Except the difference here is that the code morphing software is not a driver really.
Well, yes it really is the same thing. Linus himself said that the Crusoe is a "processor done in software". The benefits of open source have been proven for software, have they not? Does it make sense, then, to withold the sources for said software? I myself am an open source advocate, and I think this case should be treated just like Nvidia and Creative when they witheld their hardware specifications.
Despite the gross errors in the article, which have already been pointed out in other posts here on/., he *does* have a point. The morphing code is software. Transmeta will make their money by selling hardware.
If we apply standard ESR meters for this situation, then closed-sourcing the morphing code doesn't make sense. It will only lead to a chip which
does less and
is less reliable
Yes, Transmeta gets to set their own license. No, Linus probably doesn't control that process. Metcalf's comments on the VLIW morphing code seem to be spot-on, if you take our history of hardware vendors with proprietary drivers into account. If it "makes sense" for Transmeta to keep the morphing code proprietary, then why not Creative and Nvdia as well?
I have a few AIX boxes (PowerRISC beats PowerPC into the dirt!:), and IBM JFS is great.
If it supports volumes under Linux, that'd be INCREDIBLE. For those that do not know: under AIX you can join arbitrary devices into a volume (which is a managerial unit wrt quotas and such). Kinda like loop devices, or RAID (md) under Linux -- but at a higher level; you can do cool things like remove a device from a volume and then add another device to the volume w/o doing any data juggling.
Of course, the ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country.
I hope that Slashdot regrets what it has done. It's a pity.
And yet, how does this differ from any other mass media news grinder that we can "choose" from today? Slashdot doesn't have a social responsibility to think for us. Nobody does, except for (hopefully) one's self. If you choose to blame Slashdot for your misconceptions, then you must also blame everyone who opines about anything with the same judgement. I agree with much of what you say, but your blame is ill-placed; put the responsibility where it belongs, with ourselves.
Expecting to be fed what you want to eat is slothful. You are part of Slashdot. No, that's not correct. You are part of humanity. Do you regret what you have done?
It seems more than a little odd to me that Linux/BSD/opensource community didn't have any space on the main show floor.
Not so.
Free UNIX booths used to be in an obscure place in the Sands Expo. They were never in the main floor in the convention center. This year was a big step up, because at least you didn't have to take a bus to get to the Linux stuff (the LV Hilton is right next to the convention center, there is even a skywalk between them).
If people would stick to the original HTML belief then we wouldn't even have this problem. HTMl = Hypertext Markup Language. HTML != Programming language or "Reveal Codes" under word perfect.
Allow me to explain for those that don't understand: HTML allows one to author a web page using human characteristics like HEADER, EMPHASIS and CITATION. Instead, the WYSIWYG world decided that it would be better to have lame tags like ITALLICS, BOLD and BLINK which have no meaningful translation for blind people.
HTML is even designed to allow for a "browser" to construct the page, knowing where the TOC is and what the logical order of documents are; it would be VERY EASY to write a blind "browser" if everyone used these tags instead of stuffing every piece of information in a table with nonsensical tags (yes, I am very guilty of this as well).
I hope the lawsuit is successful and that it raises awareness about how information SHOULD be organized. Perhaps/. could only allow real tags instead of the patentedly lame I, B, etc. (they do allow EM, STRONG and BLOCKQUTOE, tho')
Didn't you know? It's politically incorrect to make fun of Microsoft now. It's all the rage to publish LinuxMyth pages and commission meaningless benchmarks; but say one word about Windows and you stir up a whole hornet's nest.
It is hard for me to believe that an NT based web server has been cracked for the first time.
It depends on what you mean by 'cracked'. When all the Microsoft TCP/IP exploits were found a couple years ago, microsoft.com was down for hours at a time. Nobody 'owned' the machines, but they did crash because of the kiddies.
We run 11.5 on a couple NT boxes and the only reason we haven't upgraded them to Linux yet is because 11.0 (the only Linux version up until a bit a go) didn't support worker threads.
I really do like Sybase,and in fact their lightweight database (Adaptive Server Anywhere) is one helluva product. It is quick, small and scales very well, especially in distributed environments. With 11.9 and better of ASE, ASA can even sqlremote with eachother.
The only thing that sucks about Sybase is their attitude towards
What is worse is that practically every Windows app will likely require significant (if not complete) rewrite to run well in a 64 bit environment.
That's a benefit for Microsoft and their "key partners. Everyone must buy new apps. Everyone will want to have "64bit clean" systems. It will generate years and years of gluttony; several OS revisions and all-new-everything.
And then when it's all said-and-done nothing will have changed -- everything will look the same and performance will be back to what you'd expect.
BUT, you're simply redifining 'obscurity' to mean something different than STO defines it to be. STO conventionally means that the attacker doesn't understand your particular setup and/or system; it is 'secure' because your system is of an obscure type. If you want to re-define obscure to apply to secret keys and one-way hashes then you are totally correct; if you are trying to debunk the notion that STO isn't real security, you have failed.
Putting a webserver on another port doesn't buy you much safety. As a worse case scenario, an attacker would be ignored after he attempted to contact an unauthorized port -- the attacker simply needs more IP addresses to complete her attack. Try to say the same thing about the shadow password file.
I have a P5/200MMX, 128MB RAM, and a Matrox Millenium II video card. The system is running on ultra fast SCSI with 10k RPM drives and I can also watch the screen draw things. It goes away when I use fvwm, but so does a lot of my functionality.
For detection, Download and run the program WinTOP. This is the Windows equivalent of the Unix TOP program, which shows all processes listed in order of used processor time...It ought to be able to track the resources being used by BO2K.
That won't work. If a "process" like bo2k is running as a thread under some other program (like EXPLORER.EXE, for example...) then it will not show up on any process task you care to use.
For removal, you should be able to find BO2K's registry entry in RegEdit, under HKEY Local Machine>Software>Microsoft>Windows>Run or a similar directory either under windows her, or under the HKEY current user.
That will catch the default install of bo2k, but that is not the only way it can function. There are several other attacks (like the one above coupled with the default search path of Windows NT which searches $HOME before anything else).
The only reliable way of seeing if someone is monitoring you is to run a network snooper on some other machine on the same non-switched subnet as your machine. That only works if you can guarantee the security of the auditing machine (like turn off *all* network services on a Linux box and just have it snoop your NT machine's traffic). With that kind of setup you can see all the connections your machine is making and recieving.
"Access this computer from the network" field to only include your local and domain accounts
That only changes the Microsoft networking (ie, smb and others who use it's authentication like IIS/domain) and not any old port that is open on the machine.
Actually, it can even hide itself without showing WUSER32 in the process list. It can run as a separate thread inside some other executable (welcome to the wonderful world of "I'm not a process I'm a thread").
There was a BugTraq issue a few weeks ago about the lame search path that is used by Windows NT. It searches $HOME before *anything* else and so all you really need to do is put explorer.exe on the home drive and put a bo2k thread in it (well, you get the point). This can all be done easily within Word macros.
Another thing that bugs me: A user can do this and under certain circumnstances the process is kept alive between logins. AND, as if that weren't enough: it registers itself as a startup program (all users have the ability to do this on a default NT install) and as soon as the Administrator logs in...
Microsoft has a lot of work to do in order to make NT safe for multiple-user workstations.
This is a major issue which must be addressed. Porting Delphi to Linux requires that: they pick a widgetset that
Is free with development libs
Commonly available on any Linux box
full-featured
If they do pick Motif, then the product will most likely fail (even if they statically link their executables). The obvious choices are GTK and QT. If they do use QT then would Delphi developers need to pay Troll in order to make commercial apps using Delphi, or would Inprise be the only party which needed to pay TrollTech?
In the short term it makes M$ look bad, but in the long term it actually improves their product. (That is _if_ they do anything to plug up the holes.)
That would be a good thing.
Let's see; coupling the latest NT relative path attacks with a Word macro and BO2K riding on EXPLORER.EXE. Wow. This is EASY and fully exploitable on any network that accepts e-mail. Perhaps we should write a Sendmail->Procmail HOWTO so that Microsoft Word documents are filtered out at the transport level.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes it really is the same thing. Linus himself said that the Crusoe is a "processor done in software". The benefits of open source have been proven for software, have they not? Does it make sense, then, to withold the sources for said software? I myself am an open source advocate, and I think this case should be treated just like Nvidia and Creative when they witheld their hardware specifications.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
If we apply standard ESR meters for this situation, then closed-sourcing the morphing code doesn't make sense. It will only lead to a chip which
- does less and
- is less reliable
Yes, Transmeta gets to set their own license. No, Linus probably doesn't control that process. Metcalf's comments on the VLIW morphing code seem to be spot-on, if you take our history of hardware vendors with proprietary drivers into account. If it "makes sense" for Transmeta to keep the morphing code proprietary, then why not Creative and Nvdia as well?The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
If it supports volumes under Linux, that'd be INCREDIBLE. For those that do not know: under AIX you can join arbitrary devices into a volume (which is a managerial unit wrt quotas and such). Kinda like loop devices, or RAID (md) under Linux -- but at a higher level; you can do cool things like remove a device from a volume and then add another device to the volume w/o doing any data juggling.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
It's happening again! How can I choose between Emacs and XEmacs; now the evil vi (aka Bill Clinton) is going to win! :)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2000/0124revs.html
Does that mean SCO is a bad choice for everything? Of course not.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I hope that Slashdot regrets what it has done. It's a pity.
And yet, how does this differ from any other mass media news grinder that we can "choose" from today? Slashdot doesn't have a social responsibility to think for us. Nobody does, except for (hopefully) one's self. If you choose to blame Slashdot for your misconceptions, then you must also blame everyone who opines about anything with the same judgement. I agree with much of what you say, but your blame is ill-placed; put the responsibility where it belongs, with ourselves.
Expecting to be fed what you want to eat is slothful. You are part of Slashdot. No, that's not correct. You are part of humanity. Do you regret what you have done?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Not so.
Free UNIX booths used to be in an obscure place in the Sands Expo. They were never in the main floor in the convention center. This year was a big step up, because at least you didn't have to take a bus to get to the Linux stuff (the LV Hilton is right next to the convention center, there is even a skywalk between them).
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Allow me to explain for those that don't understand: HTML allows one to author a web page using human characteristics like HEADER, EMPHASIS and CITATION. Instead, the WYSIWYG world decided that it would be better to have lame tags like ITALLICS, BOLD and BLINK which have no meaningful translation for blind people.
HTML is even designed to allow for a "browser" to construct the page, knowing where the TOC is and what the logical order of documents are; it would be VERY EASY to write a blind "browser" if everyone used these tags instead of stuffing every piece of information in a table with nonsensical tags (yes, I am very guilty of this as well).
I hope the lawsuit is successful and that it raises awareness about how information SHOULD be organized. Perhaps /. could only allow real tags instead of the patentedly lame I, B, etc. (they do allow EM, STRONG and BLOCKQUTOE, tho')
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
It depends on what you mean by 'cracked'. When all the Microsoft TCP/IP exploits were found a couple years ago, microsoft.com was down for hours at a time. Nobody 'owned' the machines, but they did crash because of the kiddies.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Did they port their documentation webserver to Linux yet?
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
We run 11.5 on a couple NT boxes and the only reason we haven't upgraded them to Linux yet is because 11.0 (the only Linux version up until a bit a go) didn't support worker threads.
I really do like Sybase,and in fact their lightweight database (Adaptive Server Anywhere) is one helluva product. It is quick, small and scales very well, especially in distributed environments. With 11.9 and better of ASE, ASA can even sqlremote with eachother.
The only thing that sucks about Sybase is their attitude towards
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
The "black page" movement didn't start spontaneously; it isn't some conspiracy against Austrailians that nothing happened.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That's a benefit for Microsoft and their "key partners. Everyone must buy new apps. Everyone will want to have "64bit clean" systems. It will generate years and years of gluttony; several OS revisions and all-new-everything.
And then when it's all said-and-done nothing will have changed -- everything will look the same and performance will be back to what you'd expect.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I toatally agree.
BUT, you're simply redifining 'obscurity' to mean something different than STO defines it to be. STO conventionally means that the attacker doesn't understand your particular setup and/or system; it is 'secure' because your system is of an obscure type. If you want to re-define obscure to apply to secret keys and one-way hashes then you are totally correct; if you are trying to debunk the notion that STO isn't real security, you have failed.
Putting a webserver on another port doesn't buy you much safety. As a worse case scenario, an attacker would be ignored after he attempted to contact an unauthorized port -- the attacker simply needs more IP addresses to complete her attack. Try to say the same thing about the shadow password file.
You can't.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I have a P5/200MMX, 128MB RAM, and a Matrox Millenium II video card. The system is running on ultra fast SCSI with 10k RPM drives and I can also watch the screen draw things. It goes away when I use fvwm, but so does a lot of my functionality.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
bo2k can be set up to run at different times of the day. Netstat won't help you out there unless you repeatedly run it.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That won't work. If a "process" like bo2k is running as a thread under some other program (like EXPLORER.EXE, for example...) then it will not show up on any process task you care to use.
For removal, you should be able to find BO2K's registry entry in RegEdit, under HKEY Local Machine>Software>Microsoft>Windows>Run or a similar directory either under windows her, or under the HKEY current user.
That will catch the default install of bo2k, but that is not the only way it can function. There are several other attacks (like the one above coupled with the default search path of Windows NT which searches $HOME before anything else).
The only reliable way of seeing if someone is monitoring you is to run a network snooper on some other machine on the same non-switched subnet as your machine. That only works if you can guarantee the security of the auditing machine (like turn off *all* network services on a Linux box and just have it snoop your NT machine's traffic). With that kind of setup you can see all the connections your machine is making and recieving.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That only changes the Microsoft networking (ie, smb and others who use it's authentication like IIS/domain) and not any old port that is open on the machine.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
There was a BugTraq issue a few weeks ago about the lame search path that is used by Windows NT. It searches $HOME before *anything* else and so all you really need to do is put explorer.exe on the home drive and put a bo2k thread in it (well, you get the point). This can all be done easily within Word macros.
Another thing that bugs me: A user can do this and under certain circumnstances the process is kept alive between logins. AND, as if that weren't enough: it registers itself as a startup program (all users have the ability to do this on a default NT install) and as soon as the Administrator logs in...
Microsoft has a lot of work to do in order to make NT safe for multiple-user workstations.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
I have also used a RivaTNT-based STB card without any problems (but I don't like it as much as my voodoo3) :)
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
- Is free with development libs
- Commonly available on any Linux box
- full-featured
If they do pick Motif, then the product will most likely fail (even if they statically link their executables). The obvious choices are GTK and QT. If they do use QT then would Delphi developers need to pay Troll in order to make commercial apps using Delphi, or would Inprise be the only party which needed to pay TrollTech?The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
That would be a good thing.
Let's see; coupling the latest NT relative path attacks with a Word macro and BO2K riding on EXPLORER.EXE. Wow. This is EASY and fully exploitable on any network that accepts e-mail. Perhaps we should write a Sendmail->Procmail HOWTO so that Microsoft Word documents are filtered out at the transport level.
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.