If only we could invent a version of Linux that had a spellchecker which would shoot the user in the head for not one but two typos of "it's". Jesus Christ folks, YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING CUT AND PASTE THE CORRECT SPELLING FROM THE ORIGINAL FUCKING ARTICLE!?
A good tablet is fundamentally incompatible with being a phone. A good tablet is flat, rectangular, and big enough to read a web page. A good phone is small, small, and small.
It was plain good design that they a) didn't even try to make it a phone but b) made it dead simple to allow it to bluetooth off the awesome phone you already have. (If you don't have one by now, get one, they're everywhere). I'm tired of otherwise great phones that try and horribly fail at trying to browse the web (and mediocre web enabled phones that horribly fail at being a good lightweight phone). Let me leave my sexy BT enabled phone on my hip where it belongs and let me have this nice sexy tablet in my hands.
With devices getting this small, manufacturers are beginning to make huge mistakes in attempting to merge two already-perfect devices together into a single device that fails at both. (Witness the Rokr flop, yet booming sales of the Razr and Nanos).
This is not hydrogen power. Not even close. All it's doing is generating a small amount of hydrgen to make the diesel combustion more efficient and complete. This is not perpetual motion (taking energy out and putting a greater amount back into the system), it's just a bit of fancy chemistry to make the existing diesel burn better. This has nothing to do with the hydrogen fuel debate.
The data connection is most assuredly NOT UDP. It is a TCP connection just like the control connection. But yes, the latency required to initiate a transfer (due to more handshakes) generally makes FTP slower in general.
They have builds of OpenSSH (and tons of other free software) for a variety of UNIX platforms, and they offer commercial support for them. I used them at my last employer, and was extremely satisfied with them.
On several occasions they integrated or wrote fixes when I came across bugs, and submitted their fixes upstream to the maintainers. Their response was also much faster than the maintainers.
Never get the facts get in the way of a good troll, eh?
The truth of the matter is that back in the early days of SSH, the world was entirely SSH.COM (now F-Secure). That's because there was noone else. SSH 1.x was all we had, and it was free (for non-commercial use, after 1.2.something).
It's profoundly clear that the large majority of businesses are switching to OpenSSH. The numbers prove it (check out openssh's statistics, posted here several times). Why? Because the old SSH 1.x installations are steadily dying, and people are forced to perform a semi-major upgrade. It's clear they're choosing OpenSSH. If you read the statistics in fact, it appears that the number of F-Secure installations is dropping. (not couting F-Secure 1.x, which is dropping like a stone).
You may think "oh, big conservative companies want a commerical product". Take for example UBS Warburg. A mega-huge conservative financial institution. They use OpenSSH whever possible ("as a matter of policy" to use your words). In fact, several of their employees are involved in OpenSSH development. I used to work for a hosting company, and there were other fiancial institutions that used OpenSSH. Of course not just banks liked OpenSSH. We had very few requests to support F-Secure.
They're by far not the only ones. Your "horses mouth" argument is way off the mark, too. The vast majority of development is going on in the OpenSSH world, not the closed proprietary world of F-Secure.
Oh, and F-Secure's SSH isn't without a recent hole either.
It will be interesting to see of Sun reduces the cost of the hardware. Seeing as how the RTU previously was "built in" to the cost to the hardware, logic would dicatate that they would reduce the cost of the hardware with this new pricing scheme.
This is great news for Sun, since Sun's two major disk suppliers are currently IBM and Seagate. (Having two vendors in the first place came as a result of some nasty supply problems with having only Seagate). With IBM's disks going to a business largely owned by a now-very-important and mutually-benificial major storage partner (Hitachi), this means Sun won't be getting their disks from a competitor anymore.
Hitachi has some excellent storage R&D in their own right as well, and arguably have the best technology in the SAN market. As we all know, most good tech starts on the high and and filters its way downhill.
Owning a web-based email address is effectively opting in for spam. How can companies do that, and still announce publicly that they are working hard to try and reduce spam?
Because they're trying to play all three sides of the fence.
Offer free paid-by-ads services to hook you in and get you cookies with them so you can be tracked
sell your identity/shopping habits/etc to third parties
protect themselves from even less scrupulous third parties who would profit from all their hard work by excluding spam from people who don't play their game (i.e. give them money).
We haven't seen the third leg in this triad too much yet, but I predict it a comin from the likes of AOL, Yahoo, and MSN fast. It's only a matter of time until they find an effective way to make spam less costly for them and an additional source of revenue at the same time.
Mod me down, but I for one appreciate comments like this.
Proper spelling and good grammar is one of those things that matters only when it's lacking. Being good at grammar and spelling won't make you more persuasive, but the inability to understand the difference between "its" and "it's" or "lose" and "loose" will ensure many people (especially influential people) won't give you the time of day.
If we expect ourselves to be taken seriously by the world, this is one of those things we just have to suck up, turn off your spell checkers, and learn to do it right.
(Sure, this is just an article about a dash PC, but if you can't do it now, what will you do when an issue about privacy or intellectual property or individual freedoms comes along?)
There's two main roads to take when trying to develop a solution for this problem. The first way (the OpenPKG way) is to pick a package system and use it across all your platforms. This ensures that your package system will be incompatible with the majority of your systems. (As a side note, it is too bad that they chose RPM on top of this). However, you at least get to use one tool for all the stuff you add.
The other road is to develop a meta-package system which "wraps" the existing native package system. This ensures the two package management systems don't stomp on each other, and allows you to interoperate with the native package management system (Sun's pkgadd, HP's depot, SGI's inst, etc). As many of us know it can get extremely ugly when a package management system starts getting out of sync with what is actually taking place on a filesystem.
To put in a shameless plug (I'm only a customer) for some very cool quasi-commercial effort in this area, we use software packaged by The Written Word. (yeah, strange name). Their software is of the latter philosophy.
I say quasi-commerical because while they sell distributions packaged on their tools for profit (and provide support and updates for their software by subscription, allowing me to concentrate on my normal duties, not worrying about recompiling this and that when the latest exploit comes out) they are actively involved in open standards-based efforts to develop a true cross-platform open package management system.
And by my understanding are committed to switching their system to an open standard once it is standardized and of a sufficient functionality.
Either way, as Debian users know, the important part is not that you pick a good package system. The important part is that you pick a system that is well maintained, so when the next fix for exploit comes out you know that within a short period of time you can run {apt-get,pkg-inst,whatever) and get a working fix installed.
The biggest problem with many of the other package systems out there (Sunfreeware, Red Hat Contrib) is not that the package system is necessarily bad, it's the fact that the people don't maintain the packages. They're either woefully out of date, or compiled with beta snapshots of gcc or libc, have incorrect or missing dependencies, or simply haven't been tested.
The one thing this guy fails to answer is "why is it bad that I have 2000 files in/usr/bin?". There are no tangible benefits I can see to splitting things up, other than perhaps a mild performance gain, and satisfying someone's overeager sense of order.
Failing to answer that, I think his whole discussion is pointless.
Blaming it on lazyness on not wanting to muck with PATH is wrong. Managing your PATH is a real issue, something an administrator with any experience should understand. In the bad old days we came up with ludicrious schemes that people would run in their dot files to manage user's PATH. I'm glad those days are over. Not having to worry about PATH is a tangible benefit. Forcing package mantainers to use a clear and concise standard on where to put programs is a tangible benefit.
Perhaps I'm biased because these past many years I've always worked with operating systems (Solaris, Debian, *BSD) that have package management systems. I don't care where they get installed, as long as when I install the package and type the command it runs. This is a Good Thing.
Because Joe Home User has no hope of being able to set up and use IPsec securely anytime soon
Because IPsec does almost nothing to help protect your system or network from attack. (so what you have no cleartext data for someone to sniff? Someone can still hack your lan and your system)
Because there's an immense installed base of devices and systems with no IPsec support
Because there's more to the world than IP
Joe Home user shouldn't have to be a network security export in order to use wireless technology safely. We need technologies that you can turn on and are safe out of the box. Has years of unsecure crap out of the box from Microsoft so warped our sense of reality and truth?
Please, someone enlighten me as to why, exactly, 802.11 in itself has to be secure!
Because 802.11 becomes incredibly useless if you can't trust it. This sounds like you're questioning the need for security at all. If you are, then there's nothing I can say to convice you why a secure wireless medium is needed.
The pilot had an elevator scene with Jimmy Carter, or rather a rather poorly done character stand-in. Did you try to see if Jimmy Carter himself would be willing to do a cameo? I haven't seen Jimmy act, but I think the scene would have been much funner with him really there.
I have to agree. ALICE is so far pretty unimpressive. She can't even speak proper english (which albeit is arguably the most difficult job of an AI). (Actual conversation):
> Well it was nice to talk with you
How about that. Nice to talk with me too.
> Your programmers have a lot of work to do
Do you mind if I tell other people you say I am programmers have a lot of work to do.
wait, you're no expert on BGP but you've already determined that much of the blame lies with BGP?
At the last month's IETF in Minneapolis there was a slide during the plenary (which hasn't seem to have made it to the web site yet) that showed the average speed of route convergance. It was on the order of 90% propagation of route changes within 1-2 minutes. That's pretty fuckin fast.
One has to condisider what is the theoretical minimum one expects to see given the depth of the internet and how fast the links and CPUs on the routers are. There's improvements surely that can be made (some not without major protocol changes), but we're pretty darn close I think.
The major improvements that BGP needs to make are not in propagation speed, IMHO, but on general issues of scalability (size of the table as it relates to the memory and CPU avalable in a router).
I was a technical reviewer for this book (my name's in the front).
The biases against Solaris were one of my main focuses when reviewing this book. It was always a major source of contention and a big reason why I didn't recommend the previous edition to Solaris admins.
That being said, I submitted quite a bit of corrections in this area, and I'm pleased to say that the new edition is much fairer towards Solaris.
Also the original poster wasn't quite correct. The new edition covers many Solaris 8 issues as well. (although it doesn't go as in-depth as any general sysadmin book into nitty-gritty Solaris specifics).
The company where I work was also listed in this report, from what I've been told. The reporter clearly didn't do his homework for this report because our company recently completed another round of financing worth over $.5B. Our company is flush with cash, and not going to "run out" any time soon.
Show me a general-purpose UNIX/PC box that's been up for 2 years and I'll show you a box full of unpatched security holes.
It's a shame there's not a convenient command which prints out the last time the box crashed. That's at least got a hope of supplying useful information, modulo power outages.
Slashdot Mirror
If only we could invent a version of Linux that had a spellchecker which would shoot the user in the head for not one but two typos of "it's". Jesus Christ folks, YOU CAN'T EVEN FUCKING CUT AND PASTE THE CORRECT SPELLING FROM THE ORIGINAL FUCKING ARTICLE!?
Haha, I was about to just reply "Whatever you do, don't pick writing".
It's clear that this guy would need a major remedial course in writing from looking at his posting, or heavily rely on a good editor.
It was plain good design that they a) didn't even try to make it a phone but b) made it dead simple to allow it to bluetooth off the awesome phone you already have. (If you don't have one by now, get one, they're everywhere). I'm tired of otherwise great phones that try and horribly fail at trying to browse the web (and mediocre web enabled phones that horribly fail at being a good lightweight phone). Let me leave my sexy BT enabled phone on my hip where it belongs and let me have this nice sexy tablet in my hands.
With devices getting this small, manufacturers are beginning to make huge mistakes in attempting to merge two already-perfect devices together into a single device that fails at both. (Witness the Rokr flop, yet booming sales of the Razr and Nanos).
This is not hydrogen power. Not even close. All it's doing is generating a small amount of hydrgen to make the diesel combustion more efficient and complete. This is not perpetual motion (taking energy out and putting a greater amount back into the system), it's just a bit of fancy chemistry to make the existing diesel burn better. This has nothing to do with the hydrogen fuel debate.
The data connection is most assuredly NOT UDP. It is a TCP connection just like the control connection. But yes, the latency required to initiate a transfer (due to more handshakes) generally makes FTP slower in general.
--Dave
They have builds of OpenSSH (and tons of other free software) for a variety of UNIX platforms, and they offer commercial support for them. I used them at my last employer, and was extremely satisfied with them. On several occasions they integrated or wrote fixes when I came across bugs, and submitted their fixes upstream to the maintainers. Their response was also much faster than the maintainers.
The truth of the matter is that back in the early days of SSH, the world was entirely SSH.COM (now F-Secure). That's because there was noone else. SSH 1.x was all we had, and it was free (for non-commercial use, after 1.2.something).
It's profoundly clear that the large majority of businesses are switching to OpenSSH. The numbers prove it (check out openssh's statistics, posted here several times). Why? Because the old SSH 1.x installations are steadily dying, and people are forced to perform a semi-major upgrade. It's clear they're choosing OpenSSH. If you read the statistics in fact, it appears that the number of F-Secure installations is dropping. (not couting F-Secure 1.x, which is dropping like a stone).
You may think "oh, big conservative companies want a commerical product". Take for example UBS Warburg. A mega-huge conservative financial institution. They use OpenSSH whever possible ("as a matter of policy" to use your words). In fact, several of their employees are involved in OpenSSH development. I used to work for a hosting company, and there were other fiancial institutions that used OpenSSH. Of course not just banks liked OpenSSH. We had very few requests to support F-Secure.
They're by far not the only ones. Your "horses mouth" argument is way off the mark, too. The vast majority of development is going on in the OpenSSH world, not the closed proprietary world of F-Secure. Oh, and F-Secure's SSH isn't without a recent hole either.
This reply should be marked 'Off Topic', since the guy is asking about servers, not clients.
But I'm not that naive.
This is great news for Sun, since Sun's two major disk suppliers are currently IBM and Seagate. (Having two vendors in the first place came as a result of some nasty supply problems with having only Seagate). With IBM's disks going to a business largely owned by a now-very-important and mutually-benificial major storage partner (Hitachi), this means Sun won't be getting their disks from a competitor anymore.
Hitachi has some excellent storage R&D in their own right as well, and arguably have the best technology in the SAN market. As we all know, most good tech starts on the high and and filters its way downhill.
Because they're trying to play all three sides of the fence.
We haven't seen the third leg in this triad too much yet, but I predict it a comin from the likes of AOL, Yahoo, and MSN fast. It's only a matter of time until they find an effective way to make spam less costly for them and an additional source of revenue at the same time.
Mod me down, but I for one appreciate comments like this.
Proper spelling and good grammar is one of those things that matters only when it's lacking. Being good at grammar and spelling won't make you more persuasive, but the inability to understand the difference between "its" and "it's" or "lose" and "loose" will ensure many people (especially influential people) won't give you the time of day.
If we expect ourselves to be taken seriously by the world, this is one of those things we just have to suck up, turn off your spell checkers, and learn to do it right.
(Sure, this is just an article about a dash PC, but if you can't do it now, what will you do when an issue about privacy or intellectual property or individual freedoms comes along?)
The other road is to develop a meta-package system which "wraps" the existing native package system. This ensures the two package management systems don't stomp on each other, and allows you to interoperate with the native package management system (Sun's pkgadd, HP's depot, SGI's inst, etc). As many of us know it can get extremely ugly when a package management system starts getting out of sync with what is actually taking place on a filesystem.
To put in a shameless plug (I'm only a customer) for some very cool quasi-commercial effort in this area, we use software packaged by The Written Word. (yeah, strange name). Their software is of the latter philosophy.
I say quasi-commerical because while they sell distributions packaged on their tools for profit (and provide support and updates for their software by subscription, allowing me to concentrate on my normal duties, not worrying about recompiling this and that when the latest exploit comes out) they are actively involved in open standards-based efforts to develop a true cross-platform open package management system. And by my understanding are committed to switching their system to an open standard once it is standardized and of a sufficient functionality.
Either way, as Debian users know, the important part is not that you pick a good package system. The important part is that you pick a system that is well maintained, so when the next fix for exploit comes out you know that within a short period of time you can run {apt-get,pkg-inst,whatever) and get a working fix installed.
The biggest problem with many of the other package systems out there (Sunfreeware, Red Hat Contrib) is not that the package system is necessarily bad, it's the fact that the people don't maintain the packages. They're either woefully out of date, or compiled with beta snapshots of gcc or libc, have incorrect or missing dependencies, or simply haven't been tested.
The one thing this guy fails to answer is "why is it bad that I have 2000 files in /usr/bin?". There are no tangible benefits I can see to splitting things up, other than perhaps a mild performance gain, and satisfying someone's overeager sense of order.
Failing to answer that, I think his whole discussion is pointless.
Blaming it on lazyness on not wanting to muck with PATH is wrong. Managing your PATH is a real issue, something an administrator with any experience should understand. In the bad old days we came up with ludicrious schemes that people would run in their dot files to manage user's PATH. I'm glad those days are over. Not having to worry about PATH is a tangible benefit. Forcing package mantainers to use a clear and concise standard on where to put programs is a tangible benefit.
Perhaps I'm biased because these past many years I've always worked with operating systems (Solaris, Debian, *BSD) that have package management systems. I don't care where they get installed, as long as when I install the package and type the command it runs. This is a Good Thing.
- Because Joe Home User has no hope of being able to set up and use IPsec securely anytime soon
- Because IPsec does almost nothing to help protect your system or network from attack. (so what you have no cleartext data for someone to sniff? Someone can still hack your lan and your system)
- Because there's an immense installed base of devices and systems with no IPsec support
- Because there's more to the world than IP
Joe Home user shouldn't have to be a network security export in order to use wireless technology safely. We need technologies that you can turn on and are safe out of the box. Has years of unsecure crap out of the box from Microsoft so warped our sense of reality and truth?Because 802.11 becomes incredibly useless if you can't trust it. This sounds like you're questioning the need for security at all. If you are, then there's nothing I can say to convice you why a secure wireless medium is needed.
When are we going to get a technology that's 5x more secure?
The pilot had an elevator scene with Jimmy Carter, or rather a rather poorly done character stand-in. Did you try to see if Jimmy Carter himself would be willing to do a cameo? I haven't seen Jimmy act, but I think the scene would have been much funner with him really there.
I have to agree. ALICE is so far pretty unimpressive. She can't even speak proper english (which albeit is arguably the most difficult job of an AI). (Actual conversation):
> Well it was nice to talk with you
How about that. Nice to talk with me too.
> Your programmers have a lot of work to do
Do you mind if I tell other people you say I am programmers have a lot of work to do.
At the last month's IETF in Minneapolis there was a slide during the plenary (which hasn't seem to have made it to the web site yet) that showed the average speed of route convergance. It was on the order of 90% propagation of route changes within 1-2 minutes. That's pretty fuckin fast.
One has to condisider what is the theoretical minimum one expects to see given the depth of the internet and how fast the links and CPUs on the routers are. There's improvements surely that can be made (some not without major protocol changes), but we're pretty darn close I think.
The major improvements that BGP needs to make are not in propagation speed, IMHO, but on general issues of scalability (size of the table as it relates to the memory and CPU avalable in a router).
The biases against Solaris were one of my main focuses when reviewing this book. It was always a major source of contention and a big reason why I didn't recommend the previous edition to Solaris admins.
That being said, I submitted quite a bit of corrections in this area, and I'm pleased to say that the new edition is much fairer towards Solaris.
Also the original poster wasn't quite correct. The new edition covers many Solaris 8 issues as well. (although it doesn't go as in-depth as any general sysadmin book into nitty-gritty Solaris specifics).
--Dave
Show me a general-purpose UNIX/PC box that's been up for 2 years and I'll show you a box full of unpatched security holes.
It's a shame there's not a convenient command which prints out the last time the box crashed. That's at least got a hope of supplying useful information, modulo power outages.
--Dave
please, if you take the trouble to post stuff like this, at least let us why we should care. --Dave