But remember that radiation has a tendancy to mutate things, and that humans are not the only thing that can mutate. So can birds, frogs, and airborne bacteria.
Not all radiation is the same. Unlike radiation from nuclear reactions, RF radiation is not annodizing radiation.
If you put a frog in a microwave, you're less likely to get a mutant frog than French cuisinne.
RF basically just bakes things; not much different than getting burned. The nasty thing is that, unlike a good 'ol fire-induced burn, RF heats tissue up from the inside out. So if you're subjected to a high degree of RF radiation, you're likely to be damaged by it before you begin to notice warnings. The amount of damage is deturmined by the power of the RF source, the distance from that source, and how long it took you to notice you're being radiated (length of time exposed to the source).
Re:"Microsoft hit by Cult of the Dead Cow"
on
BO2K cracked
·
· Score: 3
"True to the hacker's word, anyone curious enough to log into the cult's website will find his or her computer automatically infected with a virus."
How true is this?
Completely true. Only, it's an old virus called "Good Times". Tell all your friends.;)
I think to outlaw and censor it violates some of the principles we feel strongly about. Just about a week ago we were having a debate about pornography in libraries (the Liz Dole thing, remember?), and the overwhelming majority here on/. seemed to be against any kind of government censorship intrusion.
The issue is not content, it's control.
There's a pretty good distinction between the "Liz Dole thing" and spam. It's a matter of interactive vs. passive technologies.
Most internet technologies are interactive. You specifically request data. If you don't want additional data, you stop it. The simple availablility of some content seems to really upset some folks. But, in keeping with the "Liz Dole" theme, just launching a 'web browser is not going to cause playboy.com to pop up on your screen; it takes the user's commands to do that.
There's also the issue that filtering technologies tend to also filter subjects such as women's health and gay lifestyle issues, which may or may not have more cultural significance than "Hot Lusty Teen Babes 4 U!!!!" But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Email is mostly passive. A user does not do anything specifically to receive data - it is sent to them by the actions of another. Granted, a user can attempt to assert some control over the process by using filters, limiting the distribution of their email address, etc... but the nature of the technology still remains.
I don't believe the issue itself is commercial content on the 'net. Instead, its a matter of who controls where or when that content is distributed.
Let's look at some personal examples...
I have a hobby. The hobby has a growning industry that has really began to understand the commercial prospects of the Internet.
There are a few possitive ways for this industry to take advantage of these possiblities.
I go to an information web site about that hobby. The site has banner adds. I don't mind that at all, since those advertising revenues helps pay for the upkeep of that site (if I don't like it, I can complain to the site's owner and ultimately stop visiting the site).
Meanwhile, I'll go to commercial sites for businesses having to do with that hobby. This is fine also, since I'm curious about whatever that business is selling. The second I decide that I've seen enough, I can stop the entire process.
I get regular commercial email from one of the local hobby businesses in my area. I don't mind that either, since I signed up for it at the business' site. This email is not unsolicited - I asked for it. And I am confident that it would stop as soon as I requested.
The way that a buisness would upset me would be to force their advertisements on me unwanted. Even though I'm interested in the hobby, I don't want email from the company unless I've asked for it. And ultimately, that would also apply to public discussion forumns like usenet (if a newsgroup is chartered for that hobby's commercial posts, that is another matter - once again, I can either subscribe to or ignore the group).
In each positive example, I have control over the decission to receive that data or not. When that control is taken from me, I get upset.
Let's take a step back into history. The place is Clear Lake City, for the most part a satelite community of Houston, Texas... host for the NASA community of Johnson Space Center. Home of Mission Control and many of the NASA Astronauts.
During the early 80's that community was a tight family. There was excitement and pride. The piggybacked shuttle would do a victory lap around Clear Lake on its treck back from Edwards AFB to Kenedy Space Center. All the local schools would have televisions in classrooms and common areas so that students from that NASA community could watch that month's launch. Everything was becoming routine.
Students watched the Challenger launch from hallways and classrooms at Clear Lake Highschool. There was a sudden explosion. The entire school went deadly quiet. A few seconds passed. The shocked silence was broken by the wails of students who realized they had just watched their parents die on national television.
The torment was just beginning.
Clear Lake was beseiged by reporters. The local police force was mobilized to try and provide some privacy to horrified family members of the astronauts who had just died. But the reporters were tenacious; they were caught climbing into windows and even taking pictures into bathrooms. Clear Lake Highschool was forced to close for a week because of the disruptions caused by the press. And when it did re-open, the children of the slain astronauts fled there; the press didn't allow them the privacy to greive at home.
The press learned that NASA had copies of supposed transmissions from the shuttle during the incident. NASA had found the wreckage of the crew compartment. There were also body parts found by the disaster recovery crew. But the recordings, the wreckage, and the associated carnage were closed off to the media. The media howled. They would have their sound bites and shocking pictures! But NASA insisted on the dignity of the deceased and weathered all complaints. The press were denied.
How dare you call this a case of government coverup! This was a case of people trying to preserve the dignity of their friends, family, and the familys of those people who died.
You want something to get upset about? There's plenty of real issues involved with the Challenger incident.
Go after the media hounds who's appetite for sound bites drove them to invade grieving family members' privacy. Criticize inaccurate reporting as media organizations fumbled facts in an attempt to scoop competitors.
Criticize the American public's shock when they realized space travel, at least with current technology, is anything but a safe, routine function.
But mostly... go after the administration of NASA. Be critical of the leadership that very possibly squandered the entire future of a program that strove towards mankind's next great exploration endeavor.
Dig into why warnings were ignored. How politics played a more important role than technical considerations. And look very hard at the internal "machine" that was generated to keep this status quo functional.
Finally, and most importantly, ask... does that machine still exist today?
The deceased don't have the answers to these questions. Raising their spector does not serve the interest of truth.
...quality and the "music Industry" have nothing to do with each other. Quality comes from the soul. If they have it, that means someone sold it to them.
I assume your definition of "quality" is the type of music - how good it is. Which is true. In the era of corporate music agendas, "quality" music is quickly sacraficed for the sure sell. What's new and successfull today becomes tommorow's cookie cutter mold for the next X bands.
Of course... I wasn't thinking of that definition of quality. I'm thinking quality in production.
MP3 discussions always lead to two issues: price and piracy.
"Protect our intellectual property!", screams the recording industry.
"Stop ripping us of with overpriced recordings!", replies the Annoyed Consumer.
The interesting thing is... it can actually happen this way. I've seen it. Granted... not in the US. The law does not allow for it.
I spent some time in Saudi Arabia a few years back. There's nothing like a shoping trip at the local Saudi mall and/or shopping district to give you an "Old World Bizzare" kind of feel. One of the interesting things was that the Saudis (at least at that time - this is changing as I understand it) did not recognize International copyrights. As you can imagine, this lead to stores who's main traffic were copied software and music tapes.
The tapes were cheap. They came in all genres of music. And they often included "extra tracks" of that artist's music, or perhapse a simular artist. The recording quality was OK, but the tape itself and its packaging were inexpesively done.
While these "pirate" stores were common, the amazing thing was to see stores selling "legitimate" recordings too (sometimes at the same store). The label-produced recordings were more expensive, but I noted that they weren't MUCH more expensive. And the big selling point? Quality. The legitimate tapes were better quality in both recording as well as materials.
Quality production and a competative price allowed intellectual property holders to sell their wares even in a marketplace that allowed copies of those same products to be sold cheaper.
Now... this isn't to say that intelectual property laws are wrong. I'm certainly not advocating dropping these laws and spawning a "legitimate" piracy industry. Instead, I think the interesting thing to note was that legitimate products CAN sell against cheap knock-offs IF the legitimate version offers additional value.
In our case, a cheaper CD may remove the economical insentive to overlook convenience, quality, and legality lacking in pirated music. It's worked elsewhere.
Monorail (founded by former Compaq execs) tried this approach in 1997. They were basically all-in-one compact systems with a flat screen very similar to the Gateway and other ultra-slim systems coming out today (you can see pictures of the first Monorail systems in old articles from Family PC and Fast Company).
The intent of these systems were to be cheap and user friendly; perhaps the first commercially available computer "appliance"? They were portable, very easy to set up, and completely non-user serviceable. The idea was to send the entire unit back to Monorail (or an authorized service center, I'm sure) for upgrades / maintenance. The other selling point to these were that they were cheap. They sold for just under $1,000 (US).
That $1,000 price tag is the main stumbling point. These things came out before the huge sub-1,000 dollar craze. But although they hit the market first, they were quickly inundated by "white box" competitors all selling cheap PCs. And these computers were standard systems. There was no "sealed box" mentality, proprietary hardware, or strange "Is this really a computer?" look. Also, Monorail's LCD screen was fairly horrid. Their product just didn't compete.
Of course, there's other aspects to this story. Monorail apparently had issues with production and marketing that also caused them to take hits in the industry. At the least, they were able to salvage relationships with major outlets like CompUSA.
If you head to a local CompUSA or look at their web site, you'll see Monorail is still in business. Their current products? "White box" PCs like everyone else. Hmmmm.
Before I get going on this, I'd like to begin by stating "I am not a lawyer." My observations are based on application of "common sense" to the documentation included. However, if common sense was infallible when applied to law, the Law profession would be much less lucrative!
With that being said...
Commercial use of SSH generally requires a license. But there are non-commercial allowances in both SSH1 and SSH2. The trouble is what the definition of "non-commercial" includes. SSH2 is very restrictive and pretty much discounts any use of the suite near anything "commercial" in any manner. SSH1 allows for greater leeway:
The file named COPYING that is included in the distribution reads:
Companies are permitted to use this program as long as it is not used for revenue-generating purposes. For example, an Internet service provider is allowed to install this program on their systems and permit clients to use SSH to connect; however, actively distributing SSH to clients for the purpose of providing added value requires separate licensing. Similarly, a consultant may freely install this software on a client's machine for his own use, but if he/she sells the client a system that uses SSH as a component, a separate license is required. If a company includes this program or a derivative work thereof, as part of its product, commercial licensing is required.
The interpretation I get from this is that a Commercial enterprise may use SSH1 as long as it is not a part of a specific service. Administration of local servers is OK. Services that include "Remote secure backups of your systems for pennies a day!" or "Checking accounts now come with secure online banking!" that includes SSH1 as its method of secure communications do not fit in the "non-commercial" license.
Once again, it would be wise to point out that it seems the folks selling SSH later decided against this kind of policy. SSH2's license is much more restrictive and reserves "non-commercial" licensing to personal use and educational use as part of academic research and/or teaching (note: educational institutions don't get to use it for administration).
But you're not out of the legal woods yet. SSH1 uses a whole slew of libraries and intellectual property that adds additional layers of license concerns. Thankfully, most of them are cleared by allowances for use of those properties in SSH1.
Two big concerns that aren't covered include IDEA and RSA. IDEA is easy to get around by not including it in your compile (opting for Blowfish instead). RSA is a tougher issue. You'll have to look at it yourself if you're still trying to figure it out (I luck out with a license granted to the US Government for RSA since a partial Gov't grant helped develop it at MIT).
Check out this link. It talks about the entire "Rootshell Incident", including the IBM team's "findings" and later retraction.
Basically, there was never a verifiable problem with SSH 1.2.26 (the version available when this whole incident took place). The IBM team that suggested a possible exploit (the same warning Rootshell latched on to in attempts to explain their compromise) ended up retracting their claim. However, panic and some politics have made this whole issue unclear.
1.2.27 took care of a hard-to-duplicate issue involving Kerberos support. And, as of right now, I'm not aware of any exploits at all against 1.2.27 (current version in the SSH1 tree).
I'd be glad to hear of any new developments I've missed out on.:)
I totally see you point, but we have to look at the big picture. That is, ordinary people can download this thing and use it for whatever purpose they wish, whether it be a network admin testing out security, or a person using it maliciously to take advantage of a network without security against it.
I'm a sysadmin for a large Us Gov't agency. As such, my machines are a prime target for external attacks. So I can understand the concern for creating tools that "ordinary people" (ie: script kiddies) can use without any real technical knowlege. Keeping up with this kind of stuff can certainly add to my already overloaded schedule. But to be honest, the kind of threat this creates is not my biggest fear.
My biggest fear is the unpublished exploit. Published security holes get fixed. History has shown a tendancy with Vendors to ignore security issues until they become politically embarassing. This leads to vulnerabilities in my system(s) that I am unaware of and, consequently, can be exploited without my knowlege.
Lets not kid ourselves here... people with malicious intent WILL share their knowlege with others of the same inclination. At the same time, they're less likely to take steps towards patching the hole they are taking advantage of.
By bringing security issues to the public eye, people like the cDc are helping ensure the security of our environments improve. It may be additional work to keep up with these improvements. However, I don't know about your environment, buy mine demands a hell of a lot of hassle whenever one of our machines is compromised.
Has anyone ever heard of a major user or someone in a business setting abandoning Windows mainly over security/virus fears?
Yes. The US Army. In a FCW article (that was referenced by a slashdot article), they talk about how the US Army picked Solaris with Lotus Notes for secure communications over WinNT and Exchange due to security concerns with the OS.
The contract was for the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) which apparently deals with secure communications in the battlefield. I'm sure it was a hefty contract. But there's more to it.
An interesting sidenote to all this (and the REAL meat of the article) is that Microsoft is scrambling to make a Unix Exchange client to support the Defense Department's secure Defense Message System (DMS) program. The fear is that if the US Army starts to go this direction with messaging on Unix, they're just as likely to scrap Exchange servers back at home to make everything cross compatible.
OK. I already know the responce this kind of article is going to get here. I'm more user than coder and even I picked out numerous oddities in the piece. Others have (and will continue) to point these out. But I think that we might miss something else here. Something bigger than individual points.
Bookmark this article under "OSS Advocacy". Also take a look at his article on debugging. This is a in-the-trenches Microsoft coder; the poster child for propriatary commercial software development. He offers a first hand account of how the whole system works. It is (unwitting, I'm sure) proof of the issues OSS claims to combat.
In these articles, the author (Andrew Shuman) documents various development issues. These include marketing driving development, a "demand" for new features vs. efficiency to run on less-than-cutting-edge hardware (note that features apparently wins out), backward compatability, the complexity of bug hunting... just to name a few. The OSS mantra promises to solve these issues.
I'm not entirely sure if this article was meant to be satire. The tone seems to shift rather suddenly and I begin to get the idea that the author begins to seriously pleed his case. Either way, there's value to be found in it. And it doesn't neccessarily involve a good, fuzzy feeling about "bloat".
Hmmm. I re-read the "official explanation". You're right - "usefull" might be a bit optimistic.:)
I suppose the idea is to get the general readership/community in on the task. He all can't be technical Hemmingways... but that doesn't mean we can't be a part of the community voice.
we should control slashdot not a bunch of two bit morons on an ego trip.
Normally I hate to feed this kinda thing. But the irony is too fun to not point out.
According to what I've read before... moderators ARE "us". As users post messages that are recognized as being usefull, they gain moderator status. They then blow their moderator points on whatever they see fit and fall back into the nameless masses that are the unpriviliged users. They then have a chance to be called to service again as their posts receive attention.
It's mindless bashing and thrashing that causes the necessity of moderators to begin with. Too bad we need them here.
Yea. I think you are missing something. Where was the money for the paid coders coming from?
I'm pretty sure Netscape wouldn't have been too keen if their paid support all threw up their hands and said "Hey! We're going to jump ship and start up a completely new progect under that GPL license you guys decided not to go with.... but still collect a paycheck, OK?":)
I'm kind of hoping/. will publish any "debunking" of this latest round of benchmarks. By the nature of the beast, I'm expecting this to show up in the Microsoft Zealot camp (where do MS Zealots hang out, anyway?).
Having said that, I don't necissarily expect it. While this article does put Linux in a considerably more positive light than the Mindcraft report... its not all gushing praise. It points out some shortcomings where NT proved to be a better platform. It was just as quick to praise Linux. Finally, they included some explanations as to why they selected the tests that they did. The intent seemed to be a more accurate "real world" test environment.
The final product seems to be a fair, rounded comparison of the two OS' (and their comparitive Web server of choice) performance. I'll leave the Zealots (from either house) to point out the devious details a layman like myself missed.
One has to wonder if this is racially motivated or just greed... Could be either, there is plenty of both for all.
Yep. Back in the AOL board room, a lacky breaks in clutching a hardcopy and announcing breathlessly "Look! 'aolsearch.com' has already been registered!" The AOL directors grumble in disapproval. One speaks out...
"Well... what does it stand for?"
"African-America OnLine Search", replies the lacky.
"Oh. Well, well. That will never do. If it stood for something like Alutian Ostrich Loom Search, I could understand. But that... oh no..."
There is a rumbling noise of aggreement from the collective body of the AOL 'Man' and their racially-motivated, big corporate power-pushing plan is put into action...
Of course it's greed!
AOL users. Far be it for me to paint with too broad a brush here... but those who manage to achieve greater complexity than a single mouse button are still game for AOL marketing. Words like "yahoo" (much less "google") are just too mind-blowing. "aolsearch" is going to be a hot commodity. Of course AOL wants it and doesn't give a damn who else had it before hand (after all, AOL is the Internet).
Publish anything on the 'net and you're bound to attract a Netkook of one type or another. Publish something that's based on opinion or controversal subjects and you're bound to attact more.
Mindcraft, of course, did this in spades. They published something highly controversal about a subject know to be turf for more than a few kooks.
Is it surpising that they got flames and abuse? No. Is it likely that they only got a few? No. Is it likely this latest bit is a favored selection of the worse? Yes. Does it excuse the behavior of those who did it? No in the slightest.
Mindcraft has helped us. They've pointed out weeknesses. If we choose, we can find technical goals in their "tests" and critisisms. We can silence their most outlandish claims with facts and make what facts they've uncovered moot points by fixing what is wrong.
Now Mindcraft helps us in another way. They held up a mirror to the very ugly images (and given them names!) that we as a community tend to show to outsiders.
It offers us a chance to think about our actions and reflect on how we appear socially (call it "product politics"). Are we helping our cause, or are we giving the MS Marketing department/FUD squad all the material they need? Nice of us to make it easy for them.
Why try to hide what the linux/OS community really is?
It's not a matter of hiding who we are. OSS is not just about "it's not Microsoft". But that seems to be the message getting out there. We should be avoiding that.
If it takes breaking ourselves of an apparently unhealthy obsession... so be it.
So you got a mail bomb (a tiny one at that) and a few flaming emails.
...and the mail bomb(s) and flames proved what point, exactly?
The author, upon being on the receiving end of pure harrassment suddenly went "Oh! I get it! I wrote an article full of errors!" Devine intervention via email. Suddenly the truth sprung from nothingness... he then went out to preach the Goodness that is OSS.
Not for a second did the author say to himself "man... I say something these jerks don't want to hear and they go ballistic. Their cause must be on shaky ground if they behave this desperately."
1) I honestly don't mean to advocate people being abusive with each other. We should be respectful to each other -- period. But not because it'll make people like Linux. Civility seems to be lacking from our society these days. We could do with a good deal more of it.
However, being civil doesn't have anything to do with "making" people like Linux. The way to do that is to present people with facts. There is a good chance those facts will bring them around. If not, then at least they've made an informed decission. But at the same time, it doesn't matter how many facts you have if you deliver your argument while beating the person over the head with a club. The finer points will be missed. All the person will think of is "Hey... this jerk is hitting me over the head". The facts will be lost on them. That is why one should refrain from base harrassment to "support" Linux.
2) If the abusive email came from Linus, ESR, and RHS then it perhaps would reflect on the OS community. It didn't however and it won't.
You're sitting on a park bench when up walks a Lucranian tourist (fake nationality... I hope). The Lucranian begins to whizz on the bench you're currently occupying and when you voice protest, he spits at you. That wasn't the Lucranian President or any other kind of official. But you now have a rather negative view of Lucranians.
Linus, ESR, and RMS do not a community make. The OSS community consists of them... other coders... advocates... users... everyone who wants to identify themselves with OSS. When one of us behaves is a certain manner (especially negatively) it reflects on our community.
3) Bill Gates doesn't have a stellar reputation but Microsoft is widely accepted by the mainstream.
Bill Gates doesn't have a good reputation? You've been hanging out in the wrong circles. Bill has donated some rather large chunks of cash towards charrity. MS has also put a nice chunk of funding towards research progects that don't nessecarily fall under the MS umbrella. Bill Gates is seen amoung buisness circles as a pretty astounding success. Microsoft is a business role model.
Sure, techheads generally don't like Bill and MS. But then... Bill doesn't have to be liked to get business.
He's got a whole slew of folks who are used to being professionally pleasant. They're hand picked and trained to listen to business and provide them with solutions.... and even more importantly, a warm fuzzy feeling of security in a cold, alien world of technology. Enter... the Marketing department.
OSS has their community. We have just as many knowlegable people as they do. We have a pretty darned good base of code, technology, and future developments. But that's it. We depend on each other. If an unanointed walks amoung us and we dive on him with piranha-like frenzy... his buds aren't likely to follow. Nobody jumps into hostile waters without good reason.
And before we get too carried away, everyone has their pack of rabid jackels. It's just that, unlike us, the MS house has that team of Marketeers with their flashy comforting pamphlets and their soothing promises "...well, WE won't alienate you like those other guys will."
We all know Linux won't die. It's free. That distinction from propriatary commercial OS' is what protects it from destruction. A commercial OS goes away when monetary support for it stops; be it the owning company's disinterest in it or, more likely, due to external competition. That has been MS' success. Market against your competition, dry up its commercial support, and the competition withers and dies. Linux doesn't live off monetary support. That tactic won't work.
I don't worry about Linux's survival. I worry about its acceptance.
I like linux. I use it at home. I use it at work (albeit a 'rogue' installation). I would like to see more support for it.
When a vendor comes up with a solution that my organization wants to use... I would like to see it available for my linux machine. When new hardware comes out that I'd like to use... I would like to see support for it in linux.
When my boss wants to implement some solution... I would like him to consider Linux as a candidate. If Linux won't fit the bill, so be it. But it would be nice to see decissions made beyond a single company's glossy brochures.
Linux "winnning" in the marketplace helps all this happen. Heck... for that matter, what's good for Linux is also good for Unix in general. I've heard less people use Unix in a "yet another dead OS" tone since Linux has made buzzword status in the press.
So no... Linux won't die just because MS frowns in its direction. That idea is absurd. But MS can prevent Linux from expanding in amazing new directions. The only harm is the opportunity lost. And what a shame that would be.
OK. I have to admit... I had a "oh am I so much superior to you" kind of chuckle (I feel guilty - I'm not really). I've got something simular to that running at home.
OK. Time to drop out of "smug mode". I admit it. I screw up more than my fare share of linux configurations. But then... I tend to fix them too. Of course, I'm not too bad at research and the ability to grasp concepts that may be new to me.
The point I'm leading up to is that linux isn't plug-and-play... per se. Quite often you have to know a bit about what you're doing. There are few GUI's within linux to click on lists and warn you when you're doing something that just isn't possible. Linux, instead, says "Yes, sir.. right away" and gleefully follows your configuration into the abyss. OR it flies along brilliantly due to your masterfull instruction.
Linux isn't a brainless OS. That is... it takes some knowlege to run properly. The stranger a configuration you want to do... the more you actually have to understand (be it beforehand or on the fly, like I'm want to do).
I'm OK with that. I really don't mind. Once I get the thing set up... it runs... and runs. If it weren't for patches (not that this is a bad thing either) I could probably forget about it and just expect it to be there when I need it.
But there's a whole section of the consumer demographic that'll have a problem with that. They want the GUI tool to tell them when they messed something up or do it for them. And they don't know enough to tell if those decissions are really correct or not. I'm all for development of linux tools to help those folks out. But in the meantime, I'm certainly happy to avoid shoving a command line at them. Instead... I simply advise finding/hiring someone who can do what they need done. The odd thing to that is... I've done it quite often for customers using the "easy" WinX interface for even the most basic configurations (MODEMs come to mind).
In that light... does linux's "difficult" maintenance interface stand out so much? There are folks who just want to use a computer - doing anything near maintenance on it scares them. Nevermind auto-detecting and wizards. They're much happier trucking down the CompUSA and having some underpaid tech slap in a new device. Does "world domination" demand that we come up with our own wizards for these folks who, most likely, won't use them anyway? Only if we allow Marketing to say so.
And what about that odd-ball configuration? What if you're wanting to do something a bit different than the norm? Note... this doesn't have to be something amazingly new... just something that beyond "computer talks to internet".
Windows is always held up as the "oh so easy" example. Forget an admin... buy WinNT! Odd that there's such a demand for MCSE's. The folks I know (heck.. used to be one) who do NT admin for one of the US Government's largest organizations are well beyond the "Windows for Dummies" and random point-and-click. They have quite a grasp on a level of complexity their bosses (who subscribe to the "lets hire less admins, all they do is point and click" mentality) have no hope of comprehending. Sounds kind of like a Unix shop.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all radiation is the same. Unlike radiation from nuclear reactions, RF radiation is not annodizing radiation.
If you put a frog in a microwave, you're less likely to get a mutant frog than French cuisinne.
RF basically just bakes things; not much different than getting burned. The nasty thing is that, unlike a good 'ol fire-induced burn, RF heats tissue up from the inside out. So if you're subjected to a high degree of RF radiation, you're likely to be damaged by it before you begin to notice warnings. The amount of damage is deturmined by the power of the RF source, the distance from that source, and how long it took you to notice you're being radiated (length of time exposed to the source).
Completely true. Only, it's an old virus called "Good Times". Tell all your friends. ;)
The issue is not content, it's control.
There's a pretty good distinction between the "Liz Dole thing" and spam. It's a matter of interactive vs. passive technologies.
Most internet technologies are interactive. You specifically request data. If you don't want additional data, you stop it. The simple availablility of some content seems to really upset some folks. But, in keeping with the "Liz Dole" theme, just launching a 'web browser is not going to cause playboy.com to pop up on your screen; it takes the user's commands to do that.
There's also the issue that filtering technologies tend to also filter subjects such as women's health and gay lifestyle issues, which may or may not have more cultural significance than "Hot Lusty Teen Babes 4 U!!!!" But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Email is mostly passive. A user does not do anything specifically to receive data - it is sent to them by the actions of another. Granted, a user can attempt to assert some control over the process by using filters, limiting the distribution of their email address, etc... but the nature of the technology still remains.
I don't believe the issue itself is commercial content on the 'net. Instead, its a matter of who controls where or when that content is distributed.
Let's look at some personal examples...
I have a hobby. The hobby has a growning industry that has really began to understand the commercial prospects of the Internet.
There are a few possitive ways for this industry to take advantage of these possiblities.
I go to an information web site about that hobby. The site has banner adds. I don't mind that at all, since those advertising revenues helps pay for the upkeep of that site (if I don't like it, I can complain to the site's owner and ultimately stop visiting the site).
Meanwhile, I'll go to commercial sites for businesses having to do with that hobby. This is fine also, since I'm curious about whatever that business is selling. The second I decide that I've seen enough, I can stop the entire process.
I get regular commercial email from one of the local hobby businesses in my area. I don't mind that either, since I signed up for it at the business' site. This email is not unsolicited - I asked for it. And I am confident that it would stop as soon as I requested.
The way that a buisness would upset me would be to force their advertisements on me unwanted. Even though I'm interested in the hobby, I don't want email from the company unless I've asked for it. And ultimately, that would also apply to public discussion forumns like usenet (if a newsgroup is chartered for that hobby's commercial posts, that is another matter - once again, I can either subscribe to or ignore the group).
In each positive example, I have control over the decission to receive that data or not. When that control is taken from me, I get upset.
During the early 80's that community was a tight family. There was excitement and pride. The piggybacked shuttle would do a victory lap around Clear Lake on its treck back from Edwards AFB to Kenedy Space Center. All the local schools would have televisions in classrooms and common areas so that students from that NASA community could watch that month's launch. Everything was becoming routine.
Students watched the Challenger launch from hallways and classrooms at Clear Lake Highschool. There was a sudden explosion. The entire school went deadly quiet. A few seconds passed. The shocked silence was broken by the wails of students who realized they had just watched their parents die on national television.
The torment was just beginning.
Clear Lake was beseiged by reporters. The local police force was mobilized to try and provide some privacy to horrified family members of the astronauts who had just died. But the reporters were tenacious; they were caught climbing into windows and even taking pictures into bathrooms. Clear Lake Highschool was forced to close for a week because of the disruptions caused by the press. And when it did re-open, the children of the slain astronauts fled there; the press didn't allow them the privacy to greive at home.
The press learned that NASA had copies of supposed transmissions from the shuttle during the incident. NASA had found the wreckage of the crew compartment. There were also body parts found by the disaster recovery crew. But the recordings, the wreckage, and the associated carnage were closed off to the media. The media howled. They would have their sound bites and shocking pictures! But NASA insisted on the dignity of the deceased and weathered all complaints. The press were denied.
How dare you call this a case of government coverup! This was a case of people trying to preserve the dignity of their friends, family, and the familys of those people who died.
You want something to get upset about? There's plenty of real issues involved with the Challenger incident.
Go after the media hounds who's appetite for sound bites drove them to invade grieving family members' privacy. Criticize inaccurate reporting as media organizations fumbled facts in an attempt to scoop competitors.
Criticize the American public's shock when they realized space travel, at least with current technology, is anything but a safe, routine function.
But mostly... go after the administration of NASA. Be critical of the leadership that very possibly squandered the entire future of a program that strove towards mankind's next great exploration endeavor.
Dig into why warnings were ignored. How politics played a more important role than technical considerations. And look very hard at the internal "machine" that was generated to keep this status quo functional.
Finally, and most importantly, ask... does that machine still exist today?
The deceased don't have the answers to these questions. Raising their spector does not serve the interest of truth.
I assume your definition of "quality" is the type of music - how good it is. Which is true. In the era of corporate music agendas, "quality" music is quickly sacraficed for the sure sell. What's new and successfull today becomes tommorow's cookie cutter mold for the next X bands.
Of course... I wasn't thinking of that definition of quality. I'm thinking quality in production.
"Protect our intellectual property!", screams the recording industry.
"Stop ripping us of with overpriced recordings!", replies the Annoyed Consumer.
The interesting thing is... it can actually happen this way. I've seen it. Granted... not in the US. The law does not allow for it.
I spent some time in Saudi Arabia a few years back. There's nothing like a shoping trip at the local Saudi mall and/or shopping district to give you an "Old World Bizzare" kind of feel. One of the interesting things was that the Saudis (at least at that time - this is changing as I understand it) did not recognize International copyrights. As you can imagine, this lead to stores who's main traffic were copied software and music tapes.
The tapes were cheap. They came in all genres of music. And they often included "extra tracks" of that artist's music, or perhapse a simular artist. The recording quality was OK, but the tape itself and its packaging were inexpesively done.
While these "pirate" stores were common, the amazing thing was to see stores selling "legitimate" recordings too (sometimes at the same store). The label-produced recordings were more expensive, but I noted that they weren't MUCH more expensive. And the big selling point? Quality. The legitimate tapes were better quality in both recording as well as materials.
Quality production and a competative price allowed intellectual property holders to sell their wares even in a marketplace that allowed copies of those same products to be sold cheaper.
Now... this isn't to say that intelectual property laws are wrong. I'm certainly not advocating dropping these laws and spawning a "legitimate" piracy industry. Instead, I think the interesting thing to note was that legitimate products CAN sell against cheap knock-offs IF the legitimate version offers additional value.
In our case, a cheaper CD may remove the economical insentive to overlook convenience, quality, and legality lacking in pirated music. It's worked elsewhere.
The intent of these systems were to be cheap and user friendly; perhaps the first commercially available computer "appliance"? They were portable, very easy to set up, and completely non-user serviceable. The idea was to send the entire unit back to Monorail (or an authorized service center, I'm sure) for upgrades / maintenance. The other selling point to these were that they were cheap. They sold for just under $1,000 (US).
That $1,000 price tag is the main stumbling point. These things came out before the huge sub-1,000 dollar craze. But although they hit the market first, they were quickly inundated by "white box" competitors all selling cheap PCs. And these computers were standard systems. There was no "sealed box" mentality, proprietary hardware, or strange "Is this really a computer?" look. Also, Monorail's LCD screen was fairly horrid. Their product just didn't compete.
Of course, there's other aspects to this story. Monorail apparently had issues with production and marketing that also caused them to take hits in the industry. At the least, they were able to salvage relationships with major outlets like CompUSA.
If you head to a local CompUSA or look at their web site, you'll see Monorail is still in business. Their current products? "White box" PCs like everyone else. Hmmmm.
With that being said...
Commercial use of SSH generally requires a license. But there are non-commercial allowances in both SSH1 and SSH2. The trouble is what the definition of "non-commercial" includes. SSH2 is very restrictive and pretty much discounts any use of the suite near anything "commercial" in any manner. SSH1 allows for greater leeway:
The file named COPYING that is included in the distribution reads:
The interpretation I get from this is that a Commercial enterprise may use SSH1 as long as it is not a part of a specific service. Administration of local servers is OK. Services that include "Remote secure backups of your systems for pennies a day!" or "Checking accounts now come with secure online banking!" that includes SSH1 as its method of secure communications do not fit in the "non-commercial" license.Once again, it would be wise to point out that it seems the folks selling SSH later decided against this kind of policy. SSH2's license is much more restrictive and reserves "non-commercial" licensing to personal use and educational use as part of academic research and/or teaching (note: educational institutions don't get to use it for administration).
But you're not out of the legal woods yet. SSH1 uses a whole slew of libraries and intellectual property that adds additional layers of license concerns. Thankfully, most of them are cleared by allowances for use of those properties in SSH1.
Two big concerns that aren't covered include IDEA and RSA. IDEA is easy to get around by not including it in your compile (opting for Blowfish instead). RSA is a tougher issue. You'll have to look at it yourself if you're still trying to figure it out (I luck out with a license granted to the US Government for RSA since a partial Gov't grant helped develop it at MIT).
Basically, there was never a verifiable problem with SSH 1.2.26 (the version available when this whole incident took place). The IBM team that suggested a possible exploit (the same warning Rootshell latched on to in attempts to explain their compromise) ended up retracting their claim. However, panic and some politics have made this whole issue unclear.
1.2.27 took care of a hard-to-duplicate issue involving Kerberos support. And, as of right now, I'm not aware of any exploits at all against 1.2.27 (current version in the SSH1 tree).
I'd be glad to hear of any new developments I've missed out on. :)
I'm a sysadmin for a large Us Gov't agency. As such, my machines are a prime target for external attacks. So I can understand the concern for creating tools that "ordinary people" (ie: script kiddies) can use without any real technical knowlege. Keeping up with this kind of stuff can certainly add to my already overloaded schedule. But to be honest, the kind of threat this creates is not my biggest fear.
My biggest fear is the unpublished exploit. Published security holes get fixed. History has shown a tendancy with Vendors to ignore security issues until they become politically embarassing. This leads to vulnerabilities in my system(s) that I am unaware of and, consequently, can be exploited without my knowlege.
Lets not kid ourselves here... people with malicious intent WILL share their knowlege with others of the same inclination. At the same time, they're less likely to take steps towards patching the hole they are taking advantage of.
By bringing security issues to the public eye, people like the cDc are helping ensure the security of our environments improve. It may be additional work to keep up with these improvements. However, I don't know about your environment, buy mine demands a hell of a lot of hassle whenever one of our machines is compromised.
Yes. The US Army. In a FCW article (that was referenced by a slashdot article), they talk about how the US Army picked Solaris with Lotus Notes for secure communications over WinNT and Exchange due to security concerns with the OS.
The contract was for the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) which apparently deals with secure communications in the battlefield. I'm sure it was a hefty contract. But there's more to it.
An interesting sidenote to all this (and the REAL meat of the article) is that Microsoft is scrambling to make a Unix Exchange client to support the Defense Department's secure Defense Message System (DMS) program. The fear is that if the US Army starts to go this direction with messaging on Unix, they're just as likely to scrap Exchange servers back at home to make everything cross compatible.
Bookmark this article under "OSS Advocacy". Also take a look at his article on debugging. This is a in-the-trenches Microsoft coder; the poster child for propriatary commercial software development. He offers a first hand account of how the whole system works. It is (unwitting, I'm sure) proof of the issues OSS claims to combat.
In these articles, the author (Andrew Shuman) documents various development issues. These include marketing driving development, a "demand" for new features vs. efficiency to run on less-than-cutting-edge hardware (note that features apparently wins out), backward compatability, the complexity of bug hunting... just to name a few. The OSS mantra promises to solve these issues.
I'm not entirely sure if this article was meant to be satire. The tone seems to shift rather suddenly and I begin to get the idea that the author begins to seriously pleed his case. Either way, there's value to be found in it. And it doesn't neccessarily involve a good, fuzzy feeling about "bloat".
I suppose the idea is to get the general readership/community in on the task. He all can't be technical Hemmingways... but that doesn't mean we can't be a part of the community voice.
Unless you post flaim bait. :)
Ahh well. Interesting system, still.
There are, in fact, clients for all three OS'. I've not tried the others, but the Windows integration (with Outlook, at least) is very smooth.
Normally I hate to feed this kinda thing. But the irony is too fun to not point out.
According to what I've read before... moderators ARE "us". As users post messages that are recognized as being usefull, they gain moderator status. They then blow their moderator points on whatever they see fit and fall back into the nameless masses that are the unpriviliged users. They then have a chance to be called to service again as their posts receive attention.
It's mindless bashing and thrashing that causes the necessity of moderators to begin with. Too bad we need them here.
Yea. I think you are missing something. Where was the money for the paid coders coming from?
:)
I'm pretty sure Netscape wouldn't have been too keen if their paid support all threw up their hands and said "Hey! We're going to jump ship and start up a completely new progect under that GPL license you guys decided not to go with.... but still collect a paycheck, OK?"
I'm kind of hoping /. will publish any "debunking" of this latest round of benchmarks. By the nature of the beast, I'm expecting this to show up in the Microsoft Zealot camp (where do MS Zealots hang out, anyway?).
Having said that, I don't necissarily expect it. While this article does put Linux in a considerably more positive light than the Mindcraft report... its not all gushing praise. It points out some shortcomings where NT proved to be a better platform. It was just as quick to praise Linux. Finally, they included some explanations as to why they selected the tests that they did. The intent seemed to be a more accurate "real world" test environment.
The final product seems to be a fair, rounded comparison of the two OS' (and their comparitive Web server of choice) performance. I'll leave the Zealots (from either house) to point out the devious details a layman like myself missed.
IIS has a cost (as in WinNT). :P
Yep. Back in the AOL board room, a lacky breaks in clutching a hardcopy and announcing breathlessly "Look! 'aolsearch.com' has already been registered!" The AOL directors grumble in disapproval. One speaks out...
"Well... what does it stand for?"
"African-America OnLine Search", replies the lacky.
"Oh. Well, well. That will never do. If it stood for something like Alutian Ostrich Loom Search, I could understand. But that... oh no..."
There is a rumbling noise of aggreement from the collective body of the AOL 'Man' and their racially-motivated, big corporate power-pushing plan is put into action...
Of course it's greed!
AOL users. Far be it for me to paint with too broad a brush here... but those who manage to achieve greater complexity than a single mouse button are still game for AOL marketing. Words like "yahoo" (much less "google") are just too mind-blowing. "aolsearch" is going to be a hot commodity. Of course AOL wants it and doesn't give a damn who else had it before hand (after all, AOL is the Internet).
Publish anything on the 'net and you're bound to attract a Netkook of one type or another. Publish something that's based on opinion or controversal subjects and you're bound to attact more.
Mindcraft, of course, did this in spades. They published something highly controversal about a subject know to be turf for more than a few kooks.
Is it surpising that they got flames and abuse? No. Is it likely that they only got a few? No. Is it likely this latest bit is a favored selection of the worse? Yes. Does it excuse the behavior of those who did it? No in the slightest.
Mindcraft has helped us. They've pointed out weeknesses. If we choose, we can find technical goals in their "tests" and critisisms. We can silence their most outlandish claims with facts and make what facts they've uncovered moot points by fixing what is wrong.
Now Mindcraft helps us in another way. They held up a mirror to the very ugly images (and given them names!) that we as a community tend to show to outsiders.
It offers us a chance to think about our actions and reflect on how we appear socially (call it "product politics"). Are we helping our cause, or are we giving the MS Marketing department/FUD squad all the material they need? Nice of us to make it easy for them.
It's not a matter of hiding who we are. OSS is not just about "it's not Microsoft". But that seems to be the message getting out there. We should be avoiding that.
If it takes breaking ourselves of an apparently unhealthy obsession... so be it.
The author, upon being on the receiving end of pure harrassment suddenly went "Oh! I get it! I wrote an article full of errors!" Devine intervention via email. Suddenly the truth sprung from nothingness... he then went out to preach the Goodness that is OSS.
Not for a second did the author say to himself "man... I say something these jerks don't want to hear and they go ballistic. Their cause must be on shaky ground if they behave this desperately."
1) I honestly don't mean to advocate people being abusive with each other. We should be respectful to each other -- period. But not because it'll make people like Linux. Civility seems to be lacking from our society these days. We could do with a good deal more of it.
However, being civil doesn't have anything to do with "making" people like Linux. The way to do that is to present people with facts. There is a good chance those facts will bring them around. If not, then at least they've made an informed decission. But at the same time, it doesn't matter how many facts you have if you deliver your argument while beating the person over the head with a club. The finer points will be missed. All the person will think of is "Hey... this jerk is hitting me over the head". The facts will be lost on them. That is why one should refrain from base harrassment to "support" Linux.
2) If the abusive email came from Linus, ESR, and RHS then it perhaps would reflect on the OS community.
It didn't however and it won't.
You're sitting on a park bench when up walks a Lucranian tourist (fake nationality... I hope). The Lucranian begins to whizz on the bench you're currently occupying and when you voice protest, he spits at you. That wasn't the Lucranian President or any other kind of official. But you now have a rather negative view of Lucranians.
Linus, ESR, and RMS do not a community make. The OSS community consists of them... other coders... advocates... users... everyone who wants to identify themselves with OSS. When one of us behaves is a certain manner (especially negatively) it reflects on our community.
3) Bill Gates doesn't have a stellar reputation but Microsoft is widely accepted by the mainstream.
Bill Gates doesn't have a good reputation? You've been hanging out in the wrong circles. Bill has donated some rather large chunks of cash towards charrity. MS has also put a nice chunk of funding towards research progects that don't nessecarily fall under the MS umbrella. Bill Gates is seen amoung buisness circles as a pretty astounding success. Microsoft is a business role model.
Sure, techheads generally don't like Bill and MS. But then... Bill doesn't have to be liked to get business.
He's got a whole slew of folks who are used to being professionally pleasant. They're hand picked and trained to listen to business and provide them with solutions.... and even more importantly, a warm fuzzy feeling of security in a cold, alien world of technology. Enter... the Marketing department.
OSS has their community. We have just as many knowlegable people as they do. We have a pretty darned good base of code, technology, and future developments. But that's it. We depend on each other. If an unanointed walks amoung us and we dive on him with piranha-like frenzy... his buds aren't likely to follow. Nobody jumps into hostile waters without good reason.
And before we get too carried away, everyone has their pack of rabid jackels. It's just that, unlike us, the MS house has that team of Marketeers with their flashy comforting pamphlets and their soothing promises "...well, WE won't alienate you like those other guys will."
I don't worry about Linux's survival. I worry about its acceptance.
I like linux. I use it at home. I use it at work (albeit a 'rogue' installation). I would like to see more support for it.
When a vendor comes up with a solution that my organization wants to use... I would like to see it available for my linux machine. When new hardware comes out that I'd like to use... I would like to see support for it in linux.
When my boss wants to implement some solution... I would like him to consider Linux as a candidate. If Linux won't fit the bill, so be it. But it would be nice to see decissions made beyond a single company's glossy brochures.
Linux "winnning" in the marketplace helps all this happen. Heck... for that matter, what's good for Linux is also good for Unix in general. I've heard less people use Unix in a "yet another dead OS" tone since Linux has made buzzword status in the press.
So no... Linux won't die just because MS frowns in its direction. That idea is absurd. But MS can prevent Linux from expanding in amazing new directions. The only harm is the opportunity lost. And what a shame that would be.
OK. Time to drop out of "smug mode". I admit it. I screw up more than my fare share of linux configurations. But then... I tend to fix them too. Of course, I'm not too bad at research and the ability to grasp concepts that may be new to me.
The point I'm leading up to is that linux isn't plug-and-play... per se. Quite often you have to know a bit about what you're doing. There are few GUI's within linux to click on lists and warn you when you're doing something that just isn't possible. Linux, instead, says "Yes, sir.. right away" and gleefully follows your configuration into the abyss. OR it flies along brilliantly due to your masterfull instruction.
Linux isn't a brainless OS. That is... it takes some knowlege to run properly. The stranger a configuration you want to do... the more you actually have to understand (be it beforehand or on the fly, like I'm want to do).
I'm OK with that. I really don't mind. Once I get the thing set up... it runs... and runs. If it weren't for patches (not that this is a bad thing either) I could probably forget about it and just expect it to be there when I need it.
But there's a whole section of the consumer demographic that'll have a problem with that. They want the GUI tool to tell them when they messed something up or do it for them. And they don't know enough to tell if those decissions are really correct or not. I'm all for development of linux tools to help those folks out. But in the meantime, I'm certainly happy to avoid shoving a command line at them. Instead... I simply advise finding/hiring someone who can do what they need done. The odd thing to that is... I've done it quite often for customers using the "easy" WinX interface for even the most basic configurations (MODEMs come to mind).
In that light... does linux's "difficult" maintenance interface stand out so much? There are folks who just want to use a computer - doing anything near maintenance on it scares them. Nevermind auto-detecting and wizards. They're much happier trucking down the CompUSA and having some underpaid tech slap in a new device. Does "world domination" demand that we come up with our own wizards for these folks who, most likely, won't use them anyway? Only if we allow Marketing to say so.
And what about that odd-ball configuration? What if you're wanting to do something a bit different than the norm? Note... this doesn't have to be something amazingly new... just something that beyond "computer talks to internet".
Windows is always held up as the "oh so easy" example. Forget an admin... buy WinNT! Odd that there's such a demand for MCSE's. The folks I know (heck.. used to be one) who do NT admin for one of the US Government's largest organizations are well beyond the "Windows for Dummies" and random point-and-click. They have quite a grasp on a level of complexity their bosses (who subscribe to the "lets hire less admins, all they do is point and click" mentality) have no hope of comprehending. Sounds kind of like a Unix shop.