I don't know about any applications using it, but we use it interactively at the small company I work for. I use it instead of Post-Its. If I need to talk to somebody and they're away from their desk, I just go back to my desk and send them a quick messenger message. Then when they get back to their PC it's staring them in the face. It's also a nice tool for sending broadcast messages to the entire domain - we only have PA speakers in some parts of the building, so it is a handy PA substitute.
What's your plan for dealing with the clueless who go ahead and check that box anyway? Enough of them, and the firwalling becomes a moot point.
Well, beside that checkbox would be a bold warning to only check the box if you know what you are doing, and any actions resulting from not being firewalled would be held against you. I'd think that would stop (scare) most people.
We treat new customers like newborn babies until they can prove that they know the difference between a packet and a pocket. I would avoid an ISP that behaves in this manner like the plague. Why should I, a clueful customer, have to call my ISP and try to convince them that I'm "good enough" to not need a babysitter? I'm not against the concept of providing some protection for the many clueless users, but the choice should be made at signup time - I'd happily check a box on the signup form exempting me from the ISP's luser firewall rules, but I will not call and try to convince Joe-random-ISP-helpdesk-guy to do so after I've already signed up for service. That's way too much trouble, and for all I know the ISP could decide to be a prick and not do it.
Most people I know who don't want to upgrade to XP because they don't like the look are exactly the sorts of people that aren't technically savvy enough to even begin to think about dealing with the higher learning curve of *nix. I'm pretty competent with Windows, but more specialized on Unix and Unix-like OSs, so I wouldn't consider myself non-technically-savvy, but I did initially avoid Windows XP simply for the changes in look. From my initial looks at XP, the changes in UI were about the only differences I could tell, and they were not improvements over Windows 2000, so this was very little incentive to upgrade. Windows XP has proven itself, in comparison to Windows 2000, to have a less intuitive user interface, to fare equally on security, and to be slower on identical hardware. So even if the user interface can be made to look less kludgy, there's no reason for me to upgrade. And most people I know that don't want to upgrade to XP are for these very reasons, not for incompetence.
The "cure" may turn out to be no better then msblaster if it generates massive network traffic looking for new hosts. I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I carefully watched my firewall logs (not that I don't normally) through all stages of the blaster cycle, and realy there were nowhere near as many hits as I thought there would be. Part of this may have been due to filtering done by ISPs, but I don't know. Now that the W32/Nachi worm has been making its rounds, I'm getting 20-30 hits/minute on port 135 I never saw anywhere near that much activity with CodeRed, Nimda, you name it.:-/ It's a little disturbing, but if this new variant really is doing only good, I think it's a good thing.
Re:Why is this a good thing?
on
Announcing WiFiBSD
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
If this works great, than WiFi vendors don't owe the community a cent. BSD vs. GPL issues aside, what does WiFiBSD have to do with WiFi vendors? I don't think anyone has hinted that vendors are necessarily going to start using WiFiBSD in their products, so what gives? Besides, the functions of most commercial WiFi products can be duplicated and done much better with free software, so who says vendors of these embedded products would even have anything worthwhile that we would want given back to the community?
Nuclear simulations are used to see if the warheads are still effective [snip] More importantly, simulations are done to determine how stable old warheads will be when stored under various conditions and locations, and if they are still capable of detonation.
do you honestly think that EVERYONE with a PhD is in it for the job market? Well, this guy apparently _would_ like to get his degree, at least. As it says in the article, he's worried that if his dissertation gets classified, he may have problems graduating. This way, even if it does get classified, at least he'll be able to eat.
...a command prompt, which appears to be just "RF-CONTROL>"... She's apparently logged into a power grid control computer, which may be running a non-Unix(-like) OS. Ever log into a router or other embedded hardware with an obscure OS? They tend to have unusual (compared to Unix) shells/command interpreters.
it actually gives a confirmation message... No UNIX tool gives a confirmation message without your prompting it to... Well, adduser in OpenBSD displays a confirmation message when you create new users.
Uhh... yeahhh... it's on that page, at the bottom. It gives you the layout of a mirror, as well as an email address to contact saying that you would like to be listed as a mirror. While you're at it, tell them that archive.progeny.com (listed as providing ftp and http mirrors) is no longer mirroring OpenBSD. Shame, too, as they seem to be well-connected.
How about "FTPing Releases" right in the middle of the front page? How hard was that? I can't believe you are able to grasp the concept of OpenBSD, develop the initiative to install it, and realize that mirrors are a good idea (not to mention you are apparently a college student) yet you cant even read a simple web page.
Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there What about Direcway, or whatever it's called now? As I understand it, satellite internet customers are actually on an RFC 1918 network, with NAT on the satellite end.
There is never an instance where mail sent to user@domain will just deliver to the account user, which is sendmails default method of delivery. Heh, apparently my employer's ISP is too stupid to realize this factoid. We (being a small company, where the suits handle IT stuff) have our email handles by our ISP, where we have username@ourcompany.com addresses. However, at least half of the spam I get is addressed to username@ourisp.net. I always knew this is what was happening, but I never realized exactly why. Apparently, if these idiots would smarten up and do as you do and have a virtusertable, my inbox would be a lot less cluttered:) The real pisser is that most people are clueless enough to think that this ISP actually provides good service.
ipfilter is arcane to set up Whatever gave you that impression? Setting up IPFilter is very straightforward. The rules are modeled after spoken sentences - for example: pass out quick on le0 proto tcp/udp from any to any keep state What's arcane about that? If you can't figure out what that line is doing, you probably shouldn't be setting up a firewall anyway. pf's rule syntax is based on IPFilter's, and that's a Good Thing. Other than that, pf adds many new and improved features over IPFilter. By the way, FreeBSD's ipfw isn't terribly difficult to set up, but if you're going to call anything arcane, it should be ipfw's syntax, along with Linux's ipchains.
The new GNU binutils adds support for hppa... Call me ignorant, but what exactly does this mean for hppa (officially hp700)? From perusing this page it appears that the NetBSD/hp700/hppa port is about as far along as OpenBSD/hppa. Which is to say that installation and booting must be done over the network (I think.) Since I'm not a PA-RISC hacker, just a guy with a couple of PA-RISC boxes who would like to run *BSD on them, how are things looking?
But regardless, if you are doing nothing wrong there is no harm. Bullshit... if they have some reason to believe I'm pirating software, even if I'm not using said software, it can be tough for me to prove I'm innocent. After all, their standard is "guilty until raided and proven innocent." So they can come in and raid me, and even though I'm innocent, they can disrupt my business and confiscate my computers. Who else has the power to do this? Nobody I can think of, definitely not legally.
Do you prefer they eliminate the middle step and go straight to the FBI when you learn about your illegal copy of Office? Actually, yes. I think that's what everyone wishes would happen. If the BSA is accusing you of less than $5,000 worth of piracy, the FBI will tell the BSA to f'off. If they're accusing you of more than $5,000, then the FBI will conduct a proper investigation, unlike the BSA's slash and burn approach. The BSA is a vigilante group, and they should be stopped.
Naturally this led to their being held on horse tracks Well, as I understand it, the early forms of racing (think pre-WW1) were held on public roads, but due to the dangers of people lining the roads and cars sometimes careening into the crowds different venues were sought. Around depression times, nobody had the money to build dedicated road courses, so horse tracks were pressed into service as motor racing tracks. This is from where today's dirt-track racing traces its lineage. As racing grew in popularity and financial situations improved, dedicated road courses were built, and as safety improved, public street courses came back.
They can bounce off each other, plant a couple donuts, and still be okay Sure, that's more fun, but it's totally irrelevant when many people tout the skills of the drivers who are only feet apart at 190 mph. In other words, sure, it's close, tight driving, but the drivers can afford to make mistakes and bump into each other. It takes the precision out of it. Look at any open-wheel racing - if those drivers have any contact with each other (i.e. a mistake) they're finished. CART and IRL drivers get just as close to each other on the oval tracks as NASCAR drivers, but no way can they afford to bump into each other. That's skill.
Whew -- for a minute I thought this was an article referring to a bizarre fallout with PicoBSD Why on Earth would you think that? The title clearly states "MicroBSD Is No More." Not PicoBSD, MicroBSD. And I haven't seen any other comments that confused MicroBSD with PicoBSD, so what's your point?
It was fairly fast, and I heard the database we searched thru was quite a few terabytes... Man, I wish I could agree with that. I absolutely avoid the Microsoft KB as much as possible. It always seems horribly slow to me, and if you're not very specific it seems to give you way too many results. I've had a much better experience with Sun's sunsolve.sun.com. I'd imagine the MS KB is bigger, and structured differently, but it just seems really ungainly to me. If I find some sort of a bug it's usually much easier to search Google, and sometimes Googling will point me to the correct KB page anyway.
Could there be anything more silly than worrying about the movie representation of a software developer? Actually, the article is about the recent phenomenon of people believing these fallacious movie portrayals and choosing their career paths as such. Probably why we have so many mental-midget MCSEs as we do: 1. See movie with kewl programmers 2. Decide to go into programming 3. CS is too hard and it's not cool like in the movies 4. Get MCSE instead 5. ????? 6. Profit!
Heh, well said. Maybe you'd care to comment on the misuse of "-holic" as well. This is a real pet peeve of mine, where when someone wants to describe someone who is addicted to $something they use/invent the word $something:oholic. It really should be $something:ic, I presume. The "ohol" is simply part of the word "alcohol" that is incorrectly used.
tell that to PIXAR who just purchased a 1024 node blade server running Linux Pixar will tell you that they're running a cluster of 1024 individual PCs, which happen to be of the blade form-factor, not a single-system-image with 1024 processors. Tell that to SGI who have a 64-way Itanium running Linux True, this definitely could be called "high-end." However, I can run Linux just as easily on a 486; that's not high-end, is it? And I'll bet my 486 has less processing power than the forthcoming Motorola cell phone, so this is definitely not a new "low" for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about any applications using it, but we use it interactively at the small company I work for. I use it instead of Post-Its. If I need to talk to somebody and they're away from their desk, I just go back to my desk and send them a quick messenger message. Then when they get back to their PC it's staring them in the face. It's also a nice tool for sending broadcast messages to the entire domain - we only have PA speakers in some parts of the building, so it is a handy PA substitute.
What's your plan for dealing with the clueless who go ahead and check that box anyway? Enough of them, and the firwalling becomes a moot point.
Well, beside that checkbox would be a bold warning to only check the box if you know what you are doing, and any actions resulting from not being firewalled would be held against you. I'd think that would stop (scare) most people.
We treat new customers like newborn babies until they can prove that they know the difference between a packet and a pocket.
I would avoid an ISP that behaves in this manner like the plague. Why should I, a clueful customer, have to call my ISP and try to convince them that I'm "good enough" to not need a babysitter? I'm not against the concept of providing some protection for the many clueless users, but the choice should be made at signup time - I'd happily check a box on the signup form exempting me from the ISP's luser firewall rules, but I will not call and try to convince Joe-random-ISP-helpdesk-guy to do so after I've already signed up for service. That's way too much trouble, and for all I know the ISP could decide to be a prick and not do it.
Most people I know who don't want to upgrade to XP because they don't like the look are exactly the sorts of people that aren't technically savvy enough to even begin to think about dealing with the higher learning curve of *nix.
I'm pretty competent with Windows, but more specialized on Unix and Unix-like OSs, so I wouldn't consider myself non-technically-savvy, but I did initially avoid Windows XP simply for the changes in look. From my initial looks at XP, the changes in UI were about the only differences I could tell, and they were not improvements over Windows 2000, so this was very little incentive to upgrade. Windows XP has proven itself, in comparison to Windows 2000, to have a less intuitive user interface, to fare equally on security, and to be slower on identical hardware. So even if the user interface can be made to look less kludgy, there's no reason for me to upgrade. And most people I know that don't want to upgrade to XP are for these very reasons, not for incompetence.
The "cure" may turn out to be no better then msblaster if it generates massive network traffic looking for new hosts.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I carefully watched my firewall logs (not that I don't normally) through all stages of the blaster cycle, and realy there were nowhere near as many hits as I thought there would be. Part of this may have been due to filtering done by ISPs, but I don't know. Now that the W32/Nachi worm has been making its rounds, I'm getting 20-30 hits/minute on port 135 I never saw anywhere near that much activity with CodeRed, Nimda, you name it.:-/ It's a little disturbing, but if this new variant really is doing only good, I think it's a good thing.
If this works great, than WiFi vendors don't owe the community a cent.
BSD vs. GPL issues aside, what does WiFiBSD have to do with WiFi vendors? I don't think anyone has hinted that vendors are necessarily going to start using WiFiBSD in their products, so what gives? Besides, the functions of most commercial WiFi products can be duplicated and done much better with free software, so who says vendors of these embedded products would even have anything worthwhile that we would want given back to the community?
Nuclear simulations are used to see if the warheads are still effective
[snip]
More importantly, simulations are done to determine how stable old warheads will be when stored under various conditions and locations, and if they are still capable of detonation.
do you honestly think that EVERYONE with a PhD is in it for the job market?
Well, this guy apparently _would_ like to get his degree, at least. As it says in the article, he's worried that if his dissertation gets classified, he may have problems graduating. This way, even if it does get classified, at least he'll be able to eat.
...a command prompt, which appears to be just "RF-CONTROL>"...
She's apparently logged into a power grid control computer, which may be running a non-Unix(-like) OS. Ever log into a router or other embedded hardware with an obscure OS? They tend to have unusual (compared to Unix) shells/command interpreters.
it actually gives a confirmation message... No UNIX tool gives a confirmation message without your prompting it to...
Well, adduser in OpenBSD displays a confirmation message when you create new users.
Uhh... yeahhh... it's on that page, at the bottom. It gives you the layout of a mirror, as well as an email address to contact saying that you would like to be listed as a mirror. While you're at it, tell them that archive.progeny.com (listed as providing ftp and http mirrors) is no longer mirroring OpenBSD. Shame, too, as they seem to be well-connected.
How about "FTPing Releases" right in the middle of the front page? How hard was that? I can't believe you are able to grasp the concept of OpenBSD, develop the initiative to install it, and realize that mirrors are a good idea (not to mention you are apparently a college student) yet you cant even read a simple web page.
Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there
What about Direcway, or whatever it's called now? As I understand it, satellite internet customers are actually on an RFC 1918 network, with NAT on the satellite end.
How about unlisted and unpublished numbers as well?
There is never an instance where mail sent to user@domain will just deliver to the account user, which is sendmails default method of delivery. :) The real pisser is that most people are clueless enough to think that this ISP actually provides good service.
Heh, apparently my employer's ISP is too stupid to realize this factoid. We (being a small company, where the suits handle IT stuff) have our email handles by our ISP, where we have username@ourcompany.com addresses. However, at least half of the spam I get is addressed to username@ourisp.net. I always knew this is what was happening, but I never realized exactly why. Apparently, if these idiots would smarten up and do as you do and have a virtusertable, my inbox would be a lot less cluttered
ipfilter is arcane to set up
Whatever gave you that impression? Setting up IPFilter is very straightforward. The rules are modeled after spoken sentences - for example:
pass out quick on le0 proto tcp/udp from any to any keep state
What's arcane about that? If you can't figure out what that line is doing, you probably shouldn't be setting up a firewall anyway. pf's rule syntax is based on IPFilter's, and that's a Good Thing. Other than that, pf adds many new and improved features over IPFilter. By the way, FreeBSD's ipfw isn't terribly difficult to set up, but if you're going to call anything arcane, it should be ipfw's syntax, along with Linux's ipchains.
No discounts either, these are highstreet prices.
Is that the next street over from crack alley?
The new GNU binutils adds support for hppa...
Call me ignorant, but what exactly does this mean for hppa (officially hp700)? From perusing this page it appears that the NetBSD/hp700/hppa port is about as far along as OpenBSD/hppa. Which is to say that installation and booting must be done over the network (I think.) Since I'm not a PA-RISC hacker, just a guy with a couple of PA-RISC boxes who would like to run *BSD on them, how are things looking?
But regardless, if you are doing nothing wrong there is no harm.
Bullshit... if they have some reason to believe I'm pirating software, even if I'm not using said software, it can be tough for me to prove I'm innocent. After all, their standard is "guilty until raided and proven innocent." So they can come in and raid me, and even though I'm innocent, they can disrupt my business and confiscate my computers. Who else has the power to do this? Nobody I can think of, definitely not legally.
Do you prefer they eliminate the middle step and go straight to the FBI when you learn about your illegal copy of Office?
Actually, yes. I think that's what everyone wishes would happen. If the BSA is accusing you of less than $5,000 worth of piracy, the FBI will tell the BSA to f'off. If they're accusing you of more than $5,000, then the FBI will conduct a proper investigation, unlike the BSA's slash and burn approach. The BSA is a vigilante group, and they should be stopped.
Naturally this led to their being held on horse tracks
Well, as I understand it, the early forms of racing (think pre-WW1) were held on public roads, but due to the dangers of people lining the roads and cars sometimes careening into the crowds different venues were sought. Around depression times, nobody had the money to build dedicated road courses, so horse tracks were pressed into service as motor racing tracks. This is from where today's dirt-track racing traces its lineage. As racing grew in popularity and financial situations improved, dedicated road courses were built, and as safety improved, public street courses came back.
They can bounce off each other, plant a couple donuts, and still be okay
Sure, that's more fun, but it's totally irrelevant when many people tout the skills of the drivers who are only feet apart at 190 mph. In other words, sure, it's close, tight driving, but the drivers can afford to make mistakes and bump into each other. It takes the precision out of it. Look at any open-wheel racing - if those drivers have any contact with each other (i.e. a mistake) they're finished. CART and IRL drivers get just as close to each other on the oval tracks as NASCAR drivers, but no way can they afford to bump into each other. That's skill.
Whew -- for a minute I thought this was an article referring to a bizarre fallout with PicoBSD
Why on Earth would you think that? The title clearly states "MicroBSD Is No More." Not PicoBSD, MicroBSD. And I haven't seen any other comments that confused MicroBSD with PicoBSD, so what's your point?
It was fairly fast, and I heard the database we searched thru was quite a few terabytes...
Man, I wish I could agree with that. I absolutely avoid the Microsoft KB as much as possible. It always seems horribly slow to me, and if you're not very specific it seems to give you way too many results. I've had a much better experience with Sun's sunsolve.sun.com. I'd imagine the MS KB is bigger, and structured differently, but it just seems really ungainly to me. If I find some sort of a bug it's usually much easier to search Google, and sometimes Googling will point me to the correct KB page anyway.
Could there be anything more silly than worrying about the movie representation of a software developer?
Actually, the article is about the recent phenomenon of people believing these fallacious movie portrayals and choosing their career paths as such. Probably why we have so many mental-midget MCSEs as we do:
1. See movie with kewl programmers
2. Decide to go into programming
3. CS is too hard and it's not cool like in the movies
4. Get MCSE instead
5. ?????
6. Profit!
Heh, well said. Maybe you'd care to comment on the misuse of "-holic" as well. This is a real pet peeve of mine, where when someone wants to describe someone who is addicted to $something they use/invent the word $something:oholic. It really should be $something:ic, I presume. The "ohol" is simply part of the word "alcohol" that is incorrectly used.
tell that to PIXAR who just purchased a 1024 node blade server running Linux
Pixar will tell you that they're running a cluster of 1024 individual PCs, which happen to be of the blade form-factor, not a single-system-image with 1024 processors.
Tell that to SGI who have a 64-way Itanium running Linux
True, this definitely could be called "high-end." However, I can run Linux just as easily on a 486; that's not high-end, is it? And I'll bet my 486 has less processing power than the forthcoming Motorola cell phone, so this is definitely not a new "low" for Linux.