"it's easier for me to oppose their project loudly enough that it will sink"
You don't have that sort of power. No matter how much you shout on slashdot or wherever, you won't be able to sink Wayland through your "opposition".
O RLY? Wayland still exists because one (1) prominent X developer Keith Packard constantly talks about it. There is nothing else -- no good design, no one making anything that relies on it, no companies pushing it, not even distributions doing any actual work to accommodate it. It lives by hot air and dies by hot air.
Just because a trial is overturned does not make the law void.
No. Wiretaps are universally defined as recordings that contain audio, and someone ignorantly trying to claim that it applies to video, does not make it a law.
Just because you feel the innate need to try to call BS on a post you don't want to take the time to understand because you don't like the information in the post, doesn't mean I'm out of line in pointing out solid evidence that the point is in fact valid.
It doesn't. But the fact that you have posted BS, most certainly does.
Note here what while I'm attempting to have, and fully open to, an adult, logical debate, you're only argument has been "Nuh, Uh prove it,"
"Prove it" is the only kind of debate that is acceptable when facts are concerned. We are not discussing interpretations -- you made a very specific claim, claim contradicts facts, I have called your bullshit, you wrote something that stretches "law" to "anything anyone claimed in court", what is still bullshit.
and name calling.
I did not call you any names. "Talking out of your ass" is a perfectly valid description of producing baseless bullshit.
Neither of which are logical arguments anywhere except with the possible exception of congress and elementary schools.
And what stops you from writing a wayland renderer for X?
I am not a Wayland developer, don't want to join them, and absolutely definitely don't want to be an outside developer, constantly scrambling to shoehorn new code into a project that is being developed by people who don't care about it. If Wayland developers taken such task upon themselves, maintained it, and kept it in mind when doing their hare-brained redesigns, I would consider using Wayland.
Without it, it's easier for me to oppose their project loudly enough that it will sink, rather than to take upon myself such a massive development effort only to keep the functionality everyone already has in X. Your proposal is an equivalent of inviting all Linux developers to abandon Linux and work on making Cygwin better than Linux because Microsoft would prefer this to happen. We (free software developers and users) succeeding in rejecting Windows, we certainly can do it to Wayland.
X is hard, so most programs actually rely on a toolkit, like: - GTK: Ported to Wayland - Qt: Port in progress - SDL: Port in progress - EFL: Ported - Wine: Port being considered
If applications only used parts of toolkits that are independent of the underlying display system, no one would care about Wayland because then applications would simply load toolkit library that uses X or Wayland depending on what system it runs. In reality this is not the case, so applications DO use particular display/graphics system peculiarities and therefore there is a difference.
So you're right that nobody will write Wayland programs, but nobody writes X programs either.
Actually nobody who understands operating systems thinks that.
Only if he works for Microsoft. What is the only thing you know.
Actually NT is not only highly modular but MS internally also maintains builds for multiple architectures.
Most likely they don't, however you can't know that unless you work for Microsoft. Do you?
Nope, it also works with POSIX and OS/2.
Too bad, they are completely unusable, and exist for no purpose but to put a checkmark on a feature list.
Some commercial companies have even created real time substem for industry applications that are in use today (RTX).
No, they are not. Some tried, one was bought by Microsoft that resulted in a pseudo-Unix for Windows that is inferior to Cygwin. None is actually used.
That is stupid. You are simply ignorant of the contributions. First of all they are funded by Microsoft - I don't see any redhat/canonical like company paying their own money to fund pure CS research that does not benefit them.
I have already explained that. Microsoft keeps them from working for anyone else, but can't benefit from anything they produce, so it just pays them to play with shit that will never go into any products. Microsoft may hope, there will be some use for them, but it will never happen.
IIRC recently ms research did a lot of work for the kinect team.
Kinect uses trivial, well known mechanism that did not require any real research, and it was developed by a company bought by Microsoft.
Oh.. you mean there were no lawsuits over UNIX copyrights?
If you did not notice, AT&T rescinded their claims (formerly-sealed documents were published recently), and Linux, of all things, developed meanwhile as "most definitely AT&T-free Unix". AT&T possibly delayed FreeBSD/NetBSD development (though it is possible that the result was an improvement in design of free *BSD systems). The fact is, commercial Unix lost its exclusivity a long time ago, and currently only AIX and Solaris survived as commercial Unix -- neither popular on architectures other than their manufacturers' hardware. The users, however, got a great family of operating systems, most of them free. Obviously Microsoft can't have that, where is the vendor lock-in?
Your thinking is defective. You are blinded by ideology
Unix is an example of great design, one of the few achievements in computing that produced something lasting.
rather than embracing technology.
Windows is not "technology", it's an overgrown toy project that is constantly being tweaked to imitate the features of an operating system. There is no good thought behind it, only results of guesses that were proven to be counterproductive, but kept because they are the foundation of that system. It was created for a stupid reason, is maintained for a stupid reason, is developed in a stupid direction, and it will remain so forever. Why would I want to depend on it?
You on the other hand seem to have dedicated your life to rejecting technology simply on the basis that the idea was developed by someone who was being paid by microsoft.
No, I reject bad design because it's bad design.
Also you are emotionally attached to unix in a way that no grown adult should be.
I love good technology, as every engineer should. Technology development, just like science, medicine and other kinds of activity require love and dedication from people that practice them, otherwise those people would not produce anything valuable. You, on the other hand, have no love for anything in technology, and this disqualifies you from working on it.
It was evident as I tried to toy with you and it evoked interesting emotional reactions.
It does not matter where it is installed if it can't be implemented in any sane way. The way Wayland developers act, it's clear that any remote access will have to be stuffed into applications or bolted on top of framebuffer, and no effort will be made by Wayland developers to keep it working from release to release. This leaves VNC-like kludges as the only viable implementation, what is vastly inferior to X and does not support remote 3D or video.
There is no proper UNIX standard when it comes to security. BSD/SysV/Solaris/Linux etc just add different shit and POSIX will sometimes standardize it in some future revision.
More Windows apologisms from a person who thinks, security is implemented by creating unreadable permissions model and installing antivirus.
And none of those ideas have anything to do with the NT kernel.
NT kernel is an obsolete piece of software that has very little to do with most of Windows functionality, because it does not implement any. Microsoft thinks, it's modularity. In reality it's irrelevant because the only system that was ever built on it is Windows, and it only works with all its components, including ones that are total crap.
If you want to look at actual OS ideas you will have to ofcource look at microsoft research. When I was in college I have interned there for one summer. They have actually come up with new and interesting ideas and variations of existing ideas - singularity microkernel OS.. or "library OS" which is sort of an elegant OS sandbox partitioning mechanism with a single kernel instance and superior to some shit hack like chroot-jail/openvz.
Microsoft Research is an expensive zoo where Microsoft keeps people it would rather pay than see working for someone else. Being a company that depends on customer lock-in, it can't afford to produce a good OS, because good OS might start the whole family of better system, like the original Unix did, and customers will abandon the parent for its descendants. Crap systems, on the other hand, are doomed to remain unique.
They contain some share of public and private presence. Should the government be waiting for Bitcoin transaction approvals in order to appropriate funds from the Bitcoin taxbase to the Hospitals that need these funds for equipment, drugs, and payroll within the immediate future? If there are already examples of transaction approvals taking upwards of 20 days, how do you expect to pay for refills and hospital payroll in a timely manner? People's lives depend on this.
Words can't describe how stupid this is. First and foremost, the "industries" in question are security manipulations and assistance with fraud. Second, no healthcare system should deny urgently needed procedures for any reason, least of all for approval of payment. It's not practical because medical records must be available already, so existence of insurance coverage, if needed, can be confirmed immediately. Third, private healthcare without reliable public alternative can kiss my ass.
My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.
So in reality, it's not illegal anywhere in US, you were talking out of your ass, you make idiotic excuses, and you feel indignant about your bullshit being called. I see.
The problem is not X applications in Wayland, it's Wayland applications anywhere beyond Wayland developers' desktops. We don't want them, we want all applications working in X, with all X capabilities. Hell, we wanted Windows applications in X, and Wine runs them in X better than Wayland applications that won't run anywhere but in Wayland. Wayland out-Microsofted Microsoft in breaking other people's software, and it's not even released yet.
No, I enjoy perpetuating that stereotype. Its hilarious ! neck-beards.... and open-sores.. LOL That thing never gets old.
So you like saying stupid things. That means, you are either stupid, or have really poor taste.
I don't see anything relevant there.
You claimed, I did not accomplish anything, I have provided a reference that refutes your claims.
Where are your operating system ideas besides just parroting whatever your unix gods have told you?
Why would I develop new "operating systems ideas" when I find Unix-like systems to be perfectly suitable for my purposes? My whole point is that Unix-like systems already provided a great foundation for OS design, and now it's important not to develop more systems but get rid of cancer that is Windows. Then maybe something better will be developed, but right now I am not interested in a new framework, I am fine developing pieces of existing one.
If by "ahead" you mean - not really, no, never. First of all, UNIX has nothing to do with SMP. It never has, go read its history.
You have no idea what are you talking about. Unix provides a clean representation of concurrently running processes, their access to resources and communications. The underlying hardware may be a single processor, multiple processors in a symmetric or asymmetric configuration, with traditional memory architecture or NUMA. Old Digital systems running their Unix had memory remotely accessible from multiple CPUs before there even was SMP, on any architecture.
What clear separation? There is **NO** separation. With user/root permission model you get all or nothing.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Root user is a super-user and has access to everything, it's not supposed to be used for any purposes other than administration or starting processes, passing them access to resources (mostly sockets listening on privileged ports). Security is provided by separation between regular users and processes.
hahahahahahaaha... you mean like apparmor policies?? hahahahahaahahah
Apparmor policies are created to mitigate behavior of insecure applications in situations when large numbers of them are running as a single user. This is a non-Unix model, and it's only relevant in desktop environments that follow the obsolete "user ID means human user" model. It's better than what Windows has, but it's not real security, and it works outside the security model of the whole system. No one actually relies on that, it's just a barrier some distributions add to make exploits harder.
The point here is unix design has forced people to think about "all or nothing" when it comes to security access. Rather than thinking about what they permissions they want to give, they have to think about how can I minimize damage.
Again, you are ignorant. The idea is, not "all or nothing", it's "always nothing". Minimal access. No exceptions. Only simple operations managing everything else, are performed as root, and processes drop permissions as early as possible, never to be able to gain it again. Oh, you are a Windows user, you don't know how Unix processes work. Effective/real UID split was used by some software before, but it was abandoned in anything modern because dropping permissions outright, performing an operation and ending the process is a more secure and straightforward policy.
UNIX security model gives you nothing in between - reason is for quite a long time, dozens of kernel functions were hardcoded with suid==0 check instead of some sane design scheme. I don't know if this is still the case.
That's because you don't understand this model. Most executable aren't supposed to perform any complex operations while still running as root, some of them don't even parse configuration at that point. Once privileges are
I have to add myself to the chorus of people saying this.
Just use KDE for desktop environment (or install OS as Kubuntu, what will result in the same thing). I don't know how well E17 works on Ubuntu, but Unity and Gnome3 are both user interface wankery of Windows 8 magnitude, and I am not convinced at this point that MATE has enough developers to produce something I can recommend for newbies. XFCE and LXDE are viable options, too, however KDE at this point has the combination of features, quality, UI polish and adaptation for Ubuntu that are well ahead of others.
Actually hard realtime Linux exists for a while -- just in different forms. RTAI Xenomai PREEMPT_RT
There are some hardware architectures (actually one very popular hardware architecture) that usually have unpredictable crap running in background through OS-inaccessible interrupts, but that's the problem with irresponsible BIOS vendors, and it breaks realtime on all operating systems. Once that crap is disabled, even that architecture allows hard realtime -- I participated in a project that used just that.
Now THAT is hilarious. Complaining that malloc is non-deterministic and then alluding to dependence upon garbage collection. I get the distinct impression you've never written anything requiring high performance memory allocation/deallocation.
I am pretty sure, what you have encountered is a real (as in not like in Trollface comic) instance of trolling. Therefore:
But even if they don't have remote access there are several ways to exploit phpadmin or whatever other shitty php product they use to connect to the DB. (LAMP awesomeness ! Yay ! )
And you have an evidence that anyone actually had this accessible outside the local network, right?
Please stop reading security mailing lists and CVEs. They are not written for the likes of you -- it takes a person with actual knowledge of the products and their application to understand them.
Not everyone. I have seen several production websites which have their databases elsewhere and they allow remote connections.
While it's a bad practice, having unencrypted remote connections behind a firewall still does not make a server vulnerable. If you have any evidence of a production MySQL server being open to the public, please post it or shut up.
Its quite sad that they got fooled by asshole linux consultants
There are no "Linux consultants" that would ever recommend to run a Linux server (or any kind of server) without a competent in-house sysadmin.
who convinced them that moving towards open source is a good thing, not telling them about all the millions of security holes riddled in the vast majority of open source products.
More baseless FUD. Hint: a number of published (and fixed) bugs does not make a system insecure. Crap design and irresponsible development makes a system secure, and those are rampant in Windows OS and Windows software.
Slashdot Mirror
"it's easier for me to oppose their project loudly enough that it will sink"
You don't have that sort of power. No matter how much you shout on slashdot or wherever, you won't be able to sink Wayland through your "opposition".
O RLY? Wayland still exists because one (1) prominent X developer Keith Packard constantly talks about it. There is nothing else -- no good design, no one making anything that relies on it, no companies pushing it, not even distributions doing any actual work to accommodate it. It lives by hot air and dies by hot air.
Apparently it's also lucky to be trolled by the nonsense brigade, as all creative trolls are gone.
Did I ever think that I will miss MEEPT! ?
Really, kill yourself.
Just because a trial is overturned does not make the law void.
No. Wiretaps are universally defined as recordings that contain audio, and someone ignorantly trying to claim that it applies to video, does not make it a law.
Just because you feel the innate need to try to call BS on a post you don't want to take the time to understand because you don't like the information in the post, doesn't mean I'm out of line in pointing out solid evidence that the point is in fact valid.
It doesn't. But the fact that you have posted BS, most certainly does.
Note here what while I'm attempting to have, and fully open to, an adult, logical debate, you're only argument has been "Nuh, Uh prove it,"
"Prove it" is the only kind of debate that is acceptable when facts are concerned. We are not discussing interpretations -- you made a very specific claim, claim contradicts facts, I have called your bullshit, you wrote something that stretches "law" to "anything anyone claimed in court", what is still bullshit.
and name calling.
I did not call you any names. "Talking out of your ass" is a perfectly valid description of producing baseless bullshit.
Neither of which are logical arguments anywhere except with the possible exception of congress and elementary schools.
You fail at logic.
And what stops you from writing a wayland renderer for X?
I am not a Wayland developer, don't want to join them, and absolutely definitely don't want to be an outside developer, constantly scrambling to shoehorn new code into a project that is being developed by people who don't care about it. If Wayland developers taken such task upon themselves, maintained it, and kept it in mind when doing their hare-brained redesigns, I would consider using Wayland.
Without it, it's easier for me to oppose their project loudly enough that it will sink, rather than to take upon myself such a massive development effort only to keep the functionality everyone already has in X. Your proposal is an equivalent of inviting all Linux developers to abandon Linux and work on making Cygwin better than Linux because Microsoft would prefer this to happen. We (free software developers and users) succeeding in rejecting Windows, we certainly can do it to Wayland.
X is hard, so most programs actually rely on a toolkit, like:
- GTK: Ported to Wayland
- Qt: Port in progress
- SDL: Port in progress
- EFL: Ported
- Wine: Port being considered
If applications only used parts of toolkits that are independent of the underlying display system, no one would care about Wayland because then applications would simply load toolkit library that uses X or Wayland depending on what system it runs.
In reality this is not the case, so applications DO use particular display/graphics system peculiarities and therefore there is a difference.
So you're right that nobody will write Wayland programs, but nobody writes X programs either.
See above.
Actually nobody who understands operating systems thinks that.
Only if he works for Microsoft. What is the only thing you know.
Actually NT is not only highly modular but MS internally also maintains builds for multiple architectures.
Most likely they don't, however you can't know that unless you work for Microsoft. Do you?
Nope, it also works with POSIX and OS/2.
Too bad, they are completely unusable, and exist for no purpose but to put a checkmark on a feature list.
Some commercial companies have even created real time substem for industry applications that are in use today (RTX).
No, they are not. Some tried, one was bought by Microsoft that resulted in a pseudo-Unix for Windows that is inferior to Cygwin. None is actually used.
That is stupid. You are simply ignorant of the contributions. First of all they are funded by Microsoft - I don't see any redhat/canonical like company paying their own money to fund pure CS research that does not benefit them.
I have already explained that. Microsoft keeps them from working for anyone else, but can't benefit from anything they produce, so it just pays them to play with shit that will never go into any products. Microsoft may hope, there will be some use for them, but it will never happen.
IIRC recently ms research did a lot of work for the kinect team.
Kinect uses trivial, well known mechanism that did not require any real research, and it was developed by a company bought by Microsoft.
Oh.. you mean there were no lawsuits over UNIX copyrights?
If you did not notice, AT&T rescinded their claims (formerly-sealed documents were published recently), and Linux, of all things, developed meanwhile as "most definitely AT&T-free Unix". AT&T possibly delayed FreeBSD/NetBSD development (though it is possible that the result was an improvement in design of free *BSD systems). The fact is, commercial Unix lost its exclusivity a long time ago, and currently only AIX and Solaris survived as commercial Unix -- neither popular on architectures other than their manufacturers' hardware. The users, however, got a great family of operating systems, most of them free. Obviously Microsoft can't have that, where is the vendor lock-in?
Your thinking is defective. You are blinded by ideology
Unix is an example of great design, one of the few achievements in computing that produced something lasting.
rather than embracing technology.
Windows is not "technology", it's an overgrown toy project that is constantly being tweaked to imitate the features of an operating system. There is no good thought behind it, only results of guesses that were proven to be counterproductive, but kept because they are the foundation of that system. It was created for a stupid reason, is maintained for a stupid reason, is developed in a stupid direction, and it will remain so forever. Why would I want to depend on it?
You on the other hand seem to have dedicated your life to rejecting technology simply on the basis that the idea was developed by someone who was being paid by microsoft.
No, I reject bad design because it's bad design.
Also you are emotionally attached to unix in a way that no grown adult should be.
I love good technology, as every engineer should. Technology development, just like science, medicine and other kinds of activity require love and dedication from people that practice them, otherwise those people would not produce anything valuable. You, on the other hand, have no love for anything in technology, and this disqualifies you from working on it.
It was evident as I tried to toy with you and it evoked interesting emotional reactions.
It does not matter where it is installed if it can't be implemented in any sane way. The way Wayland developers act, it's clear that any remote access will have to be stuffed into applications or bolted on top of framebuffer, and no effort will be made by Wayland developers to keep it working from release to release. This leaves VNC-like kludges as the only viable implementation, what is vastly inferior to X and does not support remote 3D or video.
I dunno, donkey feces vs. broken bottles and syringes on the ground?
There is no proper UNIX standard when it comes to security. BSD/SysV/Solaris/Linux etc just add different shit and POSIX will sometimes standardize it in some future revision.
More Windows apologisms from a person who thinks, security is implemented by creating unreadable permissions model and installing antivirus.
And none of those ideas have anything to do with the NT kernel.
NT kernel is an obsolete piece of software that has very little to do with most of Windows functionality, because it does not implement any. Microsoft thinks, it's modularity. In reality it's irrelevant because the only system that was ever built on it is Windows, and it only works with all its components, including ones that are total crap.
If you want to look at actual OS ideas you will have to ofcource look at microsoft research. When I was in college I have interned there for one summer. They have actually come up with new and interesting ideas and variations of existing ideas - singularity microkernel OS .. or "library OS" which is sort of an elegant OS sandbox partitioning mechanism with a single kernel instance and superior to some shit hack like chroot-jail/openvz.
Microsoft Research is an expensive zoo where Microsoft keeps people it would rather pay than see working for someone else. Being a company that depends on customer lock-in, it can't afford to produce a good OS, because good OS might start the whole family of better system, like the original Unix did, and customers will abandon the parent for its descendants. Crap systems, on the other hand, are doomed to remain unique.
They contain some share of public and private presence. Should the government be waiting for Bitcoin transaction approvals in order to appropriate funds from the Bitcoin taxbase to the Hospitals that need these funds for equipment, drugs, and payroll within the immediate future? If there are already examples of transaction approvals taking upwards of 20 days, how do you expect to pay for refills and hospital payroll in a timely manner? People's lives depend on this.
Words can't describe how stupid this is. First and foremost, the "industries" in question are security manipulations and assistance with fraud. Second, no healthcare system should deny urgently needed procedures for any reason, least of all for approval of payment. It's not practical because medical records must be available already, so existence of insurance coverage, if needed, can be confirmed immediately. Third, private healthcare without reliable public alternative can kiss my ass.
My point here being that, while some states are taking action to allow for technologies to be used in our every day lives, people still need to be aware of the laws of their states and the possible consequences.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure I didn't see any need in my previous comment for your tone. I don't know if being a subscriber entitles you to also being a dick, or if you're just having one of those days. If you've ever read my comments, you'd have realized I don't talk out of my ass.
So in reality, it's not illegal anywhere in US, you were talking out of your ass, you make idiotic excuses, and you feel indignant about your bullshit being called. I see.
The problem is not X applications in Wayland, it's Wayland applications anywhere beyond Wayland developers' desktops. We don't want them, we want all applications working in X, with all X capabilities. Hell, we wanted Windows applications in X, and Wine runs them in X better than Wayland applications that won't run anywhere but in Wayland. Wayland out-Microsofted Microsoft in breaking other people's software, and it's not even released yet.
Actually in some states it is actually illegal to record an image of law enforcement.
Link now, or apology for talking out of your ass.
No, I enjoy perpetuating that stereotype. Its hilarious ! neck-beards.... and open-sores.. LOL That thing never gets old.
So you like saying stupid things. That means, you are either stupid, or have really poor taste.
I don't see anything relevant there.
You claimed, I did not accomplish anything, I have provided a reference that refutes your claims.
Where are your operating system ideas besides just parroting whatever your unix gods have told you?
Why would I develop new "operating systems ideas" when I find Unix-like systems to be perfectly suitable for my purposes? My whole point is that Unix-like systems already provided a great foundation for OS design, and now it's important not to develop more systems but get rid of cancer that is Windows. Then maybe something better will be developed, but right now I am not interested in a new framework, I am fine developing pieces of existing one.
If by "ahead" you mean - not really, no, never. First of all, UNIX has nothing to do with SMP. It never has, go read its history.
You have no idea what are you talking about. Unix provides a clean representation of concurrently running processes, their access to resources and communications. The underlying hardware may be a single processor, multiple processors in a symmetric or asymmetric configuration, with traditional memory architecture or NUMA. Old Digital systems running their Unix had memory remotely accessible from multiple CPUs before there even was SMP, on any architecture.
What clear separation? There is **NO** separation. With user/root permission model you get all or nothing.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Root user is a super-user and has access to everything, it's not supposed to be used for any purposes other than administration or starting processes, passing them access to resources (mostly sockets listening on privileged ports). Security is provided by separation between regular users and processes.
hahahahahahaaha... you mean like apparmor policies?? hahahahahaahahah
Apparmor policies are created to mitigate behavior of insecure applications in situations when large numbers of them are running as a single user. This is a non-Unix model, and it's only relevant in desktop environments that follow the obsolete "user ID means human user" model. It's better than what Windows has, but it's not real security, and it works outside the security model of the whole system. No one actually relies on that, it's just a barrier some distributions add to make exploits harder.
The point here is unix design has forced people to think about "all or nothing" when it comes to security access. Rather than thinking about what they permissions they want to give, they have to think about how can I minimize damage.
Again, you are ignorant. The idea is, not "all or nothing", it's "always nothing". Minimal access. No exceptions. Only simple operations managing everything else, are performed as root, and processes drop permissions as early as possible, never to be able to gain it again. Oh, you are a Windows user, you don't know how Unix processes work. Effective/real UID split was used by some software before, but it was abandoned in anything modern because dropping permissions outright, performing an operation and ending the process is a more secure and straightforward policy.
UNIX security model gives you nothing in between - reason is for quite a long time, dozens of kernel functions were hardcoded with suid==0 check instead of some sane design scheme. I don't know if this is still the case.
That's because you don't understand this model. Most executable aren't supposed to perform any complex operations while still running as root, some of them don't even parse configuration at that point. Once privileges are
Since the very beginning of the tradition of trolling?
I have to add myself to the chorus of people saying this.
Just use KDE for desktop environment (or install OS as Kubuntu, what will result in the same thing). I don't know how well E17 works on Ubuntu, but Unity and Gnome3 are both user interface wankery of Windows 8 magnitude, and I am not convinced at this point that MATE has enough developers to produce something I can recommend for newbies. XFCE and LXDE are viable options, too, however KDE at this point has the combination of features, quality, UI polish and adaptation for Ubuntu that are well ahead of others.
There are so many industries where transaction speed is critical.
And all of them deserve a bullet in the head.
T.A.R.D.I.S: the only hardware where bogosort is the most optimal sorting algorithm.
That was actually very easy to believe in 1993. What was hard to believe is that THERE WILL BE SO FEW SPACECHIPS IN 2013, dammit!!!
Actually hard realtime Linux exists for a while -- just in different forms.
RTAI
Xenomai
PREEMPT_RT
There are some hardware architectures (actually one very popular hardware architecture) that usually have unpredictable crap running in background through OS-inaccessible interrupts, but that's the problem with irresponsible BIOS vendors, and it breaks realtime on all operating systems. Once that crap is disabled, even that architecture allows hard realtime -- I participated in a project that used just that.
Now THAT is hilarious. Complaining that malloc is non-deterministic and then alluding to dependence upon garbage collection. I get the distinct impression you've never written anything requiring high performance memory allocation/deallocation.
I am pretty sure, what you have encountered is a real (as in not like in Trollface comic) instance of trolling. Therefore:
YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.
Of course, innovation can be automated! It already was, considering what human brains really are.
On the other hand, this pathetic exercise of regugritation of drivel based on superficial similarity... No, it won't produce anything genuinely new.
But even if they don't have remote access there are several ways to exploit phpadmin or whatever other shitty php product they use to connect to the DB. (LAMP awesomeness ! Yay ! )
And you have an evidence that anyone actually had this accessible outside the local network, right?
Please stop reading security mailing lists and CVEs. They are not written for the likes of you -- it takes a person with actual knowledge of the products and their application to understand them.
Not everyone. I have seen several production websites which have their databases elsewhere and they allow remote connections.
While it's a bad practice, having unencrypted remote connections behind a firewall still does not make a server vulnerable.
If you have any evidence of a production MySQL server being open to the public, please post it or shut up.
Its quite sad that they got fooled by asshole linux consultants
There are no "Linux consultants" that would ever recommend to run a Linux server (or any kind of server) without a competent in-house sysadmin.
who convinced them that moving towards open source is a good thing, not telling them about all the millions of security holes riddled in the vast majority of open source products.
More baseless FUD. Hint: a number of published (and fixed) bugs does not make a system insecure. Crap design and irresponsible development makes a system secure, and those are rampant in Windows OS and Windows software.