He shouldn't feel demeaned for it. Plus he's fifteen, for god's sake. At that age, that is a way of making an ass out of yourself in a socially aceptable way.
It's socially acceptible to 20-yr-olds, not to 15-yr-olds.
Google searches and perusing HTTP_REFERER logs can turn up some interesting things. I've found documentation written for my project in Czech (also a Czech patch), Portuguese and Japanese, as well as a directory listing in German. Free Software is cool!;-)
I've only just started reading this book, but one of the things I appreciate in the first chapter (about Tripwire) is the way they discuss various levels of paranoia - with each level being more secure, but more cumbersome or expensive to implement. Seeing all these different example setups, and the reasons WHY you might want to do it that way, definitely got me thinking.
1.8: Expensive, Ultra-Paranoid Security Checking
Problem You want highly secure integrity checks and are willing to shell out additional money for them.
Solution Store your files on a dual-ported disk array. Mount the disk array read-only on a second, trusted machine that has no network connection. Run your Tripwire scans on the second machine.
Discussion A dual-ported disk array permits two machines to access the same physical disk. If you've got money to spare for increased security, this might be a reasonable approach to securing Tripwire.
Once again, let trippy be your machine in need of Tripwire scans. trusty is a highly secure second machine, built directly from trusted source or binary packages with all necessary security patches applied, that has no network connection and never has been accessible to third parties.
trippy's primary storage is kept on a dual-ported disk array. Mount this array in trusty read-only. Perform all Tripwire-related operations on trusty: initializing the database, running integrity checks, and so forth. The Tripwire database, binaries, keys, policy, and configuration are likewise kept on trusty. Since trusty is inaccessible via any network, your Tripwire checks will be as reliable as the physical security of trusty.
Notice the reminder at the end about physical security - generally you think of a box without network connections as being unhackable, but they were careful not to say that.
There will be some sections of the book I'll be skipping. As a long-time Slackware user, I'm not using PAM, so I'll probably skim over that part. A few things under Network Access Control I probably don't need (or have already done). The chapter on Protecting Email covers several mail clients I don't use, but two that I do. Most of the rest of the book looks VERY useful. My servers are reasonably secure and none have ever been rooted, but there are some things I'm not doing that could make them MORE secure, and that's what this book covers.
Sure you can learn a few tricks about current versions of software, but that's no substitute for staying up to date
Before you can stay up to date, you have to get up to date. This book helps.
and UNDERSTANDING the software you run,
So far I've found the explanations very thorough. You haven't read the book, I take it.
in addition to watching security related mailing lists and newsgroups.
This will let you know about holes in your software, but if your software isn't configured securely in the first place, it won't help you that much. Start with this book.
System administration isn't easy, that's why they make big dollars.
Hopefully the economy will recover soon, and that will be true again. In the mean time, there are a lot of talented sysadmins waiting tables because their unemployment benefits have run out.
I sent e-mail to daddypants about that before the article was posted for non-subscribers. It's a good thing Slashdot has editors, or nobody would have been around to fix it! Erm, wait...
Don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. Your experience may differ from your friend's. I'm not saying it will, just saying it could.
Presumably he means line-of-sight to the satelite, not to the base station. Satelite TV doesn't work too well if you cover the dish; GPS can't be much different.
In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.
Covad is still open (they recovered from Chapter 11), and does service Phoenix. SpeakEasy uses Covad exclusively, and as far as I know Earthlink uses Covad in Phoenix. Of course, Covad's ADSL normally uses line sharing on top of Qwest's line, so if Qwest's line won't qualify for DSL, you're probably still out of luck. See if SDSL is an option (SDSL normally runs on a dry pair).
Pair gain does kill DSL, but don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. They may switch your phone line to a new pair.
BTW, 95 can support USB as well, only MS doesn't promote it.
Only Win95-C as I recall, not the original Win95, Win95-A or Win95-B. Microsoft doesn't exactly advertise it, but it does mention USB support on the CD itself. By the way, there is no upgrade path from an earlier version of Win95 to Win95-C. Somebody correct me if I remember incorrectly? It's been awhile.
They have lists of stolen and random generated email addresses.
1) don't let your browser report your real email address (if you're on windows, this may require using a non-IE browser)
The browser doesn't report your e-mail address in normal situations, and the most obvious way of getting it to do so pops up a warning dialog that says your e-mail address will be sent. What browser he uses has nothing to do with the spammers getting his address.
Irrelevant whether it's distributing, it's duplication. By duplicating it without a license for the GPL'd parts (and the binary-only nature of the SCO part violates this), you're in breach of copyright.
No - SCO isn't packaging and selling the kernel. SCO is selling a license allowing users to USE a (precompiled binary) Linux kernel, which (according to SCO) contains SCO's proprietary code.
Distributing said kernel (by anyone including ftp.kernel.org) is apparently illegal if SCO's copyright claims are correct (which they aren't). SCO cannot sell a license allowing the Linux kernel to be distributed unless said license was compatible with the GPL (which it wouldn't be).
If SCO's copyright claims are correct, it is illegal for anyone except the copyright holders (all of them, including SCO, together as a group) to distribute copies of the Linux kernel - copyright law prohibits this (just like it prohibits distribution of copies of Windows XP by anyone other than Microsoft), and the GPL would be void (because SCO's part of the code isn't licensed by the copyright holder under a GPL-compatible license).
If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well)
Spreading copies around within your own internal organization doesn't qualify as "distributing" according to the GPL. It's only "distributing" if you distribute outside your organization.
Apple uses gcc to compile Mac OS X, and pushes gcc for developers, so they've been doing their own work on gcc. The more compiler hackers that use PPC, the better gcc will become, no? Maybe this new machine will add some motivation.
I'm sorry if I'm misinformed, but isn't the Linux kernel lisenced under the GPL? And isn't the GPL viral? I'm not a lawyer or anything, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean SCO CAN'T put out a new lisence on it?
The GPL is a redistribution license, not a usage license. I think as long as SCO doesn't distribute Linux, they can grant a license to use their code in Linux without the GPL interfering. However, the GPL would prohibit redistribution, since the entire kernel would not be covered by the GPL - SCO could not license their code in such a way as to allow any distribution of Linux unless SCO granted a GPL-compatible license (hardly likely).
Naturally all this implies that the kernel does in fact include SCO's proprietary code, and ignores the fact that SCO already distributed Linux under the GPL themselves. The whole mess is absurd, but it's interesting to think about.
Slashdot Mirror
He shouldn't feel demeaned for it. Plus he's fifteen, for god's sake. At that age, that is a way of making an ass out of yourself in a socially aceptable way.
It's socially acceptible to 20-yr-olds, not to 15-yr-olds.
(the one exception, of course, is that the Matrix 2 sucked and everyone agrees).
You're kidding, right?
Opera is free software too Einstein. You can download the free banner supported version...
I meant Free Software, Einstein. Free as in speech, not free as in beer.
Perhaps because Mozilla is Free Software and Opera isn't?
will mozilla ever put MNG support back in?
Doubtful. Search Bugzilla for bugs about this, and watch people bitch and moan. I agree it should go back in, but some of the developers disagree.
Google searches and perusing HTTP_REFERER logs can turn up some interesting things. I've found documentation written for my project in Czech (also a Czech patch), Portuguese and Japanese, as well as a directory listing in German. Free Software is cool! ;-)
Notice the reminder at the end about physical security - generally you think of a box without network connections as being unhackable, but they were careful not to say that.
There will be some sections of the book I'll be skipping. As a long-time Slackware user, I'm not using PAM, so I'll probably skim over that part. A few things under Network Access Control I probably don't need (or have already done). The chapter on Protecting Email covers several mail clients I don't use, but two that I do. Most of the rest of the book looks VERY useful. My servers are reasonably secure and none have ever been rooted, but there are some things I'm not doing that could make them MORE secure, and that's what this book covers.
Sure you can learn a few tricks about current versions of software, but that's no substitute for staying up to date
Before you can stay up to date, you have to get up to date. This book helps.
and UNDERSTANDING the software you run,
So far I've found the explanations very thorough. You haven't read the book, I take it.
in addition to watching security related mailing lists and newsgroups.
This will let you know about holes in your software, but if your software isn't configured securely in the first place, it won't help you that much. Start with this book.
System administration isn't easy, that's why they make big dollars.
Hopefully the economy will recover soon, and that will be true again. In the mean time, there are a lot of talented sysadmins waiting tables because their unemployment benefits have run out.
Shall i reboot?
You're suggesting they'll stop to ask first?
The first sentence of the article no verb.
I sent e-mail to daddypants about that before the article was posted for non-subscribers. It's a good thing Slashdot has editors, or nobody would have been around to fix it! Erm, wait...
They won't. A friend of mine...
Don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. Your experience may differ from your friend's. I'm not saying it will, just saying it could.
GPS works by means of satellites man...
Presumably he means line-of-sight to the satelite, not to the base station. Satelite TV doesn't work too well if you cover the dish; GPS can't be much different.
DMCA is a copyright law, and only prohibits circumvention of copy control devices - it does not make all circumvention of anything illegal.
In Phoenix, we have two different Cablemodem providers, with some fairly significant overlapping coverage, but all of the independent DSL line providers for residential closed except for Qwest, and Qwest still uses Pair Gain, which kills DSL.
Covad is still open (they recovered from Chapter 11), and does service Phoenix. SpeakEasy uses Covad exclusively, and as far as I know Earthlink uses Covad in Phoenix. Of course, Covad's ADSL normally uses line sharing on top of Qwest's line, so if Qwest's line won't qualify for DSL, you're probably still out of luck. See if SDSL is an option (SDSL normally runs on a dry pair).
Pair gain does kill DSL, but don't assume you can't get DSL through Qwest until you talk to Qwest and they tell you you can't. They may switch your phone line to a new pair.
BTW, 95 can support USB as well, only MS doesn't promote it.
Only Win95-C as I recall, not the original Win95, Win95-A or Win95-B. Microsoft doesn't exactly advertise it, but it does mention USB support on the CD itself. By the way, there is no upgrade path from an earlier version of Win95 to Win95-C. Somebody correct me if I remember incorrectly? It's been awhile.
They have lists of stolen and random generated email addresses.
1) don't let your browser report your real email address (if you're on windows, this may require using a non-IE browser)
The browser doesn't report your e-mail address in normal situations, and the most obvious way of getting it to do so pops up a warning dialog that says your e-mail address will be sent. What browser he uses has nothing to do with the spammers getting his address.
Hmm. I could have sworn this was mentioned, but I just looked at it again and can't find it. Sorry about that.
;-)
Too bad I can't retract my own posts. Somebody mod the grandparent down!
Irrelevant whether it's distributing, it's duplication. By duplicating it without a license for the GPL'd parts (and the binary-only nature of the SCO part violates this), you're in breach of copyright.
Ohhhhhh. Right. Whoopsie. Thanks.
No - SCO isn't packaging and selling the kernel. SCO is selling a license allowing users to USE a (precompiled binary) Linux kernel, which (according to SCO) contains SCO's proprietary code.
Distributing said kernel (by anyone including ftp.kernel.org) is apparently illegal if SCO's copyright claims are correct (which they aren't). SCO cannot sell a license allowing the Linux kernel to be distributed unless said license was compatible with the GPL (which it wouldn't be).
If SCO's copyright claims are correct, it is illegal for anyone except the copyright holders (all of them, including SCO, together as a group) to distribute copies of the Linux kernel - copyright law prohibits this (just like it prohibits distribution of copies of Windows XP by anyone other than Microsoft), and the GPL would be void (because SCO's part of the code isn't licensed by the copyright holder under a GPL-compatible license).
IANAL; somebody correct me.
If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well)
Spreading copies around within your own internal organization doesn't qualify as "distributing" according to the GPL. It's only "distributing" if you distribute outside your organization.
You haven't a clue... you can't build a 1 CPU based off of the next generation PowerPC 970 from IBM. Each chip has two CPUs.
Um, Apple's PPC970s have one CPU per chip. Presumably IBM will be using the same chips.
With IBM's fabrication costs, I could see how they could see a 4way box for $3500.
Absolutely.
gcc is a complete joke on PPC.
Apple uses gcc to compile Mac OS X, and pushes gcc for developers, so they've been doing their own work on gcc. The more compiler hackers that use PPC, the better gcc will become, no? Maybe this new machine will add some motivation.
No, I don't think they aren't.
Actually I don't think I wouldn't disagree with you.
You've gotta be careful about using double negatives, but triple negatives are OK.
I'm sorry if I'm misinformed, but isn't the Linux kernel lisenced under the GPL? And isn't the GPL viral? I'm not a lawyer or anything, so please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean SCO CAN'T put out a new lisence on it?
The GPL is a redistribution license, not a usage license. I think as long as SCO doesn't distribute Linux, they can grant a license to use their code in Linux without the GPL interfering. However, the GPL would prohibit redistribution, since the entire kernel would not be covered by the GPL - SCO could not license their code in such a way as to allow any distribution of Linux unless SCO granted a GPL-compatible license (hardly likely).
Naturally all this implies that the kernel does in fact include SCO's proprietary code, and ignores the fact that SCO already distributed Linux under the GPL themselves. The whole mess is absurd, but it's interesting to think about.