From the iptables(8) manpage, under MATCH EXTENSIONS:
owner This module attempts to match various characteristics of the packet creator, for locally-generated packets.
The characteristics available are: owner UID/GID, PID and commmand name of the originator (i.e. the program).
Combine that with connection marking and you can build some pretty decent shaping per-application.
further on, when MS release a patch alongside an advisory, or a complete SP for the OS, this is equivalent to the car manufacturer offering a free replacement for a known defective car model; i can bet that one will have a much harder time suing a car manufacturer for an accident a year after said manufacturer publicly admitted there was a problem with the car model x and offered free replacements for it;
"GCC extension for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks"
Btw, this is not a case of 'unsafe' functions at all.
May I also point that programming mistakes become vulnerabilities in most of the situations only because of platform limitation. Even for 'insecure' platforms (like x86:D), selinux and grsecurity implement some nice protection mechanisms.
Programming errors are supposed to make a program crash. The system should make sure this happens.
"Res publica non dominetur."
which sounds like an in your FACE to the Smoking Crack Oraganization and their shadow overlords in Redmond.
Well, if you ask me, Muhammad Ali's line, "Speak your mind. Don't back down.",
seems even more towards that point. That's a crucial message for the Linux community and it's really nice to hear it from IBM.
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
"Them" americans have elected Bush democratically. Let them suffer. The mere fact that mr. Bush is somewhat... well... simple, is not at all a reason to criticize decisions that belong to the whole of his administration. Get over this "Bush is stupid" arguement. For the time being the U.S. of A. is a democracy and as long as they do protect the basic human rights, well you can only feel sorry for their poor political decisions. I myself a citizen of the not-so-free Europe, it's only that I'm a bit further to the Wild East...;(
but hey, they say not going along with them is "unpatriotic"
This would be totally stupid if targetted at non-american audience.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Patriotic Pa`tri*ot"ic, a. Cf. F. patriotique, Gr. ?
belonging to a fellow-countryman.
Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country;
zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's
country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilance.
Nationalism is Evil(tm) in any dosage. This I can agree with. All major conflicts in Europe and worldwide have been due to nationalism.
Love for democracy, respect for human life and peservation of human rights is another thing though and I will support an American policy that bears these principles in mind. In my humble opinion and as far as things have been unfolding, the Americans have stood by their principles. I cannot say the same about many of the European countries.
Except maybe the palestinians, for they share a common enemy with Iraq: the US.
Well, let me tell you this... maybe here in Europe antiamerican feelings have not grown that strong, but let me assure that the _whole_ islam is anti-american period. And also let me assure you that feelings are not mutual. As a matter of fact the muslim population in the US is quite numerous.
Re:No Post is Too Late: Send the Iraqis to Allah
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
Look, no-one outside Iraq likes Hussein
Wanna bet?! As far as I can see he's got all the popular support he needs, it's only OUTSIDE Irak, in neighbouring countries, Europe (e.g. France, Belgium, etc), pretty much all over the map, except that in some countries the governments have had the guts to go against popular consent. This time it's not the governments that behave disgustingly, it's the population. So-called "pacifists"...
Al Jazeera are anything but pro-Hussein, he's a nasty little fascist dictator
Yeah, right. Still the US is wrong for fighting against him. "Nasty" - yes, "little" - doubt it.
Windows has its fair amount of problems. If I can accept that Linux runs into problems for many of the non-trivial setups when a newbie's behind the wheel, the very same thing is true for Windows.
For example: Windows installs are the easiest in the market; Wrong! Linux installs are just as easy with many of the distros GIVEN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. And most distros are 2^n easier to install than Windows for any given mutiboot situation. Hell, I know lots of situations where one cannot install Windows on a hard drive with only a Windows bootable install CD at hand unless he/she can physically format the hard drive; such things don't happen with Linux, do they.
Network setups for Windows can give you just as much a headache as Linux can;) (and I had some nasty headaches with Linux). Yes, the most trivial of the networks is easier to set under say Win98 or ME; but that baby stops just about there. Linux can go on pretty far and can do some nice tricks for you.
I think the Red Hat guys said it more than once that at least for the moment Linux cannot be a substitute for Average Joe's Winbox; it's for corporates where centralized management is possible and the user doesn't have to do things by his/her own, instead he/she calls the administrator and asks for the change. And of course Linux is for guys that want to get dirty with their system and don't care that much if they run into problems with a NIC or a DVD burner; and when they run into problems they don't toss the distro and go with MS again, instead they go and look for a solution. It's obvious that such people are a minority. But the corporate desktop market is huge. If Linux really is adequate for such a market then we have our stronghold.
Oh the nostalgy... I recall there was a Magic Carpet 2 at some point, but it may be just my impression.
Magic carpet had 3 or 4 different 3d display modes. One of them involved color-coded left/right separation and you'd need red-blue glasses for this one. I have tried to improvise my own glasses at the time I played the game, but failed possibly because of the poor-quality monitor. I think the colors need to be very sharp for this mode to work
At least one of the modes involved goggles of some sort because clearly the two channels were separated by scanline. I presume that LCD alternating light-blocking lenses were involved.
As far as I can tell the Sharp 3D TFT uses neither of these technologies. You don't have to cross your eyes in any way for the 3d image to appear. It is similar to some stereographic pictures you may find, those that appear naturally stereographic when you look at them positioned normally but lose their 3d look when you turn them on their side (or tilt your head 90 degrees left/right, but I think the former method is more appealing;))
Actually, I'm planning on waiting for the imminent release, rather than the "null" work in progress, having a play around with it and then making up my mind.
If it's stability you worry about, worry not:). It's my opinion that "null" is surprisingly stable and smooth for a beta. I don't make a habbit out of trying out Red Hat betas so I don't really know if this is out of the ordinary for Red Hat, but it certainly surprised me!
However, for Bero to take this step, especially given that this is the same Bero that so eloquently dispersed the FUD around Red Hat's recent compiler choices...
I don't any knowledge of any such talk. If you could point a link to an article regarding Bero's response about the gcc issues I would be grateful.
I don't see any reason why that shouldn't extend to the distro packagers too, and frankly I think it somewhat hypocritical to believe otherwise.
Hmm... I do agree. However Red Hat's a big player now. Their decisions affect more than themselves. The simple existence of all these talks prove just how important Red Hat has become. Anyway I am very pleased with the way they have responded to all these issues.
I really think it's a matter of taste rather than functionality. Both KDE and GNOME are huge undertakements and both seem to have their userbase... Well, of course I like gnome, but wouldn't mind working in KDE either.
tell me about it... well we just have to wait for the next garnome now, because I have a feeling that we'll have wait for Ximian Desktop 2.0 a little longer.
Actually no, in science you don't have to take anything on belief. They're called scientific models and no scientist really believes they are guaranteed truths. They're just truths you begin with. Thuths that, so far, have been validated by experiment.
I read the article and I saw that he used the term "Linux (the kernel)" twice. He is correct about calling Linux by its name alone when he refers to the kernel.
What I would like to ask him is wehter he uses the term "GNU/FreeBSD" also when he refers to the FreeBSD OS. If not, where is the difference. As far as I can tell, you cannot force anyone to be a part of your project. If you allow your project's products to be used outside your project, it's up to Linus to call the OS whatever he likes. I will still call it GNU/Linux, anyway:))
And, finally, as far as I remember, the name "Linux" was something of a joke and does not belong to Linus himself.
Please excuse the inherent "meetoo" of my post, but I wanted to say that I fully agree with your comment and I subscribe to your statement. (mod_up:)))
Omnipotent, omniscient, all knowing, all seeing creatures need never have regrets and need never make mistakes, this is in the earliest part of the bible, and already there are self-referencing logical inconsitencies
Yes indeed, that's one of the beauties of christian logic. They call upon the free will that was granted to humans to excuse the poor arbitration of God in earthly affairs.
Now, before you begin to say that it's just a convenient statement (and I agree), may I suggest that this is actually quite beautiful. Just think about what makes the man different among the creatures. It's not just intelligence, not tools, not technology. Rather it's a complex concept names "awareness". Or "free will".
That's why one should not attempt to explain some things scientifically... Just my 2c...
The basic fact of religion is that God has stated many times that He doesn't want to be easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to accept for anyone of a religious mind.
This argument was not about wether God exists or not. I think many of us have some form of belief. Some of us take pride in their Christianism. They are right to be proud. Some of us are not convinced Crhistians but still believe in God. Som of us may be sincerely convinced that God exists. You cannot scientifically convince someone that God exists. It just does.
Creationism is another matter. It's a poor atempt at scientifically explaining religious statements. And that is just plain wrong. True science should not be based on inner beliefs.
Belief has nothing to do with scientific reasoning. You cannot prove to you or anybody else that any metaphysic forces exist, yet you may strongly believe in them. Along the same line, you cannot BELIEVE in a scientific theory, rather you may be convinced by it's arguments.
You go ahead and build your own theory about the world around you, and please begin with your innermost belief about Right and Wrong. But please don't blame others for not doing the same.
May I add that few scientific figures throughout the history of science were atheists.
It's common practice to consider an OS's kernel the central part of the system. The libc libraries are also important, so are some other GNU tools that come on top of Linux. A stereo adds comfort, not functionality. XMMS does not define your OS (except when you use Windows, wich cannot work properly without its Media Player I hear...)
A better analogy would be: what's a Skoda if not another kind of Volkswagen? (for those who do not know, Skoda is a Czech automobile producer that's owned by Volkswagen, and the Eastern European consumers consider it a very hi quality car at a reasonably low price; similar situations exist all over the globe - Renault owns some producers in Romania too). The engine is VolksWagen, the inside is VolksWagen, then why is it named Skoda?
Linux - the KERNEL - is nothing more than Linux, I agree. Then, we all know that the GNU tools maintainers collaborate intensely with the Linux developers so that Linux works well with GNU. Just look at "/Documentation/Changes", you'll find a short list of GNU tools and libs required. So, while I would hate to download "gnu/linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2", and while in theory it is possible to run Linux with an alternative set of tools and libraries besides GNU, I also think that my OS is a distribution of GNU/Linux, although it runs the Linux kernel. Debian has accepted this. But I think that Linus is not a GNU/Linux programmer and he should not name his project GNU/Linux (if he does not wish to).
Suppose it was not a myth and MS really did "borrow" some code from BSD or GPLed software... how would one try to prove it, without access to source code? Even then, I really think they would have gone to the trouble of obfuscating that piece of code one way or another...
So, is there any chance of proving such claims? In my opinion, code theft is something next to impossible to prove. If there are any other opinions, I think they may be useful.
#4 -- o.k., i'll try your advice on that one, but I still think it is dumb that you can add an applet so easily, but can't take it away via the same method.
I expect some major improvements of audio drivers in post-2.5 kernels. ALSA seems to be a bit more versatile than OSS. OTOH, I haven't tried an ALSA install on 2.4 for some time. If you don't mind about non-RPM installations, you may be fine (and have some minor headache when upgrading kernels).
I think it's an AC97 onboard soundcard that's not supported by OSS (the 2.4 kernels). And it will take some time until 2.6 that's for sure...;)
If Linus *could* do that, that is licence for example 2.4.21 under a non-GPL license, anyone is free to take for example 2.4.20 and continue development with GPL.
Moreover, I am not entirely sure Linus could legally do that. He would have to ask permission from every kernel developer that still has some line of code in the wanna-be-non-gpl kernel... or reimplement every line of code that is not his own. Linus did not write all the code in there. Just a hell of a lot of it.;))
what right exactly? they are not a governmental body. they are a private body who specialises in extortion and blackmail.
Actually in some Eastern European countries the BSA has some sort of contract with the government and the police and when they want to "inspect" a company or school they just call the police and they instantly get full support for their "legal actions" from them. This state of affairs is due to lack of awareness in regard to what the BSA represents and what its interests are and the fact that Microsoft's budget and investments in.ro is far larger than the country's budget:))
Slashdot Mirror
From the iptables(8) manpage, under MATCH EXTENSIONS:
owner
This module attempts to match various characteristics of the packet creator, for locally-generated packets.
The characteristics available are: owner UID/GID, PID and commmand name of the originator (i.e. the program). Combine that with connection marking and you can build some pretty decent shaping per-application.
It's beta software. Get over it. If the final Discussion2 will not have IE support then start whining.
further on, when MS release a patch alongside an advisory, or a complete SP for the OS, this is equivalent to the car manufacturer offering a free replacement for a known defective car model; i can bet that one will have a much harder time suing a car manufacturer for an accident a year after said manufacturer publicly admitted there was a problem with the car model x and offered free replacements for it;
http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/
:D), selinux and grsecurity implement some nice protection mechanisms.
"GCC extension for protecting applications from stack-smashing attacks"
Btw, this is not a case of 'unsafe' functions at all.
May I also point that programming mistakes become vulnerabilities in most of the situations only because of platform limitation. Even for 'insecure' platforms (like x86
Programming errors are supposed to make a program crash. The system should make sure this happens.
"Res publica non dominetur."
which sounds like an in your FACE to the Smoking Crack Oraganization and their shadow overlords in Redmond.
Well, if you ask me, Muhammad Ali's line, "Speak your mind. Don't back down.", seems even more towards that point. That's a crucial message for the Linux community and it's really nice to hear it from IBM.
"Them" americans have elected Bush democratically. Let them suffer. The mere fact that mr. Bush is somewhat... well... simple, is not at all a reason to criticize decisions that belong to the whole of his administration. Get over this "Bush is stupid" arguement. For the time being the U.S. of A. is a democracy and as long as they do protect the basic human rights, well you can only feel sorry for their poor political decisions. ;(
I myself a citizen of the not-so-free Europe, it's only that I'm a bit further to the Wild East...
but hey, they say not going along with them is "unpatriotic"
This would be totally stupid if targetted at non-american audience.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Patriotic Pa`tri*ot"ic, a. Cf. F. patriotique, Gr. ?
belonging to a fellow-countryman.
Inspired by patriotism; actuated by love of one's country;
zealously and unselfishly devoted to the service of one's country; as, a patriotic statesman, vigilance.
Nationalism is Evil(tm) in any dosage. This I can agree with. All major conflicts in Europe and worldwide have been due to nationalism. Love for democracy, respect for human life and peservation of human rights is another thing though and I will support an American policy that bears these principles in mind. In my humble opinion and as far as things have been unfolding, the Americans have stood by their principles. I cannot say the same about many of the European countries.
Except maybe the palestinians, for they share a common enemy with Iraq: the US.
Well, let me tell you this... maybe here in Europe antiamerican feelings have not grown that strong, but let me assure that the _whole_ islam is anti-american period. And also let me assure you that feelings are not mutual. As a matter of fact the muslim population in the US is quite numerous.
Look, no-one outside Iraq likes Hussein
Wanna bet?! As far as I can see he's got all the popular support he needs, it's only OUTSIDE Irak, in neighbouring countries, Europe (e.g. France, Belgium, etc), pretty much all over the map, except that in some countries the governments have had the guts to go against popular consent. This time it's not the governments that behave disgustingly, it's the population. So-called "pacifists"...
Al Jazeera are anything but pro-Hussein, he's a nasty little fascist dictator
Yeah, right. Still the US is wrong for fighting against him. "Nasty" - yes, "little" - doubt it.
Windows has its fair amount of problems. If I can accept that Linux runs into problems for many of the non-trivial setups when a newbie's behind the wheel, the very same thing is true for Windows.
;) (and I had some nasty headaches with Linux). Yes, the most trivial of the networks is easier to set under say Win98 or ME; but that baby stops just about there. Linux can go on pretty far and can do some nice tricks for you.
For example: Windows installs are the easiest in the market; Wrong! Linux installs are just as easy with many of the distros GIVEN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. And most distros are 2^n easier to install than Windows for any given mutiboot situation. Hell, I know lots of situations where one cannot install Windows on a hard drive with only a Windows bootable install CD at hand unless he/she can physically format the hard drive; such things don't happen with Linux, do they.
Network setups for Windows can give you just as much a headache as Linux can
I think the Red Hat guys said it more than once that at least for the moment Linux cannot be a substitute for Average Joe's Winbox; it's for corporates where centralized management is possible and the user doesn't have to do things by his/her own, instead he/she calls the administrator and asks for the change. And of course Linux is for guys that want to get dirty with their system and don't care that much if they run into problems with a NIC or a DVD burner; and when they run into problems they don't toss the distro and go with MS again, instead they go and look for a solution. It's obvious that such people are a minority. But the corporate desktop market is huge. If Linux really is adequate for such a market then we have our stronghold.
Oh the nostalgy... I recall there was a Magic Carpet 2 at some point, but it may be just my impression.
;))
Magic carpet had 3 or 4 different 3d display modes. One of them involved color-coded left/right separation and you'd need red-blue glasses for this one. I have tried to improvise my own glasses at the time I played the game, but failed possibly because of the poor-quality monitor. I think the colors need to be very sharp for this mode to work
At least one of the modes involved goggles of some sort because clearly the two channels were separated by scanline. I presume that LCD alternating light-blocking lenses were involved.
As far as I can tell the Sharp 3D TFT uses neither of these technologies. You don't have to cross your eyes in any way for the 3d image to appear. It is similar to some stereographic pictures you may find, those that appear naturally stereographic when you look at them positioned normally but lose their 3d look when you turn them on their side (or tilt your head 90 degrees left/right, but I think the former method is more appealing
Actually, I'm planning on waiting for the imminent release, rather than the "null" work in progress, having a play around with it and then making up my mind.
:). It's my opinion that "null" is surprisingly stable and smooth for a beta. I don't make a habbit out of trying out Red Hat betas so I don't really know if this is out of the ordinary for Red Hat, but it certainly surprised me!
If it's stability you worry about, worry not
However, for Bero to take this step, especially given that this is the same Bero that so eloquently dispersed the FUD around Red Hat's recent compiler choices...
I don't any knowledge of any such talk. If you could point a link to an article regarding Bero's response about the gcc issues I would be grateful.
I don't see any reason why that shouldn't extend to the distro packagers too, and frankly I think it somewhat hypocritical to believe otherwise.
Hmm... I do agree. However Red Hat's a big player now. Their decisions affect more than themselves. The simple existence of all these talks prove just how important Red Hat has become. Anyway I am very pleased with the way they have responded to all these issues.
I really think it's a matter of taste rather than functionality. Both KDE and GNOME are huge undertakements and both seem to have their userbase... Well, of course I like gnome, but wouldn't mind working in KDE either.
This one's been bugging many people in gnome 1.x for a long time. I remember I have checked and saw that gnome2.x solves this... right?
tell me about it... well we just have to wait for the next garnome now, because I have a feeling that we'll have wait for Ximian Desktop 2.0 a little longer.
Actually no, in science you don't have to take anything on belief. They're called scientific models and no scientist really believes they are guaranteed truths. They're just truths you begin with. Thuths that, so far, have been validated by experiment.
Science is based on proof. On reasoning.
I read the article and I saw that he used the term "Linux (the kernel)" twice. He is correct about calling Linux by its name alone when he refers to the kernel.
:))
What I would like to ask him is wehter he uses the term "GNU/FreeBSD" also when he refers to the FreeBSD OS. If not, where is the difference. As far as I can tell, you cannot force anyone to be a part of your project. If you allow your project's products to be used outside your project, it's up to Linus to call the OS whatever he likes. I will still call it GNU/Linux, anyway
And, finally, as far as I remember, the name "Linux" was something of a joke and does not belong to Linus himself.
Please excuse the inherent "meetoo" of my post, but I wanted to say that I fully agree with your comment and I subscribe to your statement. (mod_up :)))
Omnipotent, omniscient, all knowing, all seeing creatures need never have regrets and need never make mistakes, this is in the earliest part of the bible, and already there are self-referencing logical inconsitencies
Yes indeed, that's one of the beauties of christian logic. They call upon the free will that was granted to humans to excuse the poor arbitration of God in earthly affairs.
Now, before you begin to say that it's just a convenient statement (and I agree), may I suggest that this is actually quite beautiful. Just think about what makes the man different among the creatures. It's not just intelligence, not tools, not technology. Rather it's a complex concept names "awareness". Or "free will".
That's why one should not attempt to explain some things scientifically... Just my 2c...
The basic fact of religion is that God has stated many times that He doesn't want to be easily found--hence, no fact should be hard to accept for anyone of a religious mind.
This argument was not about wether God exists or not. I think many of us have some form of belief. Some of us take pride in their Christianism. They are right to be proud. Some of us are not convinced Crhistians but still believe in God. Som of us may be sincerely convinced that God exists. You cannot scientifically convince someone that God exists. It just does.
Creationism is another matter. It's a poor atempt at scientifically explaining religious statements. And that is just plain wrong. True science should not be based on inner beliefs.
Belief has nothing to do with scientific reasoning. You cannot prove to you or anybody else that any metaphysic forces exist, yet you may strongly believe in them. Along the same line, you cannot BELIEVE in a scientific theory, rather you may be convinced by it's arguments.
You go ahead and build your own theory about the world around you, and please begin with your innermost belief about Right and Wrong. But please don't blame others for not doing the same.
May I add that few scientific figures throughout the history of science were atheists.
Look who's boring now...
It's common practice to consider an OS's kernel the central part of the system. The libc libraries are also important, so are some other GNU tools that come on top of Linux. A stereo adds comfort, not functionality. XMMS does not define your OS (except when you use Windows, wich cannot work properly without its Media Player I hear...)
A better analogy would be: what's a Skoda if not another kind of Volkswagen? (for those who do not know, Skoda is a Czech automobile producer that's owned by Volkswagen, and the Eastern European consumers consider it a very hi quality car at a reasonably low price; similar situations exist all over the globe - Renault owns some producers in Romania too). The engine is VolksWagen, the inside is VolksWagen, then why is it named Skoda?
Linux - the KERNEL - is nothing more than Linux, I agree. Then, we all know that the GNU tools maintainers collaborate intensely with the Linux developers so that Linux works well with GNU. Just look at "/Documentation/Changes", you'll find a short list of GNU tools and libs required. So, while I would hate to download "gnu/linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2", and while in theory it is possible to run Linux with an alternative set of tools and libraries besides GNU, I also think that my OS is a distribution of GNU/Linux, although it runs the Linux kernel. Debian has accepted this. But I think that Linus is not a GNU/Linux programmer and he should not name his project GNU/Linux (if he does not wish to).
Suppose it was not a myth and MS really did "borrow" some code from BSD or GPLed software... how would one try to prove it, without access to source code? Even then, I really think they would have gone to the trouble of obfuscating that piece of code one way or another...
So, is there any chance of proving such claims? In my opinion, code theft is something next to impossible to prove. If there are any other opinions, I think they may be useful.
#4 -- o.k., i'll try your advice on that one, but I still think it is dumb that you can add an applet so easily, but can't take it away via the same method.
;)
I expect some major improvements of audio drivers in post-2.5 kernels. ALSA seems to be a bit more versatile than OSS. OTOH, I haven't tried an ALSA install on 2.4 for some time. If you don't mind about non-RPM installations, you may be fine (and have some minor headache when upgrading kernels).
I think it's an AC97 onboard soundcard that's not supported by OSS (the 2.4 kernels). And it will take some time until 2.6 that's for sure...
If Linus *could* do that, that is licence for example 2.4.21 under a non-GPL license, anyone is free to take for example 2.4.20 and continue development with GPL.
Moreover, I am not entirely sure Linus could legally do that. He would have to ask permission from every kernel developer that still has some line of code in the wanna-be-non-gpl kernel... or reimplement every line of code that is not his own. Linus did not write all the code in there. Just a hell of a lot of it.;))
Talk to them say "FERPA" (or FURPA...ive never seen the acronym written, but it comes up in meetings).
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (aka the Buckley Amendment)
what right exactly? they are not a governmental body. they are a private body who specialises in extortion and blackmail.
.ro is far larger than the country's budget :))
Actually in some Eastern European countries the BSA has some sort of contract with the government and the police and when they want to "inspect" a company or school they just call the police and they instantly get full support for their "legal actions" from them. This state of affairs is due to lack of awareness in regard to what the BSA represents and what its interests are and the fact that Microsoft's budget and investments in