Re:Wouldn't it be cool to Beowulf cluster these?
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 3
So the fucking euro-pee'ins won't do it first, while rubbing their glistening dick heads aginst the front screens of their fucking iMacs?
Read my sig.
Re:So this guy wants to be taken serious?
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 1
Oh, he's blatantly trolling, but you can't deny that black hats get just as much, if not more, use out of the information in 2600 as white hats. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still a great resource for pulling off cracking.
[A]m I the only who relizes that general motors is not ford at all. GM makes chevy, pontiac, cadalliac, etc... Again GM is not Ford. DOH!
No way! Really?!?
Obviously, you haven't read the background on the story at all. Emmanuel Goldstein was protesting against GM with the website "fuckgeneralmotors.com" originally. He pointed it to a variety of critical websites to GM, including a place called "lemons.com." When the webmaster of that small site complained that the extra traffic was hurting him in bandwidth costs, he moved it to point to "ford.com" as a joke. Without warning, and without asking nicely for him to move the URL, Ford decided to sue 2600 for everything they're worth.
Ford is suing Emmanuel Goldstein for pointing the URL at them because it makes it look like they are the ones responsible for the somewhat immature prank. As the man himself says, they are trying to use the court system to create for themselves the right to demand that people ask before pointing URLs to their website. They are also seeking excessive damages in an attempt to financially ruin 2600. Basically, they're taking advantage of the system to tweak the legal system the way they want and to punish a known ally of hackers.
So, I assume you obviously don't have a CS degree. It takes a lot of ignorance to assume such a task is easy. There are, in fact, fewer more difficult tasks in all of computer science than to implement a modern OS from scratch. Otherwise, why would there so many failed attempts at doing so?
In particular, some of the features that his system has are particularly thorny issues in OS design. He has a pluggable VFS system. He has a kernel which is preemptable. Do you have any idea how hard that makes it to do pratically anything in the kernel when every single component of it has to be reentrant? He has full SMP support. This adds another level of complexity to design.
Of course, it's easy to bash another man's achievements when you don't understand their magnitude.
Well, that depends. You see, Amiga is more than a piece of hardware. It's more than an OS. It's more than an internet appliance. It's more than a video editing workstation. Amiga is a metaphysical state of computing perfection -- an undefinable nirvana between hazy dreams, shattered promises, and perfection long since lost. Amiga is a way of being. It is enlightenment. It is a freedom gained from oneness with vapor than only many, many years of guru meditations can achieve.
So, no. AtheOS is not available for Amiga, but it strives to be, much like us all.
In addition to what Trollfeeder pointed out, "Plain Old Text" means is that they use your carriage returns to generate tags. That's all it means. Be careful when using
and
tags when mixing with regular text or you may get a lot of extra spaces in certain browsers because they act like
tags in spacing text.
It's confusing terminology, and it bites people in the rear all the time. I used to accidentally click the wrong one all the time.
He says that he's wanting to perhaps switch the core system to the LGPL so that he doesn't discourage people using other licenses. He's doing this to allow 3rd-party developers more freedom in designing their software. He never mentioned taking the whole OS to a closed source license for profit reasons. You're either trolling or grossly misinformed.
You know what? Even if he felt like doing that, then your choices are (1) shut up and (2) like it. It's his personal project that he's poured blood, sweat, and tears into. You're obviously not a user of AtheOS, so it's not like it effects you anyway. You claim that he's "no Linus" and that his "poject is no Linux," but let's see you write your own OS from scratch, especially one as advanced and fully featured as his. His OS is in many ways on par with Linux and BeOS for functionality, and he's been doing it all himself. Let's see you do better.
Futhermore, exactly where does he bash on other OSes or brag about how great his project is? Nowhere. You're just making up crap to troll, and it's not even a very good one at that. This man has done something that 99.9999% of the population simply isn't capable of and you dare to slam him for it because of a simple potential license change?
Whatever. You people are the reason that the Free Software movement feeds on its young. I can't believe you'd slander this man over such a petty thing as going from one Free Software license (GPL) to another (LGPL).
He says that he's wanting to perhaps switch the core system to the LGPL so that he doesn't discourage people using other licenses. He's doing this to allow 3rd-party developers more freedom in designing their software. He never mentioned taking the whole OS to a closed source license for profit reasons. You're either trolling or grossly misinformed.
You know what? Even if he felt like doing that, then your choices are (1) shut up and (2) like it. It's his personal project that he's poured blood, sweat, and tears into. You're obviously not a user of AtheOS, so it's not like it effects you anyway. You claim that he's "no Linus" and that his "poject is no Linux," but let's see you write your own OS from scratch, especially one as advanced and fully featured as his. His OS is in many ways on par with Linux and BeOS for functionality, and he's been doing it all himself. Let's see you do better.
Futhermore, exactly where does he bash on other OSes or brag about how great his project is? Nowhere. You're just making up crap to troll, and it's not even a very good one at that. This man has done something that 99.9999% of the population simply isn't capable of and you dare to slam him for it because of a simple potential license change?
Whatever. You people are the reason that the Free Software movement feeds on its young. I can't believe you'd slander this man over such a petty thing.
He may be a crackerjack programmer but his English leaves something to be desired...
It's not like most of the American-born readers (and editors) of this site have a better grasp of the language. That doesn't make them less intelligent, just less articulate. Plus, I'm halfway sure the guy isn't a native English speaker anyway. Let's see how well you do in your second language, if you even have one that is.
I respect his C++ skills better anyway. I have to have a lot of respect for a man who will singlehandedly write his own preemptively multithreaded kernel, taggable journaling filesystem, GUI & event-driven programming layer, and system drivers, and who ported GLIBC and a web browser to his home-brew system. Sure, the grammar threw me for a bit of a loop initially, but just how high did your average native American Slashdot reader score on their verbal SATs/ACTs anyway?
This guy has a crazy mix of genius and dedication that could've changed the world if applied to things like military strategies or politics or if they had appeared on the scene at the right time and place. How different do you think things would've been had he started his OS 5 years ago? He'd be Linus right now and have his own cult following. (Of course, his OS might've gone in a completely different direction without his BeOS-loving friends to influence him.)
Of course, this is yet another pointless response to a blatant troll. Disregard as you see fit.
Nothing against java, but it doesn't seem to be the easiest language for beginners to pick up. To even write "hello world" there's a lot of apparently meaninless, arbitrary voodoo stuff. And with it's painfully limited (compared to C/C++) console handling.
Actually, Java's a very good introductory language. It's a typed language that doesn't make you worry about pointer syntax and arithmatic. It's an easy framework for learning the difference between pass-by-copy vs. pass-by-reference. It has string data types and very simple string manipulation features. It's OO system is very, very smooth and easy to learn compared to languages like C++ or Perl. It has a great library that allows for easy, care-free introduction to event-driven GUI programming. It also provides the beginnings of a smooth transition into C/C++ later in life. Finally, the console handling (that an introductory class would do) is equivalent to C, only it has a slightly simpler syntax. Of course, I'm biased. It's what I first started with.
Oh, and "Hello world" is no worse in Java than in C. (I had an example, but the stupid lameness filter wouldn't let it pass. Here's a good simple example.)
So, after the students have gone through the trudgery of learning Java as their first language, why would you switch over to another? I see two ways for this to turn out : students are either forced to go out unprepared to program in the language, and learn as they go/on their own time, or covering of the basics of the language will take up the first half of the class...
So, what's so great about Eifel that it's worth throwing away the student's familiarity w/ Java?
Well, at any good program, this should only take a week or two to introduce how the syntax for doing a task works in this language with a few classes thrown in later to introduce new concepts, such as contracts in Eiffel.
A lot of programs go over a few of the necessary basics of OO when teaching Java, but they need to teach a full OOA/OOD class later. When this happens, it's good to get a clean break with your old bad inexperience programmer habits by forcing you to learn a new language. Later, when they come back to the old language, they will see their coding flaws much easier than if they had been entangled in them the whole time.
Plus, any good program needs to have as many languages as possible in their curriculum. The more languages you are exposed to, the easier it is to pick up new languages. In fact, such a program should have a whole class dedicated to the evolution of programming languages. Any program that teaches a language as the subject of a class is robbing their students. A program that teaches programming concepts should create students who can pick up any new language in less than two weeks, while those that spend all their time on a language will produce weak programmers who don't understand how to think at a higher level beyond their basic language. This is the difference between an institution of higher learning and a glorified trade school.
A good program should expose students to OO, functional, and low-level procedural code. If you can't think in more than one toolset, then you are limited by what those tools can do.
You see, it's not that Eiffel is such a great language that it's "worth throwing away the student's familiarity w/ Java." Learning Eiffel will actually help these students to be better Java programmers by exposing them to ways of thought beyond what they learned in their very first programming class.
What's the point? It's easier to manufacture powers supplies for every consumer from one or two basic designs (desktops/laptops). KISS
I suppose you dislike DVD-ROM/CD-RW combos and embedded CPUs with builtin bus and network controllers too. Some consumers have a use for these things even though you feel that most do not.
Many times there are overwhelming reasons why you want to combine components. I think his reasons are quite good. After all, there is a significant waste of power in going from AC to DC, from DC to AC, and then back from AC to DC as you go from wall to UPS battery to power supply to computer components. There's no reason to shoot down the idea for everybody else. Sometimes simple designs are inadequate.
I think the only reason these haven't taken off is that many people haven't thought of it, and most OEMs wouldn't use them because they would jack up prices. If they became better known, I'm sure that the market for them (especially in the business world) would take off.
You can license your own product under multiple licenses. Commercial vendors do this all this time with proprietary code. You can also release a product under multiple Open Source licenses. If you are the copyright holder, you control the licenses.
Now, you can't retroactively change the licensing of version 1.0 or any other released versions to a non-GPL license, because you've already got a binding license agreement with your users. However, any future releases of the software can be licensed as the author sees fit.
On the other hand, if you accept GPL'ed patches, and you don't get copyright from the patch owner, and you don't get their permission to relicense the work, then you are in violation of the GPL as it applies to their works.
If Microsoft was so ignorant of the Internet, then why was it a node on Usenet in 1981?
If Microsoft was so against the forking of UNIX, then why did they develop Xenix? Microsoft is a big, big company and sometimes does a lot of inconsistent things because of it. It's even harder to keep straight when they attempt to revise the actual events that happened.
Code forking bad; MS's lying propoganda is worse
on
MS VP Speech Online
·
· Score: 4
But now Microsoft says code forking is bad, so that means it is really good?
No, it's still bad. It just that Microsoft is claiming that Open Source is responsible for code forks.
Ironically, this is about as far as you can get from the truth while still being slightly based in it. You see, without access to source code, you can't have a code fork. What's there to fork if only the one party controls the code? However, to say that Open Source causes code forks is ridiculous.
You see, without the release of the original AT&T V7 source code to UNIX, there could have never been forks in the UNIX code base. What happened is that each proprietary UNIX vendor decided to add missing features to their systems to encourage people to buy their hardware. Without adding nifty new features to UNIX that other vendors didn't have, you didn't have as compelling a reason for customers to buy your hardware. Once you got them used to your API's you got to sit back and enjoy vendor lock-in. It was the lack of cooperation between vendors and their unwillingness to give their additions back to the community that led to the forking of UNIX.
Nowdays, in the BSD worlds, you still have code forks over political/philosophical differences. These led to the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD camps. The difference between what happened to the commercial UNIXes and the modern BSDs is that the modern BSDs can take advantage of what their rivals have done! While there is different focus in what they are improving, each group gives its contributions back to the whole BSD community. This means that security audits in OpenBSD can turn up flaws that can be patched in FreeBSD. New ports done by NetBSD often turn into the basis of new OpenBSD ports. Heck, even Darwin may have contributed a good HFS+ filesystem layer that the others can adapt.
Microsoft is also being a huge hypocrite whenever they talk about code forking. Hello? Windows 95/98/ME vs. NT/2000? Oh, and there's Windows XP/2002 now -- a professional vs. consumers product fork in grand NT tradition. If you've ever once looked through MSDN, you've probably seen the functional documentation about how this or that function does one thing on 95, another thing on 98, and yet another thing on NT. Don't even get me started on WinCE, either. Microsoft is the pot calling the kettle black. However, since the forking of UNIX has long been one of it's greatest derided problem, and since most people aren't really aware of the differences between Windows versions under the hood, they can get away with it.
That's what irritates me most about this. MS is completely misrepresenting the truth. It's not that code forking is suddenly good because MS is demonizing it. It's that the situation isn't as bad as it once was, it's that it isn't that different from their own products, and it's that it was the commercial interests that caused the problem in the first place.
Well, let's hope that administrator isn't using the internet, because many applications, such as some popular IRC clients, use your account name as a default logon.
That's a good point. I've always hated that. I did make the mistake of using my common alias online as my login. I should probably fix that.
My intention is not to troll; one cannot rely on the root account being 'disabled' to prevent it being hijacked. You need to ensure your passwords are hard to guess, and that you don't send out information identifying other priviliged accounts (which must exist, in order to enable the root account) over the internet too.
No, you can't rely on it solely, but it is a very nice feature to have. It's great that you can do this in an easy to use GUI rather than having to do this the hard way on the command line too. It's a little security through obscurity. Of course it's not foolproof, but it's better than having every Mac OS X user on the internet sharing the same superuser account for everything.
BTW, good passwords aren't really as much of an issue anymore. Most good exploits hijack an existing root process.
Well, you have to know the name of an administrator's account or its UID to do anything with it. UID 0, or root, is well known on most systems. However, the administrator of a random Mac OS X machine on the internet could be anything, and there's no easy way to find it without already being on the system.
Without going through NetInfo services or using a root account, you can't mess with a lot of things on the system. It's a good idea. Many security tips I've read suggest replacing the root account on your system with another superuser account. You should then delete the root account or set it up as a tripwire for people breaking into your system.
It's things like this that makes me wish I could moderate up and down main stories instead of just the comments on them. Someone should make a site like that.....
No! Tying us to physical locations without protection rids us of anonymity and privacy!
What we need is CPIPsec, a new extension to RFC1149. Genetic engineering should allow us to engineer super-pigeons, capable of decoding encrypted mail addresses so that no one following the pigeon with binoculars can tell where it is going, while keeping the pigeon from getting lost itself. We can use the person's address to generate public PGP (Pigeon-Genius-Privacy) keys for protection of address info, and let the pigeon keep it's private key internally.
Plus, with advances in stealth technology, we can modify our pigeons to have anti-radar coating on their feathers. With these advances, our pigeons would show up on radar as smaller than a fly, instead of being the size of a bird like those bulky bombers that the US military has come up with. Advanced training can allow our pigeons to know how to use buildings as cover to baffle pursuers.
We must push through this new safer protocol to keep the U.S. Goverment's "RAPTOR" program from intercepting and recording our messages. Only this will avoid "birdcatcher-in-the-middle" attacks on our security systems. For the sake of freedom, slip in vigillance and become complacent with plainbird messaging. Only avian encryption will protect the foundations of democracy that we depend on.
Go find exactly where on Apple's page it says that they want you to use AirPort for your secure internal company communication, and perhaps I'll find the post "funny."
40bit encryption, you can hide the networks from broadcasting themselves, allow only specific MAC addresses, and require a password to join the AirPort network.
But no where does it state that they intend for you to trust all of your data to it.
Page 4 of the AirPort Fact Sheet:
Security AirPort offers password protection and encryption capabilities to deliver a level of security
comparable to that offered by traditional cabled networks. Users can be required to enter a
password to log on to the wireless network. When transmitting information, AirPort uses 40-bit
encryption to scramble data. In addition, access control and closed network features can be
employed.
A similar comment can be found on page 4 of the AirPort FAQ. The most important thing is the omission of any sort of notice that there could be a security problem.
Of course, the whole encryption thing was a semi-trollish joke anyway. Half a year of burning off my excess karma has started to make me prone to them lately. Looks like I caught someone!
The real problem in the article was that these companies were using open network, where you don't have to name the network befoe seeing access to it, and they weren't using any sort of encryption at all. Even AirPort's weak 40-bit encryption, combined with a closed network feature and with filtering MACs would have prevented these people from tuning in from their car.
AirPort actually makes all this configuration a no-brainer.
Microsoft, on the other hand, would be saying that it, just like Windows 2000, is totally secure and safe to use on any corporate LAN. *snort*
Straw man. Check my user profile.
Actually, if you configure the damn thing properly, especially by using centralized MAC filters, Airport's security would be safe enough. I'm hoping Mac OS X's UNIX underpinning would make doing this a little easier.
Slashdot Mirror
So the fucking euro-pee'ins won't do it first, while rubbing their glistening dick heads aginst the front screens of their fucking iMacs?
Read my sig.
Oh, he's blatantly trolling, but you can't deny that black hats get just as much, if not more, use out of the information in 2600 as white hats. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still a great resource for pulling off cracking.
[A]m I the only who relizes that general motors is not ford at all. GM makes chevy, pontiac, cadalliac, etc... Again GM is not Ford. DOH!
No way! Really?!?
Obviously, you haven't read the background on the story at all. Emmanuel Goldstein was protesting against GM with the website "fuckgeneralmotors.com" originally. He pointed it to a variety of critical websites to GM, including a place called "lemons.com." When the webmaster of that small site complained that the extra traffic was hurting him in bandwidth costs, he moved it to point to "ford.com" as a joke. Without warning, and without asking nicely for him to move the URL, Ford decided to sue 2600 for everything they're worth.
Ford is suing Emmanuel Goldstein for pointing the URL at them because it makes it look like they are the ones responsible for the somewhat immature prank. As the man himself says, they are trying to use the court system to create for themselves the right to demand that people ask before pointing URLs to their website. They are also seeking excessive damages in an attempt to financially ruin 2600. Basically, they're taking advantage of the system to tweak the legal system the way they want and to punish a known ally of hackers.
Actually, I think it should be had now that the site is Slashdotted.
C'mon dude... you left out a comma!
You know.. it shouldn't bother me, but it does. *sob*
So, I assume you obviously don't have a CS degree. It takes a lot of ignorance to assume such a task is easy. There are, in fact, fewer more difficult tasks in all of computer science than to implement a modern OS from scratch. Otherwise, why would there so many failed attempts at doing so?
In particular, some of the features that his system has are particularly thorny issues in OS design. He has a pluggable VFS system. He has a kernel which is preemptable. Do you have any idea how hard that makes it to do pratically anything in the kernel when every single component of it has to be reentrant? He has full SMP support. This adds another level of complexity to design.
Of course, it's easy to bash another man's achievements when you don't understand their magnitude.
Is this OS available for the Amiga?
Well, that depends. You see, Amiga is more than a piece of hardware. It's more than an OS. It's more than an internet appliance. It's more than a video editing workstation. Amiga is a metaphysical state of computing perfection -- an undefinable nirvana between hazy dreams, shattered promises, and perfection long since lost. Amiga is a way of being. It is enlightenment. It is a freedom gained from oneness with vapor than only many, many years of guru meditations can achieve.
So, no. AtheOS is not available for Amiga, but it strives to be, much like us all.
tags. That's all it means. Be careful when using
Hey, I submitted this just once! What happened here?
Get a grip, yourself.
He says that he's wanting to perhaps switch the core system to the LGPL so that he doesn't discourage people using other licenses. He's doing this to allow 3rd-party developers more freedom in designing their software. He never mentioned taking the whole OS to a closed source license for profit reasons. You're either trolling or grossly misinformed.
You know what? Even if he felt like doing that, then your choices are (1) shut up and (2) like it. It's his personal project that he's poured blood, sweat, and tears into. You're obviously not a user of AtheOS, so it's not like it effects you anyway. You claim that he's "no Linus" and that his "poject is no Linux," but let's see you write your own OS from scratch, especially one as advanced and fully featured as his. His OS is in many ways on par with Linux and BeOS for functionality, and he's been doing it all himself. Let's see you do better.
Futhermore, exactly where does he bash on other OSes or brag about how great his project is? Nowhere. You're just making up crap to troll, and it's not even a very good one at that. This man has done something that 99.9999% of the population simply isn't capable of and you dare to slam him for it because of a simple potential license change?
Whatever. You people are the reason that the Free Software movement feeds on its young. I can't believe you'd slander this man over such a petty thing as going from one Free Software license (GPL) to another (LGPL).
Get a grip, yourself.
He says that he's wanting to perhaps switch the core system to the LGPL so that he doesn't discourage people using other licenses. He's doing this to allow 3rd-party developers more freedom in designing their software. He never mentioned taking the whole OS to a closed source license for profit reasons. You're either trolling or grossly misinformed.
You know what? Even if he felt like doing that, then your choices are (1) shut up and (2) like it. It's his personal project that he's poured blood, sweat, and tears into. You're obviously not a user of AtheOS, so it's not like it effects you anyway. You claim that he's "no Linus" and that his "poject is no Linux," but let's see you write your own OS from scratch, especially one as advanced and fully featured as his. His OS is in many ways on par with Linux and BeOS for functionality, and he's been doing it all himself. Let's see you do better.
Futhermore, exactly where does he bash on other OSes or brag about how great his project is? Nowhere. You're just making up crap to troll, and it's not even a very good one at that. This man has done something that 99.9999% of the population simply isn't capable of and you dare to slam him for it because of a simple potential license change?
Whatever. You people are the reason that the Free Software movement feeds on its young. I can't believe you'd slander this man over such a petty thing.
He may be a crackerjack programmer but his English leaves something to be desired...
It's not like most of the American-born readers (and editors) of this site have a better grasp of the language. That doesn't make them less intelligent, just less articulate. Plus, I'm halfway sure the guy isn't a native English speaker anyway. Let's see how well you do in your second language, if you even have one that is.
I respect his C++ skills better anyway. I have to have a lot of respect for a man who will singlehandedly write his own preemptively multithreaded kernel, taggable journaling filesystem, GUI & event-driven programming layer, and system drivers, and who ported GLIBC and a web browser to his home-brew system. Sure, the grammar threw me for a bit of a loop initially, but just how high did your average native American Slashdot reader score on their verbal SATs/ACTs anyway?
This guy has a crazy mix of genius and dedication that could've changed the world if applied to things like military strategies or politics or if they had appeared on the scene at the right time and place. How different do you think things would've been had he started his OS 5 years ago? He'd be Linus right now and have his own cult following. (Of course, his OS might've gone in a completely different direction without his BeOS-loving friends to influence him.)
Of course, this is yet another pointless response to a blatant troll. Disregard as you see fit.
Nothing against java, but it doesn't seem to be the easiest language for beginners to pick up. To even write "hello world" there's a lot of apparently meaninless, arbitrary voodoo stuff. And with it's painfully limited (compared to C/C++) console handling.
Actually, Java's a very good introductory language. It's a typed language that doesn't make you worry about pointer syntax and arithmatic. It's an easy framework for learning the difference between pass-by-copy vs. pass-by-reference. It has string data types and very simple string manipulation features. It's OO system is very, very smooth and easy to learn compared to languages like C++ or Perl. It has a great library that allows for easy, care-free introduction to event-driven GUI programming. It also provides the beginnings of a smooth transition into C/C++ later in life. Finally, the console handling (that an introductory class would do) is equivalent to C, only it has a slightly simpler syntax. Of course, I'm biased. It's what I first started with.
Oh, and "Hello world" is no worse in Java than in C. (I had an example, but the stupid lameness filter wouldn't let it pass. Here's a good simple example.)
So, after the students have gone through the trudgery of learning Java as their first language, why would you switch over to another? I see two ways for this to turn out : students are either forced to go out unprepared to program in the language, and learn as they go/on their own time, or covering of the basics of the language will take up the first half of the class...
So, what's so great about Eifel that it's worth throwing away the student's familiarity w/ Java?
Well, at any good program, this should only take a week or two to introduce how the syntax for doing a task works in this language with a few classes thrown in later to introduce new concepts, such as contracts in Eiffel.
A lot of programs go over a few of the necessary basics of OO when teaching Java, but they need to teach a full OOA/OOD class later. When this happens, it's good to get a clean break with your old bad inexperience programmer habits by forcing you to learn a new language. Later, when they come back to the old language, they will see their coding flaws much easier than if they had been entangled in them the whole time.
Plus, any good program needs to have as many languages as possible in their curriculum. The more languages you are exposed to, the easier it is to pick up new languages. In fact, such a program should have a whole class dedicated to the evolution of programming languages. Any program that teaches a language as the subject of a class is robbing their students. A program that teaches programming concepts should create students who can pick up any new language in less than two weeks, while those that spend all their time on a language will produce weak programmers who don't understand how to think at a higher level beyond their basic language. This is the difference between an institution of higher learning and a glorified trade school.
A good program should expose students to OO, functional, and low-level procedural code. If you can't think in more than one toolset, then you are limited by what those tools can do.
You see, it's not that Eiffel is such a great language that it's "worth throwing away the student's familiarity w/ Java." Learning Eiffel will actually help these students to be better Java programmers by exposing them to ways of thought beyond what they learned in their very first programming class.
What's the point? It's easier to manufacture powers supplies for every consumer from one or two basic designs (desktops/laptops). KISS
I suppose you dislike DVD-ROM/CD-RW combos and embedded CPUs with builtin bus and network controllers too. Some consumers have a use for these things even though you feel that most do not.
Many times there are overwhelming reasons why you want to combine components. I think his reasons are quite good. After all, there is a significant waste of power in going from AC to DC, from DC to AC, and then back from AC to DC as you go from wall to UPS battery to power supply to computer components. There's no reason to shoot down the idea for everybody else. Sometimes simple designs are inadequate.
I think the only reason these haven't taken off is that many people haven't thought of it, and most OEMs wouldn't use them because they would jack up prices. If they became better known, I'm sure that the market for them (especially in the business world) would take off.
This is easy.
You can license your own product under multiple licenses. Commercial vendors do this all this time with proprietary code. You can also release a product under multiple Open Source licenses. If you are the copyright holder, you control the licenses.
Now, you can't retroactively change the licensing of version 1.0 or any other released versions to a non-GPL license, because you've already got a binding license agreement with your users. However, any future releases of the software can be licensed as the author sees fit.
On the other hand, if you accept GPL'ed patches, and you don't get copyright from the patch owner, and you don't get their permission to relicense the work, then you are in violation of the GPL as it applies to their works.
If Microsoft was so ignorant of the Internet, then why was it a node on Usenet in 1981?
If Microsoft was so against the forking of UNIX, then why did they develop Xenix? Microsoft is a big, big company and sometimes does a lot of inconsistent things because of it. It's even harder to keep straight when they attempt to revise the actual events that happened.
But now Microsoft says code forking is bad, so that means it is really good?
No, it's still bad. It just that Microsoft is claiming that Open Source is responsible for code forks.
Ironically, this is about as far as you can get from the truth while still being slightly based in it. You see, without access to source code, you can't have a code fork. What's there to fork if only the one party controls the code? However, to say that Open Source causes code forks is ridiculous.
You see, without the release of the original AT&T V7 source code to UNIX, there could have never been forks in the UNIX code base. What happened is that each proprietary UNIX vendor decided to add missing features to their systems to encourage people to buy their hardware. Without adding nifty new features to UNIX that other vendors didn't have, you didn't have as compelling a reason for customers to buy your hardware. Once you got them used to your API's you got to sit back and enjoy vendor lock-in. It was the lack of cooperation between vendors and their unwillingness to give their additions back to the community that led to the forking of UNIX.
Nowdays, in the BSD worlds, you still have code forks over political/philosophical differences. These led to the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD camps. The difference between what happened to the commercial UNIXes and the modern BSDs is that the modern BSDs can take advantage of what their rivals have done! While there is different focus in what they are improving, each group gives its contributions back to the whole BSD community. This means that security audits in OpenBSD can turn up flaws that can be patched in FreeBSD. New ports done by NetBSD often turn into the basis of new OpenBSD ports. Heck, even Darwin may have contributed a good HFS+ filesystem layer that the others can adapt.
Microsoft is also being a huge hypocrite whenever they talk about code forking. Hello? Windows 95/98/ME vs. NT/2000? Oh, and there's Windows XP/2002 now -- a professional vs. consumers product fork in grand NT tradition. If you've ever once looked through MSDN, you've probably seen the functional documentation about how this or that function does one thing on 95, another thing on 98, and yet another thing on NT. Don't even get me started on WinCE, either. Microsoft is the pot calling the kettle black. However, since the forking of UNIX has long been one of it's greatest derided problem, and since most people aren't really aware of the differences between Windows versions under the hood, they can get away with it.
That's what irritates me most about this. MS is completely misrepresenting the truth. It's not that code forking is suddenly good because MS is demonizing it. It's that the situation isn't as bad as it once was, it's that it isn't that different from their own products, and it's that it was the commercial interests that caused the problem in the first place.
No, you can't rely on it solely, but it is a very nice feature to have. It's great that you can do this in an easy to use GUI rather than having to do this the hard way on the command line too. It's a little security through obscurity. Of course it's not foolproof, but it's better than having every Mac OS X user on the internet sharing the same superuser account for everything.
BTW, good passwords aren't really as much of an issue anymore. Most good exploits hijack an existing root process.
Well, you have to know the name of an administrator's account or its UID to do anything with it. UID 0, or root, is well known on most systems. However, the administrator of a random Mac OS X machine on the internet could be anything, and there's no easy way to find it without already being on the system.
Without going through NetInfo services or using a root account, you can't mess with a lot of things on the system. It's a good idea. Many security tips I've read suggest replacing the root account on your system with another superuser account. You should then delete the root account or set it up as a tripwire for people breaking into your system.
It's things like this that makes me wish I could moderate up and down main stories instead of just the comments on them. Someone should make a site like that.....
You forgot to engage in the requisite Mindless Link Propogation.
That is: "For the sake of freedom, we cannot slip..."
Now we return you to your regularly scheduled nonsense...
No! Tying us to physical locations without protection rids us of anonymity and privacy!
What we need is CPIPsec, a new extension to RFC1149. Genetic engineering should allow us to engineer super-pigeons, capable of decoding encrypted mail addresses so that no one following the pigeon with binoculars can tell where it is going, while keeping the pigeon from getting lost itself. We can use the person's address to generate public PGP (Pigeon-Genius-Privacy) keys for protection of address info, and let the pigeon keep it's private key internally.
Plus, with advances in stealth technology, we can modify our pigeons to have anti-radar coating on their feathers. With these advances, our pigeons would show up on radar as smaller than a fly, instead of being the size of a bird like those bulky bombers that the US military has come up with. Advanced training can allow our pigeons to know how to use buildings as cover to baffle pursuers.
We must push through this new safer protocol to keep the U.S. Goverment's "RAPTOR" program from intercepting and recording our messages. Only this will avoid "birdcatcher-in-the-middle" attacks on our security systems. For the sake of freedom, slip in vigillance and become complacent with plainbird messaging. Only avian encryption will protect the foundations of democracy that we depend on.
40bit encryption, you can hide the networks from broadcasting themselves, allow only specific MAC addresses, and require a password to join the AirPort network.
But no where does it state that they intend for you to trust all of your data to it.
Page 4 of the AirPort Fact Sheet:A similar comment can be found on page 4 of the AirPort FAQ. The most important thing is the omission of any sort of notice that there could be a security problem.
Of course, the whole encryption thing was a semi-trollish joke anyway. Half a year of burning off my excess karma has started to make me prone to them lately. Looks like I caught someone!
The real problem in the article was that these companies were using open network, where you don't have to name the network befoe seeing access to it, and they weren't using any sort of encryption at all. Even AirPort's weak 40-bit encryption, combined with a closed network feature and with filtering MACs would have prevented these people from tuning in from their car.
AirPort actually makes all this configuration a no-brainer.
Microsoft, on the other hand, would be saying that it, just like Windows 2000, is totally secure and safe to use on any corporate LAN. *snort*
Straw man. Check my user profile.
Actually, if you configure the damn thing properly, especially by using centralized MAC filters, Airport's security would be safe enough. I'm hoping Mac OS X's UNIX underpinning would make doing this a little easier.
What, you mean people aren't using Apple's Airport with it's robust, secure 40-bit encryption scheme to protect all their traffic? Darn PC users.
(Burn, karma, burn...)
If we try right now, the failured attempts...
That's "failed attempts." I gotta read more carefully when I preview, or I don't have the right bitch about the Slashdot editors anymore.