be root.
Re:Tell that to university sys admins
on
Linux Kernel Bugs
·
· Score: 1
Those with access to critical machines shouldn't be using the same password on vulnerable machines anyway.
Blah. People writing kernels shouldn't be including bugs/security problems/etc. But they do, they're called mistakes and people make them. And so do admins. So there.
There's always someone on the outside who is a better coder than the group on the inside and can break it.
Cracking copy protection has nothing to do with being a better coder. It's tremendously easier to remove minor functionality (which is what copy protection is) from a program that to create that functionality in the first place.
This is an area that I have some experience in (B948:18, oh joy!)
OMFG! That has got to be the epitome of self delusion. Leaving out the total non-argument of 'I can program it myself' (here's a hint buddy: you can write your own window manager, file manager, etc. for windows... if that's what you want to do with your computer.) Let's go ahead and address some of your other points. At least the ones that aren't, again, total non-arguments.
When was the last time that I had IE crash and take down my entire machine? Um, well, let's see. How about never.
Four, Linux has more power in that all desktop functionality has its equivalent in the filesystem in a format that makes intergrates the two seamlessly, unlike windows which hides the gui aspects from the user. Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to avoid having your arguments taken apart by throwing out incoherent sentences?
Five, my desktop software doesn't store files in a binary proprietary format, which by the way is bloated to ridiculous sizes by copyright lines and privacy invading user id's.
Exactly what desktop software would that be?
Six, (this is fun), My spreadsheet can handle more than 65,000 rows.
Interesting. Do you often run over 65,000 rows? Personally I never have, but then again I prefer to have a high quality graph solution in my spreadsheet, or integration with my word processor and presentation engine. What software do you use for presentations?
Seven, the majority of Linux distributions come pre configured for invaluable tools like ssh, traceroute, and tcpdump.
ssh is useful. But traceroute and tcpdump are not. At least not to the vast majority (and by vast I mean something on the order of 99.99999% of computer users.) You know what my windows install came with:
Accessability features for people who have physical handicaps.
High quality multimedia players (you know, ones with basic features like synchronized audio and video)
A fully featured web browser.
Well hinted fonts (with ubiquitous anti-aliasing.)
A good, robust, easy to use file manager with a rather interesting array of options in the detail view.
OK. I'll stop waving the quality flag in your face.
Nine, The whole concept of a GUI is fluff to your day to day desktop use, you can get everything done with just a command prompt... faster.
Perhaps a GUI is irrelevant for your day to day use... but you're in a minority there.
Ten, I can create a professionally typset document in less time than you, without removing my hands from the keyboard. Cavemen pointed at things and grunted, it's no suprise that that's the only way that Windows users can interact with their machines.
Can you? That'd be interesting. Add a graph to that "professionally typset document". Now include some color photos. Bring me the output color corrected. All without removing your hands from the keyboard. Oh wait! You must have one of those toe-mice doodads... That's how you do things without removing your hands from your keyboard. Or you just don't do anything overly complex.
Eleven, I have complete control over my OS. In the extremely unlikely event that my software decides to send personal information back to the makers I can turn it off and continue to use the product. You have absolutely no control.
Do you? Really? I run linux, solaris, freebsd, win2k, and I have total control over none of them. You must be some kind of programming god. Do you select which processes to kill when you run out of swap space? Step in and perform deadlock avoidance? Handle processor affinity? Deal with your memory management issues? I don't. Fuck I don't even want to. Could I if I had to? Sure, but... why? I've got better things to do with my time.
I could go on forever, but like I said, space limitations. It's ridiculous for a Windows user to argue the technical superiority of windows over Linux. As of right now my work desktop Linux box has been up for over 203 days. Which coincidentally is the last time I upgraded the kernel. How long has your Windows machine been up?
Oddly enough my work Windows box has been up longer than my work Linux box. But also oddly enough, I figure that it makes more sense for me to save my employer some money and I turn my boxes off if I expect to be away for an extended period of time. But neither box has a tendancy to fall over randomly.
Exactly what is the point of having a workstation stay up for 203 days? Honestly I don't see the point of it. My Win2K box has crashed two times in the last year. My linux box has crashed four times and it's obvious that most of the software and drivers is beta or pre-beta.
I didn't even have to go into the whole spectrum of tools that are available for *nix that are unheard of on Windows.
OMFG! You have got to be kidding.
Oh wait. Why did I just write all that. Didn't I ask you about:
"Would you care to elucidate on the power, flexibility, and customizability of your GNOME desktop wrt how it stacks up against Windows in those areas."
Pull your head out and show the group how your desktop is more powerful, flexable and customizable than Windows. Without resorting to the "I can reprogram it" non-argument. Fuck, that's like saying "my honda civic is more powerful, versatile and usable" than a HUMV, because I can recast, rebuild and retune the entire fucking thing.
Would you care to elucidate on the power, flexibility, and customizability of your GNOME desktop wrt how it stacks up against Windows in those areas. Also please expand on how linux doesn't constantly crash. You see I find that Windows as a whole is more stable than the components of linux. Just because the webserver in my workstation doesn't go down, it doesn't mean that my work isn't interrupted when my X server/web browser/email client/cd burning software/etc. crashes. So how is it better for me that some parts of the OS are still functional? Particularily parts that are almost entirely fluff for my day to day desktop use? It would probably be wise for the Unix community to stop generalizing its arguments into pointlessness. Instead we should focus on actual strengths that can be shown as real benefits.
The moderation on the parent shows the breakdown in the moderation system. "Funny"? Perhaps. But not interesting at all.
I unix admin for a living, I hold no special love for Windows. But for fucks sake... does demonstrating that an OS allows a developer to be a fucking cretin highlight a failure in the OS or a failure in the developer?
Actually the problem is that I didn't purchase my "device to play the music" that I do purchase. I just finished converting 199 CDs to mp3 for playback on a home built mp3 rack system. Of the 15 gigs (perhaps 2500 tracks) of MP3s that I have, there are a few dozen tracks that I have stolen. If the industry will cave in on their unreasonable ideas, I'll go out and buy a CD for each track that I have illegally.
Yes I do know that most people who have MP3s have collected them via the net. But that doesn't change the situation I'm in.
No, it's mozilla that's broken under windows. NT has had antialiased fonts for a couple of years (the first rev of NT I used was 4 sp 3 which had it.) Mozilla just uses GTK everywhere, so if they don't use the proper local APIs then they won't get the full breadth of services.
There are no commercially proven clustering technologies to provide High Availability for Linux. The Linux community may point to numerous projects and small companies that are aiming to deliver High Availability functionality. D. H. Brown recently noted that these offerings remain immature and largely unproven in the demanding business world.
>> Not to sound like a troll, but BEOWULF:p... that's clustering. Or a load balancer...
Note they said "clustering... High Availability". Ignoring the fact that Beowulf is only applicable to specific categories of problems, it's also worth noting that Beowulf has zero to do with HA.
Isn't every IP packet intention-directed? AFAIK, you can't have an IP destination of *.*.*.*.
Well... we can't have *.*.*.* but we sure used to be able to 192.268.255.255 with a spoofed source address which caused some really groovy blue stuff.
But I agree, it's marketting speak for traditional methods of network diagnosis. Except for the potentially interesting bits of hand crafting packets so that they are as small as possible and thus able to generate twice the system load for a given bandwidth.
Course they could always sue him on the grounds that they paid him (bought the company) and he's intentionally damaging profits and attempting to damage their stock price. The SEC might be interested in locking his ass up for a bit as well.
An election and a poll are different beasts and serve different purposes. It does show something that a significant majority of the American public doesn't vote in presidential elections.
Assuming that the media has unbiased pollsters (right!) then we could certainly see how a statistically correct poll for the presidency would turn out.
Precisely. Online polls aren't statistically legit because the sample is self selecting. In order to extrapolate to the world at large such a poll needs a randomly selected set of pollees, not those who have something to say.
I got that from the Anand article too. But I hadn't heard any kind of announcement from id, and they are typically pretty open about things like this. So I mailed them and asked.
By the way, you keep comparing 3DNow to MMX. Are you including SSE in MMX?
Actually no I'm not. I'm comparing my Celeron with what is available from AMD. I've got MMX, which is useful in a very limited number of applications that I typically use. 3DNow! would be a lot more useful to me, but alas when I bought my machine you got a lot more bang for your buck if you OC-ed a 300A to 450...
Had another thought. Both UT and Quake are going to be hit by texture transfers. But UT will leverage the paletted textures of the Voodoo card which Quake doesn't. So if anything the benchmarking system is biased towards UT and requiring less memory bandwidth. Whereas Q3 will need a larger amount of memory bandwidth to move 32bit textures out to the card. What Anand has shown is that the DDR system isn't as good a performer as the RDRAM system. Bah.
I wouldn't disagree that a solid general purpose FPU is a better component than a specialized parallel unit.
I checked with the man (JC) about SIMD optimizations in Q3. To paraphrase him, there isn't any in the id codebase (having to write it in asm, lacking portability, uglifying the code, and not enough speedup were his reasons.) But it's likely to be in the various OpenGL drivers.
I agree that Q3 is not the be-all end-all of benchmarks. It showcases a on set of CPU strengths/weaknesses. UT is similiar in that it will exercise different aspects of the CPU and it doesn't make any sense for a benchmark-er to say one is better (or in this case more "normal") than the other. They're just different and either one is a good indicator of general system performance. And to say that one CPU/mobo combination is better based on selecting benchmarks to show that is ridiculous. It's no different than Apple claiming that the 266 Mhz G3 in their iMacs is twice as fast a processor as the 500 Mhz P3 because of a very damaged benchmark suite (ByteMARKS.)
Unlil we start seeing differences > 10% as a general rule in a wide range of benchmarks it would be pretty much irrelevant to a typical user to go with any 1Ghz machine (if they want that kind of speed.)
What would be interesting to see is a null-OpenGL driver for Q3. Thus we could leave the graphics card/driver/agp/pci issues out of things and just see how fast this particular task can be solved by a particular CPU. And to tell you the truth if we're looking at tasks that can be optimized by use of specialized instructions then they should be used. Otherwise we aren't testing the boundaries of the chips involved. IMO.
Like I said before, I'd rather have 3DNow! than MMX anyday. But even before either of those I'd take another 500 Mhz of CPU clock and 256 MB RAM.
After reading the review and seeing these two paragraphs:
Quake III Arena paints us an interesting picture. While the AMD 760 with its PC1600 DDR SDRAM is able to offer a 14% improvement over the KT133/PC133 platform, it is still defeated by the i815/PC133 platform by a couple of fps. In order to understand this you have to understand the nature of Quake III Arena as a benchmark. A final board/chipset would most likely be able to pull ahead of the i815/PC133 platform however, because of the SSE optimizations in Quake III Arena it's very likely that a Pentium III on a solid platform could give even an Athlon with DDR SDRAM a run for its money.
UnrealTournament provides us with a more 'normal' comparison, as the AMD 760 platform pulls ahead yet again. This time 13% faster than the KT133 based Athlon platform, the AMD 760/DDR setup is only about 3% faster than the i815/PC133 platform however we can expect a final release to be much more competitive.
So a comparision where AMD wins is more 'normal'? And how about those excuses for why the P3 is beating the Athlon? These sorts of tests should really be done without any bias. I mean I'm all for whacking the yutzes on the head for screwing around with RDRAM, but let's get real here... if a platform is faster for a particular benchmark it's faster and there really isn't any point in rationalizing away the fact. Who cares if it uses optimized instructions for a particular intel chip. For hell sakes, I'd rather have 3dnow on my celeron instead of MMX, but that doesn't mean that I will ignore the fact that software which leverages 3dnow is faster than the car wreck that is MMX.
I dunno if I agree with the idea that it's not that hard. You should try the grenade rocket jump they use in there. Or the exploding barrel jumps. Maybe the grenade jump with an 180 degree change in direction air control trick that is put to work. It's hard shit. But they did do it the easy way: let each of the runners start each level with an expected health/armor/ammo and run that level over and over. If they had to do it straight through it would be harder. But it ain't easy that's for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... Yes. Ping uses ICMP packets via raw sockets. Normal users can't use raw sockets, you gotta be root.
Blah. People writing kernels shouldn't be including bugs/security problems/etc. But they do, they're called mistakes and people make them. And so do admins. So there.
I got 2464 tracks on 201 CDs. All legally mine and encoded by me.
Earth to major tom!
Cracking copy protection has nothing to do with being a better coder. It's tremendously easier to remove minor functionality (which is what copy protection is) from a program that to create that functionality in the first place.
This is an area that I have some experience in (B948:18, oh joy!)
It means that he couldn't think of a good example to support his argument.
Err, no. They embed stuff into the file not the file system.
LOL!
When was the last time that I had IE crash and take down my entire machine? Um, well, let's see. How about never.
Four, Linux has more power in that all desktop functionality has its equivalent in the filesystem in a format that makes intergrates the two seamlessly, unlike windows which hides the gui aspects from the user.
Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to avoid having your arguments taken apart by throwing out incoherent sentences?
Five, my desktop software doesn't store files in a binary proprietary format, which by the way is bloated to ridiculous sizes by copyright lines and privacy invading user id's.
Exactly what desktop software would that be?
Six, (this is fun), My spreadsheet can handle more than 65,000 rows.
Interesting. Do you often run over 65,000 rows? Personally I never have, but then again I prefer to have a high quality graph solution in my spreadsheet, or integration with my word processor and presentation engine. What software do you use for presentations?
Seven, the majority of Linux distributions come pre configured for invaluable tools like ssh, traceroute, and tcpdump.
ssh is useful. But traceroute and tcpdump are not. At least not to the vast majority (and by vast I mean something on the order of 99.99999% of computer users.) You know what my windows install came with:
OK. I'll stop waving the quality flag in your face.
Nine, The whole concept of a GUI is fluff to your day to day desktop use, you can get everything done with just a command prompt... faster.
Perhaps a GUI is irrelevant for your day to day use... but you're in a minority there.
Ten, I can create a professionally typset document in less time than you, without removing my hands from the keyboard. Cavemen pointed at things and grunted, it's no suprise that that's the only way that Windows users can interact with their machines.
Can you? That'd be interesting. Add a graph to that "professionally typset document". Now include some color photos. Bring me the output color corrected. All without removing your hands from the keyboard. Oh wait! You must have one of those toe-mice doodads... That's how you do things without removing your hands from your keyboard. Or you just don't do anything overly complex.
Eleven, I have complete control over my OS. In the extremely unlikely event that my software decides to send personal information back to the makers I can turn it off and continue to use the product. You have absolutely no control.
Do you? Really? I run linux, solaris, freebsd, win2k, and I have total control over none of them. You must be some kind of programming god. Do you select which processes to kill when you run out of swap space? Step in and perform deadlock avoidance? Handle processor affinity? Deal with your memory management issues? I don't. Fuck I don't even want to. Could I if I had to? Sure, but
I could go on forever, but like I said, space limitations. It's ridiculous for a Windows user to argue the technical superiority of windows over Linux. As of right now my work desktop Linux box has been up for over 203 days. Which coincidentally is the last time I upgraded the kernel. How long has your Windows machine been up?
Oddly enough my work Windows box has been up longer than my work Linux box. But also oddly enough, I figure that it makes more sense for me to save my employer some money and I turn my boxes off if I expect to be away for an extended period of time. But neither box has a tendancy to fall over randomly.
Exactly what is the point of having a workstation stay up for 203 days? Honestly I don't see the point of it. My Win2K box has crashed two times in the last year. My linux box has crashed four times and it's obvious that most of the software and drivers is beta or pre-beta.
I didn't even have to go into the whole spectrum of tools that are available for *nix that are unheard of on Windows.
OMFG! You have got to be kidding.
Oh wait. Why did I just write all that. Didn't I ask you about:
" Would you care to elucidate on the power, flexibility, and customizability of your GNOME desktop wrt how it stacks up against Windows in those areas. "
Pull your head out and show the group how your desktop is more powerful, flexable and customizable than Windows. Without resorting to the "I can reprogram it" non-argument. Fuck, that's like saying "my honda civic is more powerful, versatile and usable" than a HUMV, because I can recast, rebuild and retune the entire fucking thing.
Would you care to elucidate on the power, flexibility, and customizability of your GNOME desktop wrt how it stacks up against Windows in those areas. Also please expand on how linux doesn't constantly crash. You see I find that Windows as a whole is more stable than the components of linux. Just because the webserver in my workstation doesn't go down, it doesn't mean that my work isn't interrupted when my X server/web browser/email client/cd burning software/etc. crashes. So how is it better for me that some parts of the OS are still functional? Particularily parts that are almost entirely fluff for my day to day desktop use? It would probably be wise for the Unix community to stop generalizing its arguments into pointlessness. Instead we should focus on actual strengths that can be shown as real benefits.
The moderation on the parent shows the breakdown in the moderation system. "Funny"? Perhaps. But not interesting at all.
I unix admin for a living, I hold no special love for Windows. But for fucks sake... does demonstrating that an OS allows a developer to be a fucking cretin highlight a failure in the OS or a failure in the developer?
Actually the problem is that I didn't purchase my "device to play the music" that I do purchase. I just finished converting 199 CDs to mp3 for playback on a home built mp3 rack system. Of the 15 gigs (perhaps 2500 tracks) of MP3s that I have, there are a few dozen tracks that I have stolen. If the industry will cave in on their unreasonable ideas, I'll go out and buy a CD for each track that I have illegally.
Yes I do know that most people who have MP3s have collected them via the net. But that doesn't change the situation I'm in.
No, it's mozilla that's broken under windows. NT has had antialiased fonts for a couple of years (the first rev of NT I used was 4 sp 3 which had it.) Mozilla just uses GTK everywhere, so if they don't use the proper local APIs then they won't get the full breadth of services.
Note they said "clustering
Well... we can't have *.*.*.* but we sure used to be able to 192.268.255.255 with a spoofed source address which caused some really groovy blue stuff.
But I agree, it's marketting speak for traditional methods of network diagnosis. Except for the potentially interesting bits of hand crafting packets so that they are as small as possible and thus able to generate twice the system load for a given bandwidth.
It's called "ButtonFly" on Irix....
If I don't bork up the html, take a look at Jeff's page. There some screens of his latest stuff. It's not been updated too recently though...
Course they could always sue him on the grounds that they paid him (bought the company) and he's intentionally damaging profits and attempting to damage their stock price. The SEC might be interested in locking his ass up for a bit as well.
An election and a poll are different beasts and serve different purposes. It does show something that a significant majority of the American public doesn't vote in presidential elections.
Assuming that the media has unbiased pollsters (right!) then we could certainly see how a statistically correct poll for the presidency would turn out.
Precisely. Online polls aren't statistically legit because the sample is self selecting. In order to extrapolate to the world at large such a poll needs a randomly selected set of pollees, not those who have something to say.
I got that from the Anand article too. But I hadn't heard any kind of announcement from id, and they are typically pretty open about things like this. So I mailed them and asked.
Actually no I'm not. I'm comparing my Celeron with what is available from AMD. I've got MMX, which is useful in a very limited number of applications that I typically use. 3DNow! would be a lot more useful to me, but alas when I bought my machine you got a lot more bang for your buck if you OC-ed a 300A to 450...
Uh oh, I'm replying to my own posts!!!!
Had another thought. Both UT and Quake are going to be hit by texture transfers. But UT will leverage the paletted textures of the Voodoo card which Quake doesn't. So if anything the benchmarking system is biased towards UT and requiring less memory bandwidth. Whereas Q3 will need a larger amount of memory bandwidth to move 32bit textures out to the card. What Anand has shown is that the DDR system isn't as good a performer as the RDRAM system. Bah.
I wouldn't disagree that a solid general purpose FPU is a better component than a specialized parallel unit.
I checked with the man (JC) about SIMD optimizations in Q3. To paraphrase him, there isn't any in the id codebase (having to write it in asm, lacking portability, uglifying the code, and not enough speedup were his reasons.) But it's likely to be in the various OpenGL drivers.
I agree that Q3 is not the be-all end-all of benchmarks. It showcases a on set of CPU strengths/weaknesses. UT is similiar in that it will exercise different aspects of the CPU and it doesn't make any sense for a benchmark-er to say one is better (or in this case more "normal") than the other. They're just different and either one is a good indicator of general system performance. And to say that one CPU/mobo combination is better based on selecting benchmarks to show that is ridiculous. It's no different than Apple claiming that the 266 Mhz G3 in their iMacs is twice as fast a processor as the 500 Mhz P3 because of a very damaged benchmark suite (ByteMARKS.)
Unlil we start seeing differences > 10% as a general rule in a wide range of benchmarks it would be pretty much irrelevant to a typical user to go with any 1Ghz machine (if they want that kind of speed.)
What would be interesting to see is a null-OpenGL driver for Q3. Thus we could leave the graphics card/driver/agp/pci issues out of things and just see how fast this particular task can be solved by a particular CPU. And to tell you the truth if we're looking at tasks that can be optimized by use of specialized instructions then they should be used. Otherwise we aren't testing the boundaries of the chips involved. IMO.
Like I said before, I'd rather have 3DNow! than MMX anyday. But even before either of those I'd take another 500 Mhz of CPU clock and 256 MB RAM.
So a comparision where AMD wins is more 'normal'? And how about those excuses for why the P3 is beating the Athlon? These sorts of tests should really be done without any bias. I mean I'm all for whacking the yutzes on the head for screwing around with RDRAM, but let's get real here... if a platform is faster for a particular benchmark it's faster and there really isn't any point in rationalizing away the fact. Who cares if it uses optimized instructions for a particular intel chip. For hell sakes, I'd rather have 3dnow on my celeron instead of MMX, but that doesn't mean that I will ignore the fact that software which leverages 3dnow is faster than the car wreck that is MMX.
I dunno if I agree with the idea that it's not that hard. You should try the grenade rocket jump they use in there. Or the exploding barrel jumps. Maybe the grenade jump with an 180 degree change in direction air control trick that is put to work. It's hard shit. But they did do it the easy way: let each of the runners start each level with an expected health/armor/ammo and run that level over and over. If they had to do it straight through it would be harder. But it ain't easy that's for sure.