This Internet ID scheme has been floated a couple of times now and it is not going to happen. The Federal Government like big companies and big programs aka Comcast/NBC, Net Control(net neutrality) and National Healthcare. It is about controlling the most people with the least effort. This is no different than requiring me to 'show my papers.' All of this really needs to stop. --If the feds need something to do they could start by implementing IPv6 and getting everyone an IP address.
No, this is no different than the fob people use to login to WoW, or the PKI system we already use to secure connections to websites. YOU and your "+insightful" moderators are why we still have password based logins while perfectly good PKI systems have been around forever in computer years.
A law was broken? So what? You are probably breaking more than a dozen laws a week, just by living and breathing, taking shortcuts over the lane, missing some info on the tax report, etc. If someone is out to get you, they can easily find something on you, or fabricate evidence against you.
If you had any spine left in your body AC, you would ask yourself WHY someone put their LIFE on the line to disclose this information, and why someone else do EVERYTHING in their power to stop it..
LOL @ "Steeltoe" calling someone else a spineless anonymous coward.
Pvt. Manning is a moron. LOL @ "EVERYTHING in their power"
You really, really do not know what oppression is.
Of course part of the problem here is that they really don't use the "wiki" in Wikileaks. At least in theory they were going to be using wiki or wiki-like tools that would let newcommers and ordinary people help with the processing of the information, but apparently that has been thrown out the window. Yes, it started that way, but it isn't any more.
Certainly something like Distributed Proofreaders could help in processing the information, to show what a "crowdsourcing" model or at least community development effort could look like without the wiki itself.
Yeah, there is political infighting, but a great deal of that is self-inflicted. There is a need for something like WIkileaks and I'm glad that they are doing what they are doing, but they also need to get their act together if they are going to pull through this as well. That Julian Assange couldn't keep his pants zipped up has also hurt a whole bunch too.
Or, and I know this is a WILD idea, one could give information directly to multiple news outlets anonymously. Just a crazy thought.
So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?
Uh, yes? Not being a US-citizen makes it even easier to intercept their communications. However, this didn't involve any interception, and I'm not even sure you have legal recourse if it were, being A. The Internet, and B. Twitter's records, not yours. There are specific laws protecting your confidentiality with others, and please don't act surprised that Twitter is under no such obligation.
You have the Internet the way it is in one hand and you want some legal right to privacy on it in the other. So confusing, are you guys for or against Internet regulation??
Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.
To where is the only real question.
Nobody made you keep permanent records of those discussions. Of course you have a right to privacy, but if you video tape everything you do and later give a court reason to subpoena you or search your residence, your own records would be used as evidence. Duh.
This isn't actually true is it? Can I send an app built on my linux box to someone running a different arch & distro -- no! Can an Apple user send a current intel-only app to someone running OSX on PPC or iOS on a mobile device -- no! Then we get to the question of why anybody would ever want to copy a raw binary instead of using a linux distros package manager?
Fat binaries were a temporary workaround and both Apple and MS include emulators. Can I run a linux ARM binary via a distro under QEMU from another arch -- yes.
Uh, you have split x86/x86_64 binaries _right_now_ on Linux & Windows & Solaris even. Whats this about fat binaries being temporary? How long were you using x86 binaries optimized for a i386, because there was no way of supporting multiple archs simultaneously? How long before your x86_64 binaries start getting long in the tooth and missing modern optimizations? Whats the plan for those?
You're also missing the huge point that a.app is what under other operating systems you'd call "portable". It is a directory with fat binaries under it AND application data/defaults. These portable apps exist, and are in demand, but unlike OS X don't comprise 99% of these other systems.
This portable configuration is also something UNIX admins go out of their way to achieve manually by ripping apart the distro provided software and installing everything under one directory somewhere to manage easier instead of/etc,/var/foo,/usr/libexec64/wtf,/usr/bin,/WhereverTheFuckCPANIs,/StupidFuckingRubyGEMs/bin, etc. Like/usr/local/apache/bin|etc|lib. Which gets backed up or rsynced around easily.
So, don't tell me centralized repositories provide this, because anyone actually working with UNIX for a living knows repos, gem, cpan, etc are all bullshit. I would LOVE to be installing/Applications/ActiveMQ.app,/Applications/Apache.app,/Applications/MySQL.app on Linux right now, and point them all to/opt/my_integrated_application/conf which I back up nightly and rest at ease knowing updates wont touch it.
I could upgrade Whatever.app without screwing my local configuration. Look how painstakingly slow this gets worked out on Linux, how long it took for various apps to have a modular config with overridable defaults. Apache STILL has basic bullshit in the distro provided httpd.conf you can't override from a conf.d fragment. Like... listening on 0.0.0.0:80 for christ's sake.
Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.
Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.
I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.
The round trip latency is the same, and on top of that your client can't extrapolate positions of moving objects or freely render player controlled objects so the perceived latency is worse. I'm not saying the latency isn't tolerable, but this method isn't gaining you anything.
That guy you missed by 300 pixels? Now you're looking at where he used to be instead of where an intelligent algorithm thinks he probably is. You'll have to mentally compensate for that latency now. You might get used to it after a while, if it is consistent. It wont be, and if it were, a computer algorithm still does a better job than your brain.
Has Linux not been able to do this for years using Intel's PXE (Preboot eXecution Environment)?
There are much, much better examples of network booting than Linux. Solaris for one, and it's old as dirt in computing years. The install media has a working PXE grub image which is integrated with their installer, which makes additional DHCP queries for install configuration. SPARC PROMs do the same thing, although skipping the PXE part. Grub itself will make one DHCP query for the location of a grub.conf, and I guess that's how Linux folks manage network installs, by embedding everything in a smattering of grub.confs across the network. Anyway, doing remote installs is a very common use of net-booting today, then there's Sun's thin client stuff, but I have no idea how prevalent those are. Provisioning has got to be the most common use.
Nobody is accusing net-booting of being new. It would certainly be new, and weird for Apple though if there is any truth to it. Anyone who's messed around with it much knows theres a lot of room for improvement. Esp. if they use it for more than automated provisioning, that would be significant.
How many gaping issues are left unresolved because microsoft is maintaining a stable ABI?
Bringing up gaping unresolved issues in a Linux debate is a lot like invading Asia. Please, tell us about these gaping issues caused by the modest amount of discipline required to maintain a stable ABI. Looking at the problems Linux has, how are the cons of an ABI not worth it? Can you even give one tangible pro for the status quo that an end-user would appreciate? "More frequent kernel releases" is so not an answer...
Unlike the proprietary drivers from ATI/AMD and NVIDIA or any of the drivers on the Microsoft Windows side, it's not easy to provide updated drivers post-release in distributions like Ubuntu due to the inter-dependence on these different components and all of these components being critical to the Linux desktop's well being for all users.
That's a funny was of saying Linux doesn't have a stable ABI because its architects are crazy.
I honestly hope in five years you can all go back and laugh at articles like these, but more than likely you'll have slightly bigger version numbers and different silly names.
Do they have an RN there for that, or does Barney Fife take a crack at it?
They're called phlebotomists. I found at least one state with one sec of googling that trains their regular police force do it, and I know of others that have full time phlebotomists.
Joysticks can't do that. They can be fast or precise, but not both at once. You either have to turn up the sensitivity/acceleration for fast moves, meaning precise aiming is very hard, or you have to turn it down to allow precision, but sacrifice quick movement.
So for FPSes the mouse is by far a superior control system.
IF and only IF one feels the need to make a virtual weapons as fast and accurate as the mouse, which is absolutely _ludicrous_, and gives an advantage to players with different types of mice (wired/wireless). The notion of a tethered mouse being "better" for a PC FPS is totally unnecessary horse shit. Don't get me wrong, a mouse's relative input does work very well in a FPS, but there are _plenty_ of situations in a FPS even where constant input is better, and whole genres where constant input works better overall like driving/flying sims. You acknowledge that much I know, but it still has to be said for others.
I have an experiment. Tape a laser pointer to a toy rifle and a toy pistol. Acquire some targets at various ranges. Tie a five pound weight to the toy rifle and try again. Hell, try the laser pointer by itself. Is any of this easier than point & shoot on a mouse? This is why I roll my eyes at "mice are superior for FPS". They are when the virtual weapons involved are stupidly accurate, and players have big gliding balls for feet that can rapidly do 180's.
THAT is not by any means "better" than what an FPS could be. Weapon accuracy should be dialed down a lot, and a little aim assist once in a while isn;t going to hurt anyone. I think we can all universally agree that melee attacks for example with any current input device are pretty horrendous without assistance.. one hit kill, short range aim assist, etc. BTW, yes, melee one-hit is assistance, it's not "real" when one stab always kills but a bullet to the chest is _always_ a flesh wound.
Pretty much every major Windows security story I've read in the last couple of years is due to some hole being exploited either in Windows or commonly used Windows software which lacks the sandboxing that's common on Linux (Apparmor, SELinux, etc), not users downloading trojans.
Err, so we rip on UAC for a few years then pretend it doesn't exist when it's convenient?
All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.
Do you ever own any more than the paper a book is printed with, or the plastic a game or music was stamped on? I don't think owning the content or not is even in question, you don't.
As far as DRM in the device that renders that content, who says they _have_ to do anything you want? Whats the difference between DRM'ed music and a proprietary format that nobody else understands? I don't see exactly why a device that _can_ technically do something _should have to_ because you paid for it and want it to. If a device implements some kind of DRM and you buy it, you bought a DRM implementation, congrats. If that isn't breaking any laws then, uh, vote with your wallet? If you can't do that, maybe it isn't so bad?
If you are a node-based company worth several billion, charge for services, and don't even run enough of your own supernodes and monitor them in such a way that they cannot handle an outage effectively, you need serious help.
No one expects 40% of a globally distributed network to crash at once. No one. FTFA:
The initial crashes happened just before our usual daily peak-hour (1000 PST/1800 GMT), and very shortly after the initial crash, which resulted in traffic to the supernodes that was about 100 times what would normally be expected at that time of day.
Not even a multi-billion dollar company would have a disaster plan that provisions 100x capacity as a hot/cold spare. Though I bet their new plan includes automatic spawning of nodes on EC2 or some other distributed CDN.
It was their own widely deployed buggy software that caused the big chunk to go offline. Any other organization with a big deploy everywhere button would understand the importance of an equally big roll back button, and heavy testing before doing either. I guess because Skype's clients are also their servers so they have no control is an excuse? Is it a good one?
AD does not have a built in framework for account validation (asking appropriate authorities, does this account still need to exist?). The role based concepts are relatively primitive. There is no capability to preserve the authorization record for granting access. All of those concepts have to be added on.
This is the job of a configuration/workflow management tool.
I've reviewed some of the various enterprise grade products, and none of them did as well as this self-built product.... AD is really nothing more than LDAP + Kerberos with a pretty GUI. It simply should never be considered adequate in and of itself for user management because it does not address several key requirements of the area.
Your self-built product is more than LDAP + Kerberos and a pretty GUI? You're lying to yourself if you think even a tiny fraction of UNIX deployments have THAT, whereas nearly ALL Windows Server deployments have AD. AD isn't the be-all-end-all, but "never considered adequate"? You are full of shit.
Actually deploying accounts, nothing beats actual local accounts.
WTF? This is the real truth, Kerberos + LDAP is too hard for the average UNIX admin team so they fall back to local accounts, broken ass AD integration that is harder than it should be, or "LDAP + Kerberos" with less features than AD. OR they buy VAS.
1. UNIX systems are hard to integrate with AD 2. AD is "Kerberos + LDAP + DNS" 3. UNIX systems are hard to integrate with Kerberos + LDAP, and what's a service record?
I'm sorry man, but I can't even begin to picture a homemade AD replacement that accomplishes a fraction of what AD does with as little effort and is not a complete maintenance nightmare. You're talking about integrating a LOT of things that mix like oil and water on their own, with what, some shell scripts? Perl? PHP?
It's a privatized LDAP server... there are lots of OpenLDAP based solutions that work as or more effectively. Also, it isn't always the technology, but administration of such that becomes critical.
It's Kerberos + LDAP + DNS + certificate management system + some configuration management + more. With Linux, those are completely separate projects and each a bitch to configure and use, and good luck integrating them. That is a ton of work, and doesn't exist in most UNIX environments because of the staff required to maintain it. Compare to AD where even two man shops have fully kerberized remote management (not just RD/SSH - actual management tools) and instrumentation, single sign-on, and all that integrated with native and web apps. I dare you to get mod_auth_kerb and mod_auth_ldap working together some time. Provided anyone reading this even has kerberos authentication and a directory server other than AD. And tell me what is so difficult about dig SRV _kerberos._tcp.domain.com service discovery with DNS?
These are not private, proprietary magic things, these are simple things the OSS community is completely ignorant of. Next time you hard code an ldap url, kerberos server, etc, think how Windows does it. It _should_ be embarrassing.
If Russia starts using Linux and demanding that app vendors make programs compatible for the OS, or else they will pay or find application vendors that will, this will get the mainstream guys to start treating Linux as a top tier platform and not something to hide in the server room racks.
The result? A win/win/win situation. Linux can become an alternative to Windows. Application makers have a gigantic market (Russia, then possibly China, then perhaps Europe, anywhere there is distrust of closed operating systems.) Users have an OS choice that has proven itself in the "big boy" arenas that can run their applications without having to buy new hardware.
YAH! Think of how much software you use right now that has Russian and Chinese localization and imagine that some fraction of that outside of $X00,000 business software supported Linux if it doesn't already!!!
Pretty sure Stuxnet has got his attention. I assure you that the Free part is relevant, because the Open thing is part of the Free thing, and that means peer-reviewed software. Sure, you could still do something like Stuxnet in a Linux environment, but hopefully people are thinking about all kinds of security and not just precisely the same type of breach that is in the news.
If Putin asked me (heh heh) how he could enhance the security of computing in Russia, I'd certainly suggest Linux, maybe even GNU/Linux.
First, $free is part of being open, and only in a really fucked up sense of openness. The logic behind $free software is one part promotional gimmickry and one part "So open you can have to share it with others." Governments and businesses need neither, but they sure love your gratis labor.
Second, open is not automatically peer reviewed is not automatically certified by the Russian government's various IT organizations. This will take a lot of effort, independent of the open source community. You can swallow that feeling of being part of something biggerererer now.
Third, Linux, and everything else have their own security problems to contend with. Linux == moar sekure is about as dumb as thinking a specific make of car makes you safer on the road. Do you think all those updates released every week for your Linux system are sugar plums and gumdrops?
Pretty sure Stuxnet has got his attention.... Sure, you could still do something like Stuxnet in a Linux environment, but hopefully... I'd certainly suggest Linux...
While I don't agree with some of the scenarios in the article (a bit simplistic), I have always been astonished at the laissez-faire approach the Federal Government has always had toward the internet and the WWW. I can only explain it by their ineptitude. Not their libertarian philosophy. As a whole, the Government really never "got it" nor understood the potential until it was too late. Now that it's too late, their hoping that it's not too late. Typical.
We had a conservative congress for the Internet's whole adolescent phase. How can you blame the government for not being progressive enough? Just my two cents. Blaming "the government" for something that takes place over the course of a decade is a tad dishonest. "The public" either really does know better than you, or you're doing a woefully inadequate job of educating them.
I want more than the application to declare what permission it uses. I want to be able to run an application that say wants access to my GPS coordinates, but I can say no you get fake GPS access. The same with internet access, phone directory access, and so on.
I do not want to be restricted to all or nothing, and have to forgo an app all together over a potential security issue. The best example I have is the Bible app from LifeChurch.tv. I love the app, but for awhile it wanted access to my GPS coordinates. Why? God knows where I am already LifeChurch. But unlike the nagging iPhone version which I could deny location information every time I ran the app it was all or nothing, location information transmitted.
Heck I want everything the damn apps do logged, if I allow them internet access I want to know what pages and logs on the packets sent. Then we can really avoid these naughty apps that are transmitting things, because the OS says hey this app is transmitting this user, and the user can say hells no.
I do not ever want to install an anti-virus application to my phone. Never ever, I do not need them on my desktop, do not need them on my phone. Die McAfee and Norton, die!
Just my two cents. Perhaps I should download the source and make my own build. But it would be much easier on me if a Google engineer did it.
Difficult to manage mandatory access controls Trust all third party software publishers Trust the device manufacturer to vet third party software
Pick o... oh, you really do have all three. How's that working out? I kid, I kid. Vote with your wallet. $free is a cowardly reason not to cast that vote and say "this software stinks, I'm not using it" It's AMAZING that people are willing to write good software if you give them some money. If they write bad software, you have a bargaining chip. Apple & Google's & MS's software markets should have a X$ minimum purchase price. If the author doesn't want any money then Apple/Google donates it to charity. That way free software feels the effects of market pressures. Combine with trial period where all money is refundable and app uninstalls itself after Y days if you're not satisfied.
That would empower consumers. Or.. keep eating the free bait and whine on the Internet for change. Advertisers really care what you think. Not.
Slashdot Mirror
This Internet ID scheme has been floated a couple of times now and it is not going to happen. The Federal Government like big companies and big programs aka Comcast/NBC, Net Control(net neutrality) and National Healthcare. It is about controlling the most people with the least effort. This is no different than requiring me to 'show my papers.' All of this really needs to stop. --If the feds need something to do they could start by implementing IPv6 and getting everyone an IP address.
No, this is no different than the fob people use to login to WoW, or the PKI system we already use to secure connections to websites.
YOU and your "+insightful" moderators are why we still have password based logins while perfectly good PKI systems have been around forever in computer years.
PKI comprehension _FAIL_.
A law was broken? So what? You are probably breaking more than a dozen laws a week, just by living and breathing, taking shortcuts over the lane, missing some info on the tax report, etc. If someone is out to get you, they can easily find something on you, or fabricate evidence against you.
If you had any spine left in your body AC, you would ask yourself WHY someone put their LIFE on the line to disclose this information, and why someone else do EVERYTHING in their power to stop it..
LOL @ "Steeltoe" calling someone else a spineless anonymous coward.
Pvt. Manning is a moron.
LOL @ "EVERYTHING in their power"
You really, really do not know what oppression is.
Of course part of the problem here is that they really don't use the "wiki" in Wikileaks. At least in theory they were going to be using wiki or wiki-like tools that would let newcommers and ordinary people help with the processing of the information, but apparently that has been thrown out the window. Yes, it started that way, but it isn't any more.
Certainly something like Distributed Proofreaders could help in processing the information, to show what a "crowdsourcing" model or at least community development effort could look like without the wiki itself.
Yeah, there is political infighting, but a great deal of that is self-inflicted. There is a need for something like WIkileaks and I'm glad that they are doing what they are doing, but they also need to get their act together if they are going to pull through this as well. That Julian Assange couldn't keep his pants zipped up has also hurt a whole bunch too.
Or, and I know this is a WILD idea, one could give information directly to multiple news outlets anonymously. Just a crazy thought.
So they are demanding the personal information of a Non-US citizen, that's not in the country and did not access Twitter from within the United States? Nor did any of them commit any sort of crime on US soil. Could a middle eastern country charge my wife for wearing a bikini to the beach in Florida and then demand her personal information from Twitter?
Uh, yes? Not being a US-citizen makes it even easier to intercept their communications. However, this didn't involve any interception, and I'm not even sure you have legal recourse if it were, being A. The Internet, and B. Twitter's records, not yours. There are specific laws protecting your confidentiality with others, and please don't act surprised that Twitter is under no such obligation.
You have the Internet the way it is in one hand and you want some legal right to privacy on it in the other. So confusing, are you guys for or against Internet regulation??
Individuals are entitled to say as they wish to each other in their private lives, the moment that is stopped in the name of 'national security' when they are discussing politics is when you should get the hell out.
To where is the only real question.
Nobody made you keep permanent records of those discussions. Of course you have a right to privacy, but if you video tape everything you do and later give a court reason to subpoena you or search your residence, your own records would be used as evidence. Duh.
This isn't actually true is it? Can I send an app built on my linux box to someone running a different arch & distro -- no! Can an Apple user send a current intel-only app to someone running OSX on PPC or iOS on a mobile device -- no! Then we get to the question of why anybody would ever want to copy a raw binary instead of using a linux distros package manager?
Fat binaries were a temporary workaround and both Apple and MS include emulators. Can I run a linux ARM binary via a distro under QEMU from another arch -- yes.
Uh, you have split x86/x86_64 binaries _right_now_ on Linux & Windows & Solaris even. Whats this about fat binaries being temporary?
How long were you using x86 binaries optimized for a i386, because there was no way of supporting multiple archs simultaneously?
How long before your x86_64 binaries start getting long in the tooth and missing modern optimizations? Whats the plan for those?
You're also missing the huge point that a .app is what under other operating systems you'd call "portable". It is a directory with fat binaries under it AND application data/defaults. These portable apps exist, and are in demand, but unlike OS X don't comprise 99% of these other systems.
This portable configuration is also something UNIX admins go out of their way to achieve manually by ripping apart the distro provided software and installing everything under one directory somewhere to manage easier instead of /etc, /var/foo, /usr/libexec64/wtf, /usr/bin, /WhereverTheFuckCPANIs, /StupidFuckingRubyGEMs/bin, etc. /usr/local/apache/bin|etc|lib. Which gets backed up or rsynced around easily.
Like
So, don't tell me centralized repositories provide this, because anyone actually working with UNIX for a living knows repos, gem, cpan, etc are all bullshit. /Applications/ActiveMQ.app, /Applications/Apache.app, /Applications/MySQL.app on Linux right now, and point them all to /opt/my_integrated_application/conf which I back up nightly and rest at ease knowing updates wont touch it.
I would LOVE to be installing
I could upgrade Whatever.app without screwing my local configuration. Look how painstakingly slow this gets worked out on Linux, how long it took for various apps to have a modular config with overridable defaults. Apache STILL has basic bullshit in the distro provided httpd.conf you can't override from a conf.d fragment. Like... listening on 0.0.0.0:80 for christ's sake.
Have you actually tried it? In my experience, it's much better than you would think.
Let's consider the obvious lag issue. Did you realize that it actually removes common multiplayer lag? You know, the kind where you shoot at a guy and he doesn't get hit because he had moved 300 pixels to the left. That doesn't exist in OnLive since all the processing is done on the same network (maybe even the same computer) as the other gamers. In this respect, OnLive performs much like a LAN or even local game.
I'm not trying to ignore the click-to-response lag. It exists. But it really is minuscule, to the point that most people I know can't tell much difference over running the game locally.
The round trip latency is the same, and on top of that your client can't extrapolate positions of moving objects or freely render player controlled objects so the perceived latency is worse. I'm not saying the latency isn't tolerable, but this method isn't gaining you anything.
That guy you missed by 300 pixels? Now you're looking at where he used to be instead of where an intelligent algorithm thinks he probably is. You'll have to mentally compensate for that latency now. You might get used to it after a while, if it is consistent. It wont be, and if it were, a computer algorithm still does a better job than your brain.
Has Linux not been able to do this for years using Intel's PXE (Preboot eXecution Environment)?
There are much, much better examples of network booting than Linux. Solaris for one, and it's old as dirt in computing years. The install media has a working PXE grub image which is integrated with their installer, which makes additional DHCP queries for install configuration. SPARC PROMs do the same thing, although skipping the PXE part. Grub itself will make one DHCP query for the location of a grub.conf, and I guess that's how Linux folks manage network installs, by embedding everything in a smattering of grub.confs across the network. Anyway, doing remote installs is a very common use of net-booting today, then there's Sun's thin client stuff, but I have no idea how prevalent those are. Provisioning has got to be the most common use.
Nobody is accusing net-booting of being new. It would certainly be new, and weird for Apple though if there is any truth to it.
Anyone who's messed around with it much knows theres a lot of room for improvement. Esp. if they use it for more than automated provisioning, that would be significant.
How many gaping issues are left unresolved because microsoft is maintaining a stable ABI?
Bringing up gaping unresolved issues in a Linux debate is a lot like invading Asia. Please, tell us about these gaping issues caused by the modest amount of discipline required to maintain a stable ABI. Looking at the problems Linux has, how are the cons of an ABI not worth it? Can you even give one tangible pro for the status quo that an end-user would appreciate? "More frequent kernel releases" is so not an answer...
Unlike the proprietary drivers from ATI/AMD and NVIDIA or any of the drivers on the Microsoft Windows side, it's not easy to provide updated drivers post-release in distributions like Ubuntu due to the inter-dependence on these different components and all of these components being critical to the Linux desktop's well being for all users.
That's a funny was of saying Linux doesn't have a stable ABI because its architects are crazy.
I honestly hope in five years you can all go back and laugh at articles like these, but more than likely you'll have slightly bigger version numbers and different silly names.
hurl
blech
Do they have an RN there for that, or does Barney Fife take a crack at it?
They're called phlebotomists. I found at least one state with one sec of googling that trains their regular police force do it, and I know of others that have full time phlebotomists.
http://www.azduiatty.com/law-enforcement-phlebotomy-program.htm
Arizona police might be certified phlebotomists
http://www.dui.com/dui-library/texas/news/austin-police-could-become-phlebotomists-for-dwi-blood-draw
I imagine that didn't work out so well for Austin, but they later got a full time phlebotomist.
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Making-the-case-for-a-full-time-phlebotomist-89461682.html
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/police-to-get-final-ok-for-phlebotomist
If the app requests a UDID for the device, iOS should generate a key that is unique for that device AND THAT DEVELOPER.
How in the hell would you implement that? +4 insightful.
Joysticks can't do that. They can be fast or precise, but not both at once. You either have to turn up the sensitivity/acceleration for fast moves, meaning precise aiming is very hard, or you have to turn it down to allow precision, but sacrifice quick movement.
So for FPSes the mouse is by far a superior control system.
IF and only IF one feels the need to make a virtual weapons as fast and accurate as the mouse, which is absolutely _ludicrous_, and gives an advantage to players with different types of mice (wired/wireless). The notion of a tethered mouse being "better" for a PC FPS is totally unnecessary horse shit. Don't get me wrong, a mouse's relative input does work very well in a FPS, but there are _plenty_ of situations in a FPS even where constant input is better, and whole genres where constant input works better overall like driving/flying sims. You acknowledge that much I know, but it still has to be said for others.
I have an experiment. Tape a laser pointer to a toy rifle and a toy pistol. Acquire some targets at various ranges. Tie a five pound weight to the toy rifle and try again. Hell, try the laser pointer by itself. Is any of this easier than point & shoot on a mouse? This is why I roll my eyes at "mice are superior for FPS". They are when the virtual weapons involved are stupidly accurate, and players have big gliding balls for feet that can rapidly do 180's.
THAT is not by any means "better" than what an FPS could be. Weapon accuracy should be dialed down a lot, and a little aim assist once in a while isn;t going to hurt anyone. I think we can all universally agree that melee attacks for example with any current input device are pretty horrendous without assistance.. one hit kill, short range aim assist, etc. BTW, yes, melee one-hit is assistance, it's not "real" when one stab always kills but a bullet to the chest is _always_ a flesh wound.
Pretty much every major Windows security story I've read in the last couple of years is due to some hole being exploited either in Windows or commonly used Windows software which lacks the sandboxing that's common on Linux (Apparmor, SELinux, etc), not users downloading trojans.
Err, so we rip on UAC for a few years then pretend it doesn't exist when it's convenient?
Again, if I download and install malware on one of my Linux boxes, how is this a Linux problem?
Linux protects much better than Windows against remote attacks, it can't protect against stupid users.
Ok I'll bite, what is 'Linux' doing to protect you from attacks that 'Windows' isn't?
All the sooner, people will wake up to the fact that they don't really "own" that DRM-ridden content after all.
Do you ever own any more than the paper a book is printed with, or the plastic a game or music was stamped on? I don't think owning the content or not is even in question, you don't.
As far as DRM in the device that renders that content, who says they _have_ to do anything you want? Whats the difference between DRM'ed music and a proprietary format that nobody else understands? I don't see exactly why a device that _can_ technically do something _should have to_ because you paid for it and want it to. If a device implements some kind of DRM and you buy it, you bought a DRM implementation, congrats. If that isn't breaking any laws then, uh, vote with your wallet? If you can't do that, maybe it isn't so bad?
If you are a node-based company worth several billion, charge for services, and don't even run enough of your own supernodes and monitor them in such a way that they cannot handle an outage effectively, you need serious help.
No one expects 40% of a globally distributed network to crash at once. No one.
FTFA:
The initial crashes happened just before our usual daily peak-hour (1000 PST/1800 GMT), and very shortly after the initial crash, which resulted in traffic to the supernodes that was about 100 times what would normally be expected at that time of day.
Not even a multi-billion dollar company would have a disaster plan that provisions 100x capacity as a hot/cold spare.
Though I bet their new plan includes automatic spawning of nodes on EC2 or some other distributed CDN.
It was their own widely deployed buggy software that caused the big chunk to go offline. Any other organization with a big deploy everywhere button would understand the importance of an equally big roll back button, and heavy testing before doing either. I guess because Skype's clients are also their servers so they have no control is an excuse? Is it a good one?
AD does not have a built in framework for account validation (asking appropriate authorities, does this account still need to exist?). The role based concepts are relatively primitive. There is no capability to preserve the authorization record for granting access. All of those concepts have to be added on.
This is the job of a configuration/workflow management tool.
I've reviewed some of the various enterprise grade products, and none of them did as well as this self-built product....
AD is really nothing more than LDAP + Kerberos with a pretty GUI. It simply should never be considered adequate in and of itself for user management because it does not address several key requirements of the area.
Your self-built product is more than LDAP + Kerberos and a pretty GUI? You're lying to yourself if you think even a tiny fraction of UNIX deployments have THAT, whereas nearly ALL Windows Server deployments have AD. AD isn't the be-all-end-all, but "never considered adequate"? You are full of shit.
Actually deploying accounts, nothing beats actual local accounts.
WTF?
This is the real truth, Kerberos + LDAP is too hard for the average UNIX admin team so they fall back to local accounts, broken ass AD integration that is harder than it should be, or "LDAP + Kerberos" with less features than AD. OR they buy VAS.
1. UNIX systems are hard to integrate with AD
2. AD is "Kerberos + LDAP + DNS"
3. UNIX systems are hard to integrate with Kerberos + LDAP, and what's a service record?
I'm sorry man, but I can't even begin to picture a homemade AD replacement that accomplishes a fraction of what AD does with as little effort and is not a complete maintenance nightmare. You're talking about integrating a LOT of things that mix like oil and water on their own, with what, some shell scripts? Perl? PHP?
It's a privatized LDAP server... there are lots of OpenLDAP based solutions that work as or more effectively. Also, it isn't always the technology, but administration of such that becomes critical.
It's Kerberos + LDAP + DNS + certificate management system + some configuration management + more. With Linux, those are completely separate projects and each a bitch to configure and use, and good luck integrating them. That is a ton of work, and doesn't exist in most UNIX environments because of the staff required to maintain it. Compare to AD where even two man shops have fully kerberized remote management (not just RD/SSH - actual management tools) and instrumentation, single sign-on, and all that integrated with native and web apps. I dare you to get mod_auth_kerb and mod_auth_ldap working together some time. Provided anyone reading this even has kerberos authentication and a directory server other than AD.
And tell me what is so difficult about dig SRV _kerberos._tcp.domain.com service discovery with DNS?
These are not private, proprietary magic things, these are simple things the OSS community is completely ignorant of. Next time you hard code an ldap url, kerberos server, etc, think how Windows does it. It _should_ be embarrassing.
This.
If Russia starts using Linux and demanding that app vendors make programs compatible for the OS, or else they will pay or find application vendors that will, this will get the mainstream guys to start treating Linux as a top tier platform and not something to hide in the server room racks.
The result? A win/win/win situation. Linux can become an alternative to Windows. Application makers have a gigantic market (Russia, then possibly China, then perhaps Europe, anywhere there is distrust of closed operating systems.) Users have an OS choice that has proven itself in the "big boy" arenas that can run their applications without having to buy new hardware.
YAH! Think of how much software you use right now that has Russian and Chinese localization and imagine that some fraction of that outside of $X00,000 business software supported Linux if it doesn't already!!!
I'm sooooooooo excited!
LOL
Pretty sure Stuxnet has got his attention. I assure you that the Free part is relevant, because the Open thing is part of the Free thing, and that means peer-reviewed software. Sure, you could still do something like Stuxnet in a Linux environment, but hopefully people are thinking about all kinds of security and not just precisely the same type of breach that is in the news.
If Putin asked me (heh heh) how he could enhance the security of computing in Russia, I'd certainly suggest Linux, maybe even GNU/Linux.
First, $free is part of being open, and only in a really fucked up sense of openness. The logic behind $free software is one part promotional gimmickry and one part "So open you can have to share it with others." Governments and businesses need neither, but they sure love your gratis labor.
Second, open is not automatically peer reviewed is not automatically certified by the Russian government's various IT organizations. This will take a lot of effort, independent of the open source community. You can swallow that feeling of being part of something biggerererer now.
Third, Linux, and everything else have their own security problems to contend with. Linux == moar sekure is about as dumb as thinking a specific make of car makes you safer on the road. Do you think all those updates released every week for your Linux system are sugar plums and gumdrops?
Pretty sure Stuxnet has got his attention. ... ...
Sure, you could still do something like Stuxnet in a Linux environment, but hopefully
I'd certainly suggest Linux...
F.A.N.B.O.Y.
Really, is there anything wrong with wanting cheapness and robustness?
Other than it does not align with reality?
While I don't agree with some of the scenarios in the article (a bit simplistic), I have always been astonished at the laissez-faire approach the Federal Government has always had toward the internet and the WWW. I can only explain it by their ineptitude. Not their libertarian philosophy. As a whole, the Government really never "got it" nor understood the potential until it was too late. Now that it's too late, their hoping that it's not too late. Typical.
We had a conservative congress for the Internet's whole adolescent phase. How can you blame the government for not being progressive enough? Just my two cents. Blaming "the government" for something that takes place over the course of a decade is a tad dishonest. "The public" either really does know better than you, or you're doing a woefully inadequate job of educating them.
I want more than the application to declare what permission it uses.
I want to be able to run an application that say wants access to my GPS coordinates, but I can say no you get fake GPS access.
The same with internet access, phone directory access, and so on.
I do not want to be restricted to all or nothing, and have to forgo an app all together over a potential security issue.
The best example I have is the Bible app from LifeChurch.tv. I love the app, but for awhile it wanted access to my GPS coordinates.
Why? God knows where I am already LifeChurch. But unlike the nagging iPhone version which I could deny location information every time I ran the app it was all or nothing, location information transmitted.
Heck I want everything the damn apps do logged, if I allow them internet access I want to know what pages and logs on the packets sent.
Then we can really avoid these naughty apps that are transmitting things, because the OS says hey this app is transmitting this user, and the user can say hells no.
I do not ever want to install an anti-virus application to my phone. Never ever, I do not need them on my desktop, do not need them on my phone. Die McAfee and Norton, die!
Just my two cents. Perhaps I should download the source and make my own build. But it would be much easier on me if a Google engineer did it.
Difficult to manage mandatory access controls
Trust all third party software publishers
Trust the device manufacturer to vet third party software
Pick o... oh, you really do have all three. How's that working out?
I kid, I kid. Vote with your wallet. $free is a cowardly reason not to cast that vote and say "this software stinks, I'm not using it"
It's AMAZING that people are willing to write good software if you give them some money. If they write bad software, you have a bargaining chip.
Apple & Google's & MS's software markets should have a X$ minimum purchase price. If the author doesn't want any money then Apple/Google donates it to charity.
That way free software feels the effects of market pressures. Combine with trial period where all money is refundable and app uninstalls itself after Y days if you're not satisfied.
That would empower consumers.
Or.. keep eating the free bait and whine on the Internet for change. Advertisers really care what you think. Not.
1 - 684
2 - 55
3 - 8499
12508 / 50000