Please, explain to us how a climate scientist can not share the chicken little view while continuing to be a climate scientist.
Fear is a powerful tool. It can be used to have people shape pupolar opinion in the intended way. Just ask your climate scientist friends, their salary and grants are possible because of public fear.
Someone somewhere is paid by a lobby to put togehter video which is designed to strike fear into the viewer.
All things considered and put aside for a moment, it could be said that one act of terror against the US has cuased it to surrender, at least in the eyes of the terrorists. Their goals are now achieved are they not?
Considering the relative power of the US its famously patriotic populace, this seems like an unusually easy win for the evil. The question is, considering once again the considerations I asked we we put aside, what and who is the greater evil? The overt evil? Or is it the evil that would use the tragic deaths of patriots to achieve a personal end.
One very important point is that Micsosoft patches bundle several fixes into one "issue" quite often. Also, Windows vulnerabilities are kept hush hush in mny cases until a fix is already made. By the time a patch comes out for Windows, the damage is usually done and rectified by 3rd party removal tools.
There is no such thing as victimless viewing of child pornography.
Anyone who takes pleasure in looking at children in this way needs to be locked up if not castrated, then locked up. It's not only a crime because someone has paid for the stuff and contributes to "demand", or personally is responsible for creation of the content and therefore the destroying of a child. It's a crime because anyone who knowingly partakes in this sick shit, whether paying or not, is a menace to society.
Your last statement is meant to make you look intelligent and spark debate. Logic has no place in discussions of morality and decency. Something is right or wrong. Viewing child porn is wrong, period. Should we turn a blind eye to horrible shit because it disrupts soneone's concocted logical view of things?
Your label of victimless crimes does not apply here. You ask anyone (and get an honest answer) whether knowingly viewing child porn can be victimless. I have never told a lie and didn't know I was doing wrong. People have never knowingly pursued child porn and believed it was right. They may do it anyway, but they either know that it is wrong, or they are ceritfiable.
1) Web cache would show changes in the site over time. Easy money for defense.
2) You think there would be any proceedings without finding the site owner? They may seem to be a consumer, but you would be the provider. They would hunt you down sooner than him/her.
2) In order to even try it, you would have to get your hands on kiddie porn. In this case, you should be publically gutted, after ebing castrated first.
I'm sorry, but you're pulling at straws which don't exist.
In this example, apt will recignize the requirement and pull the required packages down and install them, warning you if doing so will break anything else. This question is moot though, becaue thie issue ebing discussed in this particular thread no longer pertains to the subject at hand, which is the update from woody to sarge.
The whole problem with this issue is that people are stupid, and don't read release notes. One could also say that the debian folks should perahps have fixed the installer to abort if apt had not been patched before system upgrade. They should ahve done this I think.
Your points are well taken, however, the days of monolithic OS releases in free software are long gone unless you want to use BSD. Even then though, in that famously controlled OS, ports can render the point moot. Monolithic systems have a specific use and purpose. For those who need this functionality, they are never going to use package management to begin with, they will roll their own, or simluate it through controlled and processed use of package management features, testing and standardized procedures.
Yup, I agree there. I just happen have the shittiness of HP/UX on the brain right now.
I just completed building a 9000 K class on 10.20, with all of the GNU tools, the HP ANSIC kit, the developer's toolkit, etc.
Try getting a bare metal HP/UX 10.20 box running with a somwhat current GNU development environment on it for c++, (userland) threaded apps. Sheer hell.
I have never installed this piece of software on any platform, but I can tell you some things about HP/UX:
Stock kernels, or kernels configured for a specific purpose are either vanilla and useless for most things (vanilla instlled kernel), or highly specialized (post configuration omptimized to suit a specific purpose or application).
Just about any enterprise level application that you install on HP/UX will require patches and kernel tweaks.
That's just the way it is, and one small of the many reasons that I find HP/UX a horrid system.
Your company's leadership lacks vision. They are poor leaders, they suck.
Your engineers don't want to do the crap work, and yet they bitch when it is outsourced. This whole thing leads to failed projects.
Your workplace is broken and toxic. I would not tolerate it. Get a job somewhere else.
Ultimately, blame the very top leaders in your company. It is their responsibility to take care of their company and they are failing. The engineers are playing a part as well by either tolerating it or contributing to the problem through covert or overt sabotage, refusal to drive for success, or apathy and bitching. Your workplace is broken.
Resolve to fix it, regardless of blame, or walk away.
Your workplace is in chaos. The strong will thrive on taming chaos and benefiting the company in the face of adversity. Often, they are rewarded, if their leaders are worth their salt. If not, as I said, move along and find a place where you can care about the company, rather than resent it.
Jack leighton has recently whored himself out to the liberals for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars worth of budget considerations.
Leighton's spending desires somehow allowed him to vote with the liberals and support the budget last night. Had leighton not whored himself and his party, in support of a clearly corrupt government, your statements may have carried weight.
After the events of last night and those leading up to it, can you still say that you can trust the federal NPD?
We know that leighton is a whore. His payment was in the form of 4.6 billion dollars towards his socialist goals. The cost to canadian taxpayers was much higher:
- 4.6 billion dollars towards socialist goals, paid by the taxpayers
- The whoring of the NPD party. Gomery inquiry evidence is damning. The NPD is willing to overlook the Liberal raping of public funds, so long as they get a cut to throw at their intrests
Recent actions by the Federal NPD party have been extremely disturbing to me. In one swoop, the NPD have sold themselves to a corrupt liberal party, for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars. They propped a corrupt administration, narrowly missing being topled by one vote. They did all of this with disregard for the canadian public, or the principles candians value.
The NPD are shameless whores.
Before you mod me as a troll, check your facts. Anyone interested in political drama should check out recent goings on in Canadian politics. Once you are informed, read my statements again and see whether you agree or not.
So you're saying that the exploit should be fixed, but is mostly not an issue because anyone who would really need to perceive this as a tangible threat would not be using comodity PCs and OSs for their encryption?
So this only solidifies your belief that PCs and comodity OSs (IE Linux, UNIX, Windows and the like) are entirely relegated to the realm of PGP type security, if you get my meaning.
I'll accept that. This being the case though, I would expect that from your perspective, your electronic security is only as good as the iron doors which protect physical access to any electornic device.
Within the scope of this story, this angle is a nice sidebar, but not very on topic. I don't disagree with your statements, I just wonder what relevence they have on this story other than to claim that the question is moot.
How can a magazine expect to be taken seriously by those they pretend to serve when they knowingly publish garbage like this? Easy, they count on jellyfish to suck it up like reality TV.
I may have read a Linuxworld once or twice I can't remember. But I now know that I cannot possibly consider the magazine a viable resource should I be looking for one at some point.
1) They knowlingly published the garbage and compromised their principles in the process IMO.
2) The withdrawl statement is swiss cheese. The magazine is ultimately responsible for what they publish. No apology, no regretful withdrawl. Pathetic.
3) How can a publication which is willing to whore itself with trash be looked upon as a valid resource? It can't.
I have to conclude then, that Linuxworld is a smteaming pile of shit.
...and yet strangely, Linus' customers don't need to worry about worms, viruses, adware, spyware and other crap.
Your backhanded falsehood follows what could have been a valid point. Unfortunately your point falls flat. Although Linux is not produced from an ivory tower with "customers" in a commercial sense (not directly anyways), somehow the users of Linux are better served from a security standpoint.
Also, your little jab uses irrelevent currency. You term customers as people who pay in cash. Cash is not the only currency, and payment doesn't require remuneration. Yes, Linus doesn't need to worry about customers, but he does anyways, as does everyone who contributes to free software.
A very fundamental flaw with windows is that it was never designed as a multi-user system, and so has little to no priviledge separation in the practical sense.
The patch from the article would probably bode well for further FMEA tests for Windows XP, however, it also clearly demonstrates that Microsoft cannot fix the problem. Microsoft must instead take measures to lessen the blow when the inevitable happens. Inevitable due to fundamental design errors.
Come on. I don't use BK, never have, but you can't fault the software for doing what it is configured to do.
If I deploy a BK or CVS, or any other types of repository and allow anonymous writes, which is what's required to "trash the repository", then I deserve what I get. The failure then would be completely mine.
If I lock it down, and the repository can be trashed via anonymous telnet, then there's a very big problem. In any case, your post is both flamebait and off-topic, since it really has no basis in reality in the context of this or other related stories.
I'll agree the idea that a known stable base, coupled with skilled "roll your own" know-how makes for excellent servers. I will strongly disagree that Debian is the only way to go, however.
I have never seen any distribution that I could not make do exactly as I wanted. There are some that are better placed for the purists like you and I, agreed. Debian is not the only answer, sorry. Slackware for instance is easily as stable, and has a release cycle which includes timely jumps to newer technology.
I'm not here to tout Slackware over Debian, only to say that for the purists, Debian is not the only choice, and any purist could tell you so.
Bah I guess I may have misread. Oh well. In any case, what would individual distributions gain from switching?
I know ports works well, but I'm less convinced about portage. Last time I looked it was a bit of a mess in that there were far too many hands in the pot. Ports works so well bcause it is so tightly controlled. I don't believe portage is.
I also find that this type of package management or build management dictates development methodology.
Moving to this would be like starting from scratch, especially for those distributions that are based on another (like say Mandrake and similar).
I guess I just wonder what the gain would be from going this way for a Linux distribution. How do source packages differ?
First let me say that I love BSD ports. I think it works though because of the central management of the system layout, and distribution. I can't see several companies wanting to adhere to the requirements in order for this to work for Linux.
The Linux Standard Base was started YEARS ago as a bunch of stakeholders trying to define a standard layout of a base system, in order to give application developers (read commercial companies) a way of creating one package that would install on all distributions. It's a politically charged thing as you can imagine. To this date, it isn't complete, and I don't think anyone has it on the front burner.
Ports works with BSD because there is one distribution, centrally controlled. I can't even imagine the complexity of maintaining makefiles for every package, for every Linux distribution centrally. total nightmare I think.
Both of these things describe a specification for package file format. The file format specification determines the logistic layout and conventions used in the format of a package file, like header structure, byte boundaries, supported data types for given structure data, etc. The package format is purely data structuring, and actually has very little to do with packages.
It is important for people to understand that a file format specification has no tangible effect on user experience. A lot of people are confusing tools with formats.
Maybe it was a mistake for Redhat to call both their file format specification AND their userland tool RPM. RPM has never been a good user land tool insofar as features go. Apt if a great tool, as is yum, as are others I'm sure I have not used. Please realize, Apt, yum, rpm, all of them have nothing in common with the file format specifications, ecept that they follow specification when dealing with a file format as defined by the rpm, deb, or some other format specification.
So you love Apt or yum. Great. Apt does not mean.deb. Apt can still do its normal great things using rpm formatted packages, so clearly the greatness comes from the tool, not the package specification.
Personally, I have done a lot of (work)low level work with RPM packages. The specification is a good one, and well thought out. The documentation is horrible in my opinion, but the format is sound. Sound enough for the LSB.
To answer your question, RPM package distributions will never change to deb. There is no reason to, and doing so would mean a break from the rediculously late and political LSB.
If you mean when will RPM distributions start shipping with Apt, I don't know. You can use apt-for-rpm now in exactly the same way you would with deb files.
All of the points lead to installer issues, not uninstaller bugs. It seems to me that the uninstall problems are symptomatic of installer deficiencies.
The uninstall program did exactly as it should, which is to remove the installation. The problem would not manifest itself if the installer had not been less than intuitive in the first place.
So while there is (was) an issue, people were barking up the wrong tree it seems to me. It looks like a communication disconnect.
Absolutely, users should be protected from themselves. On a personal level, I think it takes a special kind of numbskull to custom install to a bad place, then subsequently agree to removing the installation folder and all its contents.
Was it a problem? Yes. I think the whole thing was pretty funny in a sick way.
I have to agree here. I've managed dev environments for many flavours of unix like OSs for years.
One thing that is viewed as a pain in the ass about Solaris is that you need to implement what you want from a seemingly sparse base system.
One of the strengths of solaris is that if you want/need to implement your own environment from scratch, and dictate the system through your own requirements, you can do so. In fact you are expected to do so.
Glass half empty/full. It depends on your perspective. The ultra gransparent would have benefitted from the advice of a proper solaris admin.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as a jab that is both smug and objective.
Please, explain to us how a climate scientist can not share the chicken little view while continuing to be a climate scientist.
Fear is a powerful tool. It can be used to have people shape pupolar opinion in the intended way. Just ask your climate scientist friends, their salary and grants are possible because of public fear.
Someone somewhere is paid by a lobby to put togehter video which is designed to strike fear into the viewer.
"Something must be done!"
Fear = money.
All things considered and put aside for a moment, it could be said that one act of terror against the US has cuased it to surrender, at least in the eyes of the terrorists. Their goals are now achieved are they not?
Considering the relative power of the US its famously patriotic populace, this seems like an unusually easy win for the evil. The question is, considering once again the considerations I asked we we put aside, what and who is the greater evil? The overt evil? Or is it the evil that would use the tragic deaths of patriots to achieve a personal end.
One very important point is that Micsosoft patches bundle several fixes into one "issue" quite often. Also, Windows vulnerabilities are kept hush hush in mny cases until a fix is already made. By the time a patch comes out for Windows, the damage is usually done and rectified by 3rd party removal tools.
The ~25% unpatched monthly stat is horrific.
There is no such thing as victimless viewing of child pornography.
Anyone who takes pleasure in looking at children in this way needs to be locked up if not castrated, then locked up. It's not only a crime because someone has paid for the stuff and contributes to "demand", or personally is responsible for creation of the content and therefore the destroying of a child. It's a crime because anyone who knowingly partakes in this sick shit, whether paying or not, is a menace to society.
Your last statement is meant to make you look intelligent and spark debate. Logic has no place in discussions of morality and decency. Something is right or wrong. Viewing child porn is wrong, period. Should we turn a blind eye to horrible shit because it disrupts soneone's concocted logical view of things?
Your label of victimless crimes does not apply here. You ask anyone (and get an honest answer) whether knowingly viewing child porn can be victimless. I have never told a lie and didn't know I was doing wrong. People have never knowingly pursued child porn and believed it was right. They may do it anyway, but they either know that it is wrong, or they are ceritfiable.
1) Web cache would show changes in the site over time. Easy money for defense.
2) You think there would be any proceedings without finding the site owner? They may seem to be a consumer, but you would be the provider. They would hunt you down sooner than him/her.
2) In order to even try it, you would have to get your hands on kiddie porn. In this case, you should be publically gutted, after ebing castrated first.
Fun to read, but a weak strategy.
I'm sorry, but you're pulling at straws which don't exist.
In this example, apt will recignize the requirement and pull the required packages down and install them, warning you if doing so will break anything else. This question is moot though, becaue thie issue ebing discussed in this particular thread no longer pertains to the subject at hand, which is the update from woody to sarge.
The whole problem with this issue is that people are stupid, and don't read release notes. One could also say that the debian folks should perahps have fixed the installer to abort if apt had not been patched before system upgrade. They should ahve done this I think.
Your points are well taken, however, the days of monolithic OS releases in free software are long gone unless you want to use BSD. Even then though, in that famously controlled OS, ports can render the point moot. Monolithic systems have a specific use and purpose. For those who need this functionality, they are never going to use package management to begin with, they will roll their own, or simluate it through controlled and processed use of package management features, testing and standardized procedures.
Yup, I agree there. I just happen have the shittiness of HP/UX on the brain right now.
I just completed building a 9000 K class on 10.20, with all of the GNU tools, the HP ANSIC kit, the developer's toolkit, etc.
Try getting a bare metal HP/UX 10.20 box running with a somwhat current GNU development environment on it for c++, (userland) threaded apps. Sheer hell.
Speaking to the installation portion of it...
I have never installed this piece of software on any platform, but I can tell you some things about HP/UX:
Stock kernels, or kernels configured for a specific purpose are either vanilla and useless for most things (vanilla instlled kernel), or highly specialized (post configuration omptimized to suit a specific purpose or application).
Just about any enterprise level application that you install on HP/UX will require patches and kernel tweaks.
That's just the way it is, and one small of the many reasons that I find HP/UX a horrid system.
Your company's leadership lacks vision. They are poor leaders, they suck.
Your engineers don't want to do the crap work, and yet they bitch when it is outsourced. This whole thing leads to failed projects.
Your workplace is broken and toxic. I would not tolerate it. Get a job somewhere else.
Ultimately, blame the very top leaders in your company. It is their responsibility to take care of their company and they are failing. The engineers are playing a part as well by either tolerating it or contributing to the problem through covert or overt sabotage, refusal to drive for success, or apathy and bitching. Your workplace is broken.
Resolve to fix it, regardless of blame, or walk away.
Your workplace is in chaos. The strong will thrive on taming chaos and benefiting the company in the face of adversity. Often, they are rewarded, if their leaders are worth their salt. If not, as I said, move along and find a place where you can care about the company, rather than resent it.
They are out there, go find one.
You're joking, right? Go read up on the Gomery Inquiry which is currently underway.
Jack leighton has recently whored himself out to the liberals for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars worth of budget considerations.
Leighton's spending desires somehow allowed him to vote with the liberals and support the budget last night. Had leighton not whored himself and his party, in support of a clearly corrupt government, your statements may have carried weight.
After the events of last night and those leading up to it, can you still say that you can trust the federal NPD?
We know that leighton is a whore. His payment was in the form of 4.6 billion dollars towards his socialist goals. The cost to canadian taxpayers was much higher:
- 4.6 billion dollars towards socialist goals, paid by the taxpayers
- The whoring of the NPD party. Gomery inquiry evidence is damning. The NPD is willing to overlook the Liberal raping of public funds, so long as they get a cut to throw at their intrests
Recent actions by the Federal NPD party have been extremely disturbing to me. In one swoop, the NPD have sold themselves to a corrupt liberal party, for the sum of 4.6 billion dollars. They propped a corrupt administration, narrowly missing being topled by one vote. They did all of this with disregard for the canadian public, or the principles candians value.
The NPD are shameless whores.
Before you mod me as a troll, check your facts. Anyone interested in political drama should check out recent goings on in Canadian politics. Once you are informed, read my statements again and see whether you agree or not.
So you're saying that the exploit should be fixed, but is mostly not an issue because anyone who would really need to perceive this as a tangible threat would not be using comodity PCs and OSs for their encryption?
So this only solidifies your belief that PCs and comodity OSs (IE Linux, UNIX, Windows and the like) are entirely relegated to the realm of PGP type security, if you get my meaning.
I'll accept that. This being the case though, I would expect that from your perspective, your electronic security is only as good as the iron doors which protect physical access to any electornic device.
Within the scope of this story, this angle is a nice sidebar, but not very on topic. I don't disagree with your statements, I just wonder what relevence they have on this story other than to claim that the question is moot.
How can a magazine expect to be taken seriously by those they pretend to serve when they knowingly publish garbage like this? Easy, they count on jellyfish to suck it up like reality TV.
I may have read a Linuxworld once or twice I can't remember. But I now know that I cannot possibly consider the magazine a viable resource should I be looking for one at some point.
1) They knowlingly published the garbage and compromised their principles in the process IMO.
2) The withdrawl statement is swiss cheese. The magazine is ultimately responsible for what they publish. No apology, no regretful withdrawl. Pathetic.
3) How can a publication which is willing to whore itself with trash be looked upon as a valid resource? It can't.
I have to conclude then, that Linuxworld is a smteaming pile of shit.
...and yet strangely, Linus' customers don't need to worry about worms, viruses, adware, spyware and other crap.
Your backhanded falsehood follows what could have been a valid point. Unfortunately your point falls flat. Although Linux is not produced from an ivory tower with "customers" in a commercial sense (not directly anyways), somehow the users of Linux are better served from a security standpoint.
Also, your little jab uses irrelevent currency. You term customers as people who pay in cash. Cash is not the only currency, and payment doesn't require remuneration. Yes, Linus doesn't need to worry about customers, but he does anyways, as does everyone who contributes to free software.
A very fundamental flaw with windows is that it was never designed as a multi-user system, and so has little to no priviledge separation in the practical sense.
The patch from the article would probably bode well for further FMEA tests for Windows XP, however, it also clearly demonstrates that Microsoft cannot fix the problem. Microsoft must instead take measures to lessen the blow when the inevitable happens. Inevitable due to fundamental design errors.
Come on. I don't use BK, never have, but you can't fault the software for doing what it is configured to do.
If I deploy a BK or CVS, or any other types of repository and allow anonymous writes, which is what's required to "trash the repository", then I deserve what I get. The failure then would be completely mine.
If I lock it down, and the repository can be trashed via anonymous telnet, then there's a very big problem. In any case, your post is both flamebait and off-topic, since it really has no basis in reality in the context of this or other related stories.
You bastard! There went 3 hours after discovering CB. :)
I'll agree the idea that a known stable base, coupled with skilled "roll your own" know-how makes for excellent servers. I will strongly disagree that Debian is the only way to go, however.
I have never seen any distribution that I could not make do exactly as I wanted. There are some that are better placed for the purists like you and I, agreed. Debian is not the only answer, sorry. Slackware for instance is easily as stable, and has a release cycle which includes timely jumps to newer technology.
I'm not here to tout Slackware over Debian, only to say that for the purists, Debian is not the only choice, and any purist could tell you so.
Bah I guess I may have misread. Oh well. In any case, what would individual distributions gain from switching?
I know ports works well, but I'm less convinced about portage. Last time I looked it was a bit of a mess in that there were far too many hands in the pot. Ports works so well bcause it is so tightly controlled. I don't believe portage is.
I also find that this type of package management or build management dictates development methodology.
Moving to this would be like starting from scratch, especially for those distributions that are based on another (like say Mandrake and similar).
I guess I just wonder what the gain would be from going this way for a Linux distribution. How do source packages differ?
First let me say that I love BSD ports. I think it works though because of the central management of the system layout, and distribution. I can't see several companies wanting to adhere to the requirements in order for this to work for Linux.
The Linux Standard Base was started YEARS ago as a bunch of stakeholders trying to define a standard layout of a base system, in order to give application developers (read commercial companies) a way of creating one package that would install on all distributions. It's a politically charged thing as you can imagine. To this date, it isn't complete, and I don't think anyone has it on the front burner.
Ports works with BSD because there is one distribution, centrally controlled. I can't even imagine the complexity of maintaining makefiles for every package, for every Linux distribution centrally. total nightmare I think.
*.rpm or *.deb.
.deb. Apt can still do its normal great things using rpm formatted packages, so clearly the greatness comes from the tool, not the package specification.
Both of these things describe a specification for package file format. The file format specification determines the logistic layout and conventions used in the format of a package file, like header structure, byte boundaries, supported data types for given structure data, etc. The package format is purely data structuring, and actually has very little to do with packages.
It is important for people to understand that a file format specification has no tangible effect on user experience. A lot of people are confusing tools with formats.
Maybe it was a mistake for Redhat to call both their file format specification AND their userland tool RPM. RPM has never been a good user land tool insofar as features go. Apt if a great tool, as is yum, as are others I'm sure I have not used. Please realize, Apt, yum, rpm, all of them have nothing in common with the file format specifications, ecept that they follow specification when dealing with a file format as defined by the rpm, deb, or some other format specification.
So you love Apt or yum. Great. Apt does not mean
Personally, I have done a lot of (work)low level work with RPM packages. The specification is a good one, and well thought out. The documentation is horrible in my opinion, but the format is sound. Sound enough for the LSB.
To answer your question, RPM package distributions will never change to deb. There is no reason to, and doing so would mean a break from the rediculously late and political LSB.
If you mean when will RPM distributions start shipping with Apt, I don't know. You can use apt-for-rpm now in exactly the same way you would with deb files.
All of the points lead to installer issues, not uninstaller bugs. It seems to me that the uninstall problems are symptomatic of installer deficiencies.
The uninstall program did exactly as it should, which is to remove the installation. The problem would not manifest itself if the installer had not been less than intuitive in the first place.
So while there is (was) an issue, people were barking up the wrong tree it seems to me. It looks like a communication disconnect.
Absolutely, users should be protected from themselves. On a personal level, I think it takes a special kind of numbskull to custom install to a bad place, then subsequently agree to removing the installation folder and all its contents.
Was it a problem? Yes. I think the whole thing was pretty funny in a sick way.
Maybe the responder doesn't use IE? Actually, they mentioned that they don't use IE, and wouldn't for the sake of seeing a country displayed.
From the looks of it, they don't use windows. Hello?
Exactly. No thanks.
I have to agree here. I've managed dev environments for many flavours of unix like OSs for years.
One thing that is viewed as a pain in the ass about Solaris is that you need to implement what you want from a seemingly sparse base system.
One of the strengths of solaris is that if you want/need to implement your own environment from scratch, and dictate the system through your own requirements, you can do so. In fact you are expected to do so.
Glass half empty/full. It depends on your perspective. The ultra gransparent would have benefitted from the advice of a proper solaris admin.