This is what I really don't get. Bind needs root permissions only to get access to port 53. After that, why doesn't it give up root permissions, like Apache? Having bind run as a non-priviledged user would have greatly minimized the security breach. The very fact that bind doesn't do that leads me to believe that it is insecure by design.
My second question is about running bind chroot'ed. I have seen the howto and it looks *very* useful for any daemon, especially bind in light of recent security problems. But some people have suggested that it is possible for a process to get out of chroot. Can somebody please elaborate? ___
Slot Athlons are obsolete. They were the first incarnation of Athlons and don't have on-die cache (it's on the CPU card, a la P2/early P3). AMD has switched to socket Athlons long ago. The on-die cache (a la latest P3/P4) gives significant speed improvements.
how is it possible to break out of chroot?
Also, why does bind run as root? I think it would be appropriate for it to switch to an unpriviledged user after binding port 53, the way apache does. Or even bind it to a different port and use the firewall to redirect port 53 to it -- then you don't need root at all. Ideas, anyone? ___
If the constraints of turning a profit were removed (and the REAL form of Communism were implemented) then development and progress would explode....wealth would be produced on such a scale that it would lose relevance as a concept.
I think you're missing the point here. I do not doubt this would happen *if* true communism were really implemented. But the problem is that true communism *cannot* be implement because of human limitations (like greed, corruption, etc.) Please reread the paragraph about always wanting a Porsche, bigger house, better food, etc. Under true communism you (and hence everyone) can have all that if and only if the resources are unlimited. But in that case communism becomes irrelevant. By definition, an economic system is a method of distributing *limited* resources among the people whose desires are unlimited.
In summary, communism is a great idea in theory but it is impossible to implement in practice because of human limitations. In order to work, it requires either unlimited resources or perfect people who have no greed, selfishness, etc. Please read the post you replied to again. The guy had excellent points. Finally, I have had first-hand experience of living in a pseudo-communist country and I can tell you that it wasn't pretty. ___
Other people have already pointed out that Gates giving away $100000 is like me giving away $1. But there is more to this. A lot of this so-called "donation" is given away in the form of Microsoft's software. We all know how ridiculously it is priced. And by giving it away, Bill & Co get two things. First, a huge tax write off. Second, all the universities who are forced to install MS software, often replacing other software with it. All hail St. Bill I say!
Making software for a OS like MS Windows just makes more business since.
Tell it to Corel. Back in '95-'96 they decided to drop OS/2 and UNIX ports of WordPerfect and compete with MS head-to-head on MS's own platform. Look where that got them. WordPerfect's market share went from 60% to under 3%. Now what were you saying about business sence? ___
Microsoft makes its money on apps; controlling the OS is only a way of controlling the app space.
That's *exactly* the point. If you split up MS that way, the app division will no longer be able to rely on the OS monopoly. They'll have to compete on their own. This will open up the playing field for the competition to come in. Similarly, the OS division will be forced to either make better producs or die.
No wonder Corel couldn't make money selling
Linux.
Wrong. They couldn't make any money because their distro sucked badly and they had no infrastructure in place to provide support/consulting/etc.
Linux aside, this is yet another nail in Corel's coffin. They've been dying for at least 3 years. I am really really surprised they survived even this long. As it stands they have no direction, no viable products, no image/reputation -- nothing. Does anyone know where they even get revenue these days? ___
How does this affect web sites using GPLed code behind the scenes? Since I am not distributing the code, or the binary, or in fact any part of the web site, all I am doing is sending the output of the code to various clients around the world, does this mean that I can keep the code behind the web site closed source?
Yep. That's a loophole. RMS was asked this exact question in a recent/. interview. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about this. As I said, the copyright law is about *distribution* not use.
Bruce Perens also mentioned another loophole: you can run the GPL code on one machine and proprietary code on another, and use CORBA or *gasp* COM interface to communicate between the two. ___
I bought SuSE 6.1 two years ago and had the same experience. Also, their "manual" looks like german text passed through babelfish. Oh well. It came with lots of packages though (5 CDs) and was quite cheap (I think $30 or $40), so it was still an ok deal, especially since I didn't have cable modem back then. But I've since switched to Mandrake on my workstation, and soon will probably switch to Debian. ___
Right, but that means you cannot distribute proprietary code linked against a GPL library since it cannot do anything useful without that library (well, crash/copmlain is not what I consider useful). ___
The GPL exists to protect the authors of Free Software from having their work stolen (yes, I said "stolen") by people who aren't willing to give back to the community.
Code cannot be "stolen". (and this is according to RMS. He gave a talk at my University). However, the GPL code can be "misused" (his term) in exactly the way you describe. ___
have i missed something or does GPL really not allow me to link to a non-gpl library even though it's just using it as a client? are you sure you don't mean "include" as opposed to "linked"?
Yes, this is exactly what it means. You can link GPL library only with GPL code. Period.
However, if the library is under LGPL, then you can link proprietary code with it. LGPL originally meant Library GPL, but RMS renamed it to "Lesser" GPL.
even if i intend never to distribute this binary and it's only for my own use?
Read the f* license. You do not need to accept GPL unless you plan to distribute your program. That is GPL explicitly allows you to make changes to the GPL code without releasing them as long as you don't redistribute it. Once again: GPL covers redistribution, not use. This is a very important distinction. All proprietary licenses I've seen "grant" you the "right to use" a piece of software. Well, guess what? this is a false premise. The copyright law covers *distribution*, not *use*.
Oh, and before you ask again, the standard C and C++ libraries on Linux are coverd by LGPL.
i thought the problem is in the rights on the *SOURCE*, not the rights on the binary. is it both? how can this actually be enforced?
Again, read the license. GPL is very explicit about that.
___
You can do whatever you want with BSD code. You *cannot* link proprietary code to a GPL library. If you want to do that you have 2 options: either release the whole thing under GPL or pay for a proprietary library and use that instead of the Free one.
Read the f* license before you post. And if you still don't get it, feel free to come back and ask slashdot again. ___
I think as proof by this Kaplan decision and many others too numerous to speak of regarding technology, the judicial system in America has a major problem: understanding.
I disagree. If anything Kaplan's decision shows a quite different but an even more severe problem: corruption. Didn't you know that Kaplan used to work for MPAA? ___
Actually, I think the original poster had a great point. Allow me to elaborate.
You say you like your current job. You like your company. You like your co-workers. The management treats you nice. You are loyal to the company, you say. But what is the company? It's a faceless entity whose sole purpose is making money. A logo. A stock ticker symbol. How can you be loyal to that?
From your description I can gather that you are actually loyal to the *people* that you are working with. And that's a very important distinction. The *people* have been treating you nice. The *people* deserve loyalty and respect.
If you are not convinced, think about this:
Suppose all your friends left the company and were replaced by other people who are complete strangers to you. Suppose further that the management also left and new people are running the company. The company name, logo, stock symbol, etc. remain the same. Are you still working at the same company? Does the company still deserve your loyalty? Or does the company need to prove once again that it deserves your loyalty?
In summary:
You cannot be loyal to the company. You are loyal to the people who happen to work at that company. ___
Meanwhile, BSD had already finished with its IPv6 stack and started moving on to other things, like jail(2)
Uhhm, Linux has had IPv6 support since at least 2.2.0. I can't remember if it was in 2.0.x or not. Oh, and can you explain the difference between chroot and jail? ___
Don't even start me on the other crap such as pesticides that the rest of the civilised world have banned
Correction. That should read "Don't even start me on the other crap such as pesticides that civilised world have banned". Or are you implying that US is part of the civilized world?... ___
Investment = Savings. That's right. The more money you save, the more loanable funds there is for somebody to start a new business. Whether they get the money from a bank or by selling bonds/stocks, they get the money *that you saved*. And that's the key. Higher savings results in higher growth rate of the economy. You are correct that higher savings also results in lower consumption, and therefore decreases GDP. But that is a *short term* effect. GDP will increase in the long run because the economy will grow faster. ___
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I really don't get. Bind needs root permissions only to get access to port 53. After that, why doesn't it give up root permissions, like Apache? Having bind run as a non-priviledged user would have greatly minimized the security breach. The very fact that bind doesn't do that leads me to believe that it is insecure by design.
My second question is about running bind chroot'ed. I have seen the howto and it looks *very* useful for any daemon, especially bind in light of recent security problems. But some people have suggested that it is possible for a process to get out of chroot. Can somebody please elaborate?
___
Slot Athlons are obsolete. They were the first incarnation of Athlons and don't have on-die cache (it's on the CPU card, a la P2/early P3). AMD has switched to socket Athlons long ago. The on-die cache (a la latest P3/P4) gives significant speed improvements.
___
see subject
___
see subject
___
yes it is just you
___
I don't get it. A company is giving away money to people who find prior art for patents. How do they make money???
___
how is it possible to break out of chroot?
Also, why does bind run as root? I think it would be appropriate for it to switch to an unpriviledged user after binding port 53, the way apache does. Or even bind it to a different port and use the firewall to redirect port 53 to it -- then you don't need root at all. Ideas, anyone?
___
I think you're missing the point here. I do not doubt this would happen *if* true communism were really implemented. But the problem is that true communism *cannot* be implement because of human limitations (like greed, corruption, etc.) Please reread the paragraph about always wanting a Porsche, bigger house, better food, etc. Under true communism you (and hence everyone) can have all that if and only if the resources are unlimited. But in that case communism becomes irrelevant. By definition, an economic system is a method of distributing *limited* resources among the people whose desires are unlimited.
In summary, communism is a great idea in theory but it is impossible to implement in practice because of human limitations. In order to work, it requires either unlimited resources or perfect people who have no greed, selfishness, etc. Please read the post you replied to again. The guy had excellent points. Finally, I have had first-hand experience of living in a pseudo-communist country and I can tell you that it wasn't pretty.
___
Other people have already pointed out that Gates giving away $100000 is like me giving away $1. But there is more to this. A lot of this so-called "donation" is given away in the form of Microsoft's software. We all know how ridiculously it is priced. And by giving it away, Bill & Co get two things. First, a huge tax write off. Second, all the universities who are forced to install MS software, often replacing other software with it. All hail St. Bill I say!
___
Tell it to Corel. Back in '95-'96 they decided to drop OS/2 and UNIX ports of WordPerfect and compete with MS head-to-head on MS's own platform. Look where that got them. WordPerfect's market share went from 60% to under 3%. Now what were you saying about business sence?
___
That's *exactly* the point. If you split up MS that way, the app division will no longer be able to rely on the OS monopoly. They'll have to compete on their own. This will open up the playing field for the competition to come in. Similarly, the OS division will be forced to either make better producs or die.
No wonder Corel couldn't make money selling Linux.
Wrong. They couldn't make any money because their distro sucked badly and they had no infrastructure in place to provide support/consulting/etc.
Linux aside, this is yet another nail in Corel's coffin. They've been dying for at least 3 years. I am really really surprised they survived even this long. As it stands they have no direction, no viable products, no image/reputation -- nothing. Does anyone know where they even get revenue these days?
___
Yep. That's a loophole. RMS was asked this exact question in a recent /. interview. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about this. As I said, the copyright law is about *distribution* not use.
Bruce Perens also mentioned another loophole: you can run the GPL code on one machine and proprietary code on another, and use CORBA or *gasp* COM interface to communicate between the two.
___
I bought SuSE 6.1 two years ago and had the same experience. Also, their "manual" looks like german text passed through babelfish. Oh well. It came with lots of packages though (5 CDs) and was quite cheap (I think $30 or $40), so it was still an ok deal, especially since I didn't have cable modem back then. But I've since switched to Mandrake on my workstation, and soon will probably switch to Debian.
___
Right, but that means you cannot distribute proprietary code linked against a GPL library since it cannot do anything useful without that library (well, crash/copmlain is not what I consider useful).
___
Code cannot be "stolen". (and this is according to RMS. He gave a talk at my University). However, the GPL code can be "misused" (his term) in exactly the way you describe.
___
Yes, this is exactly what it means. You can link GPL library only with GPL code. Period.
However, if the library is under LGPL, then you can link proprietary code with it. LGPL originally meant Library GPL, but RMS renamed it to "Lesser" GPL.
even if i intend never to distribute this binary and it's only for my own use?
Read the f* license. You do not need to accept GPL unless you plan to distribute your program. That is GPL explicitly allows you to make changes to the GPL code without releasing them as long as you don't redistribute it. Once again: GPL covers redistribution, not use. This is a very important distinction. All proprietary licenses I've seen "grant" you the "right to use" a piece of software. Well, guess what? this is a false premise. The copyright law covers *distribution*, not *use*.
Oh, and before you ask again, the standard C and C++ libraries on Linux are coverd by LGPL.
i thought the problem is in the rights on the *SOURCE*, not the rights on the binary. is it both? how can this actually be enforced?
Again, read the license. GPL is very explicit about that.
___
Let's get the facts straight. You can do that if the library is licensed under LGPL. You cannot link any proprietary code to a GPL library.
___
You can do whatever you want with BSD code. You *cannot* link proprietary code to a GPL library. If you want to do that you have 2 options: either release the whole thing under GPL or pay for a proprietary library and use that instead of the Free one.
Read the f* license before you post. And if you still don't get it, feel free to come back and ask slashdot again.
___
Take a look at www.linux-ha.org. Combined with linux-vs, it can do not only failover (N+N) but also hot spare (N+1).
___
I disagree. If anything Kaplan's decision shows a quite different but an even more severe problem: corruption. Didn't you know that Kaplan used to work for MPAA?
___
Actually, I think the original poster had a great point. Allow me to elaborate.
You say you like your current job. You like your company. You like your co-workers. The management treats you nice. You are loyal to the company, you say. But what is the company? It's a faceless entity whose sole purpose is making money. A logo. A stock ticker symbol. How can you be loyal to that?
From your description I can gather that you are actually loyal to the *people* that you are working with. And that's a very important distinction. The *people* have been treating you nice. The *people* deserve loyalty and respect.
If you are not convinced, think about this:
Suppose all your friends left the company and were replaced by other people who are complete strangers to you. Suppose further that the management also left and new people are running the company. The company name, logo, stock symbol, etc. remain the same. Are you still working at the same company? Does the company still deserve your loyalty? Or does the company need to prove once again that it deserves your loyalty?
In summary:
You cannot be loyal to the company. You are loyal to the people who happen to work at that company.
___
Uhhm, Linux has had IPv6 support since at least 2.2.0. I can't remember if it was in 2.0.x or not. Oh, and can you explain the difference between chroot and jail?
___
May I ask what you mean by "real OS". Could it be Windows 95?
___
Correction. That should read "Don't even start me on the other crap such as pesticides that civilised world have banned". Or are you implying that US is part of the civilized world?...
___
Investment = Savings. That's right. The more money you save, the more loanable funds there is for somebody to start a new business. Whether they get the money from a bank or by selling bonds/stocks, they get the money *that you saved*. And that's the key. Higher savings results in higher growth rate of the economy. You are correct that higher savings also results in lower consumption, and therefore decreases GDP. But that is a *short term* effect. GDP will increase in the long run because the economy will grow faster.
___