Okay, it makes sense to distribute an application. You have x amount of processing that needs to be done, and it MIGHT not be important where this is done. So, you don't tell the application, and go ahead and distribute some of the tasks/processing.
Now, this isn't really applicable for an operating system. If you are dealing with just a UMP/SMP type system, then yes, since resources are shared, you can actually distribute parts of the actual operating system. However, with a true distributed system, resources are not shared.(in the real sense of the word)
So, it doesn't even make sense to distribute a process whose very purpose is resource management. What do you distribute? Memory management? I/O? It just isn't practical.
Now, you might instead think of a "Distributed" OS as one which features "plug and play" distribution. So, it might have infrastructure in place to handle distribution (fault tolerence, networking, etc.) However, this really comes back to the application level. Napster, etc are really no more than an infrastructure layer on top of the OS.
Now, you could probably start bundling these tools with the OS, however, can it really be said that the OS is "distributed"? For example, is "emacs" a part of the *nix operating system (good god, every emacs user everywhere hates me)(including myself)? It's just an incredibly useful "tool".
I think you may have misunderstood his point. Although It is possible to compromise the security of an individual user with these methods, it is not so for the OS/computer as a whole.
1. Because of protected memory, you don't have access to kernal memory as a user. So, any virus would have to somehow launch as ROOT. 2. A back orifice like tool would probably be able to compromise individual user security, but again, do little damage to the system as a whole, without adequate user permissions. 3. Same thing with macro attacks. Individual users only, unless the application did stupid 'suid' stuff.
Basically, to REALLY compromise security on a *nix boxc, you've got to have root access. When this is the case, I find the 'rm -rf/' is usually the best way to completely destroy the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, this isn't really applicable for an operating system. If you are dealing with just a UMP/SMP type system, then yes, since resources are shared, you can actually distribute parts of the actual operating system. However, with a true distributed system, resources are not shared.(in the real sense of the word)
So, it doesn't even make sense to distribute a process whose very purpose is resource management. What do you distribute? Memory management? I/O? It just isn't practical.
Now, you might instead think of a "Distributed" OS as one which features "plug and play" distribution. So, it might have infrastructure in place to handle distribution (fault tolerence, networking, etc.) However, this really comes back to the application level. Napster, etc are really no more than an infrastructure layer on top of the OS.
Now, you could probably start bundling these tools with the OS, however, can it really be said that the OS is "distributed"? For example, is "emacs" a part of the *nix operating system (good god, every emacs user everywhere hates me)(including myself)? It's just an incredibly useful "tool".
I think you may have misunderstood his point. Although It is possible to compromise the security of an individual user with these methods, it is not so for the OS/computer as a whole.
/' is usually the best way to completely destroy the system.
1. Because of protected memory, you don't have access to kernal memory as a user. So, any virus would have to somehow launch as ROOT.
2. A back orifice like tool would probably be able to compromise individual user security, but again, do little damage to the system as a whole, without adequate user permissions.
3. Same thing with macro attacks. Individual users only, unless the application did stupid 'suid' stuff.
Basically, to REALLY compromise security on a *nix boxc, you've got to have root access. When this is the case, I find the 'rm -rf
But that's just me.
Yes,
From what I understand, Oracle has an equity investment in RH. So, I assume that's their test bed.
Yes, most PCS phones broadcast encrypted digital signals.
However, how good the encryption is, is another matter altogather.
If it's not a criminal offense to listen in on the airwaves, is it one to actually then decrypt the transmissions?