your examples weren't generic. 'Red Hat' isn't a term in computer science. 'Dell' is not a word in computer manufacturing. And Ford Motor Company sells cars, not rivers. generic terms shouldn't be used for trademarks. i can't trademark "water" for my bottled water company, i can't trademark "football" for my football club. you don't see intel patenting "chip" or "cpu," do you?
linux many years ago added support for the inclusion of a host of low level fs drivers. the number and range of fs drivers for linux is pretty damn big. certainly bigger then any other os available.
now ofs is supposed to be based on a database? you mean like the mysql fs? and i think reiserfs has been exploring other avenues that relate to what ofs *might* be exploring.
unix is used in universities around the world to do all sorts of research. and linux is beginning to join it's older brother in that role so now the unix research (which can run on linux) is joined by the results of linux research too. these projects aren't always highly robust, nor are they in most linux distros, but they're out there on the web. lava lamp process stats, provide a ui model that has the fs as a collection of galaxies and planets, pie menus, corba in the kernel, kernel drivers in perl, etc.
a lot of it is arcane and hard to imagine it being successful, but that's the nature of research.
did you even read my post? like, say, the first sentence. no, this wasn't a.net virus, but it is quite likely there *will* be.net security issues in the future. they may be design flaws or implementation flaws, but there will be flaws.
it seems this is not a true.net virus but it does bring up some interesting possibilities regarding the gnome project. ximian has professed to wanting gnome 4 to use the.net framework. so either they'll code it in such a way to avoid all the security issues in microsoft's.net, or they'll have the same security issues.
in some ways either "wins." if the main linux.net implementation avoids security issues it's a pr disaster for microsoft. ditto if it has the same bugs as it will show a design flaw in.net.
otoh it will "lose" - anti-virus companies will be against linux for taking away their product stream. and if the same security flaws show up then it removes a major distinguishing item from a linux desktop.
off of the xybernaut contact page there are a few addresses to complain to. i'm sure i'm not alone in being a person who has considered purchasing their stuff, perhaps they should know how much they've pissed us off.
uh, no, missed the point. it's great to create the gizmos, just like it was great that the us dod created and funded the early internet. but there's a complete cycle to consider: i.e. what to do with the gizmo when it needs to be thrown out.
private industry - which actually wants consumers to throw things away so they will buy new ones - has continually failed to follow through on that complete cycle.
i'm sure lots of people will complain about gov't regulation, but it's about time they did something. it's obvious that the private sector has utterly failed to come up with solutions for this problem.
i find it amusing that while many people will point to gov't waste, they just accept failures in private industry as part of the process. obviously on that playing field (gov't only works if it makes no mistakes, private industry is supposed to make mistakes) then of *course* private industry is better...
how does mosix deal with dead cluster members?
on
OpenMosix
·
· Score: 2
what happens if a node in a mosix cluster dies? i've hunted through the docs to no avail.
i know there's a difference between producer and exporter, but i wonder how many people know that ireland is the number one exporter of software in the world?
i am not an ms fan, in fact part of the reson this story will be successful is because of ms's history of poor quality management and it's closed source systems, but this article is most likely fud. after all, it's easier to *say* you've planted such things in xp then to actually do it. and since ms has a poor track record for security and since there is no public peer review of their code, it will certainly cause reasonable people fear, uncertainty and doubt about microsoft's software.
truly a case of reaping what you sow. ah, how amusing.
the only thing i disagree with is that it costs companies money. i think microsoft in particular makes tons of money off people who initially get illegally copied software and then end up having to pay for it in later versions.
but your math fails to make sense. it's my understanding that locust users are paying full price for sms messages, so orange is getting the full price there.
sms consumes a tiny bit of resources. if locust is shut down on the 18th, orange won't have more capacity, but it will have less sms messages which means less money. bandwidth, once there is always there, the only real way to make money with it is to make sure it gets used.
could this question please die? considering the realities behind shrinkwrap licenses and ever dedicated support contracts, you can't sue anyone. and even if you could - how can you hope to win? the us gov't sued microsoft and look at how victorious it was?
a better question is: if things go wrong with widget x, what are my options to get it fixed? with closed s/w, the only option is the vendor you got it from (and really, knowing that, do you want to sue them?). with free software you can use your vendor, another vendor, your own staff, or private contractors (and knowing that, you could feel free to sue your vendor; assuming they failed to live up to their support contract).
note: i'm assuming in an enterprise situation you'd have some sort of support contract with ibm, redhat, microsoft, suse, sun, linuxcare, apple, etc.
encryption needs to be used more widely. don't just yammer about how important it is use it. for mutt users, see justin miller's work on a mutt and gpg tutorial. even if you'rean expert, check it out, he's looking for feedback.
this is true for every mua + gpg/pgp. see if people working on a doc to make it easier to use for your favourite mua.
for an answer to point one, i suggest doing the following: point your web browser to google and type pgp human rights. you'll see that phil has even answered this question before.
for the second point gov'ts don't protect against encryption. they try to break it. they get wiretaps, they get keyboard taps, they use the law to get passphrases and keys.
and as for what happened on 11/9, many in the intelligence community have noted that what they really lacked was human intelligence, not signals intelligence.
the fact is, is that strong crypto exists. tools exist to hide the fact that strong crypto is being used. so a gov't that depends on backdoors in encryption products in order to stop criminals is practically criminal itself in neglecting the safety of the people it is to protect. if a group of people thinks it's ok to fly planes into buildings, *surely* they'll have no problem using illegal encryption products...
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
isn't that how we got in this situation to begin with?
Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
er, i think he was soliciting opinions. have you considered that there's more to many articles then just a byline?
actually from what i've heard, the faa and other gov't agencies pushed for greater domestic flight security but the airlines (yes, that's private industry) resisted. also the faa has been continually conducting tests of airport security - boston was fined ove $100k because of security lapses. unlike you, the faa has never found security lapses funny and has worked hard to fix them.
and so now, suddenly realising the gravity of the situation, you yell at them.
the way to fight terrorism is through unity. currently it's assumed that it was fundamentalist islamic terrorists. true or not, i hope non-muslim americans will reach out to the muslims in their community who are no doubt just as horrified. all americans - muslim and non-muslim - as well as citizens the free world over need to be united in their revulsion to this horror.
if there's a mosque in your area, today might be a day to visit it. like non-muslims, i'm sure most muslims in amaerica are horrified and shocked by what's happened. they too might have friends and relatives who have died, and worse still there segments of the media inciting hatred of them. i know very little about islam, but i'm sure there are people who horribly misinterpret islam just like they misinterpret christianity or judiaism.
terrorism is about spreading terror, fear and divisions between people. fight back. broaden your world, reduce fear and help add to the voices of condemnation.
Slashdot Mirror
"pursists?"
what, are you angling for an editorial position on slashdot?
your examples weren't generic. 'Red Hat' isn't a term in computer science. 'Dell' is not a word in computer manufacturing. And Ford Motor Company sells cars, not rivers. generic terms shouldn't be used for trademarks. i can't trademark "water" for my bottled water company, i can't trademark "football" for my football club. you don't see intel patenting "chip" or "cpu," do you?
lay off the crack.
linux many years ago added support for the inclusion of a host of low level fs drivers. the number and range of fs drivers for linux is pretty damn big. certainly bigger then any other os available.
now ofs is supposed to be based on a database? you mean like the mysql fs? and i think reiserfs has been exploring other avenues that relate to what ofs *might* be exploring.
unix is used in universities around the world to do all sorts of research. and linux is beginning to join it's older brother in that role so now the unix research (which can run on linux) is joined by the results of linux research too. these projects aren't always highly robust, nor are they in most linux distros, but they're out there on the web. lava lamp process stats, provide a ui model that has the fs as a collection of galaxies and planets, pie menus, corba in the kernel, kernel drivers in perl, etc.
a lot of it is arcane and hard to imagine it being successful, but that's the nature of research.
dunno, i thought the gimp was cute.
i note that you used the word google assuming we'd all know you meant "a search engine"....
did you even read my post? like, say, the first sentence. no, this wasn't a .net virus, but it is quite likely there *will* be .net security issues in the future. they may be design flaws or implementation flaws, but there will be flaws.
it seems this is not a true .net virus but it does bring up some interesting possibilities regarding the gnome project. ximian has professed to wanting gnome 4 to use the .net framework. so either they'll code it in such a way to avoid all the security issues in microsoft's .net, or they'll have the same security issues.
.net implementation avoids security issues it's a pr disaster for microsoft. ditto if it has the same bugs as it will show a design flaw in .net.
in some ways either "wins." if the main linux
otoh it will "lose" - anti-virus companies will be against linux for taking away their product stream. and if the same security flaws show up then it removes a major distinguishing item from a linux desktop.
off of the xybernaut contact page there are a few addresses to complain to. i'm sure i'm not alone in being a person who has considered purchasing their stuff, perhaps they should know how much they've pissed us off.
...and i live in galway ireland.
and here i thought florida had the weirdest voting laws...
uh, no, missed the point. it's great to create the gizmos, just like it was great that the us dod created and funded the early internet. but there's a complete cycle to consider: i.e. what to do with the gizmo when it needs to be thrown out.
private industry - which actually wants consumers to throw things away so they will buy new ones - has continually failed to follow through on that complete cycle.
i'm sure lots of people will complain about gov't regulation, but it's about time they did something. it's obvious that the private sector has utterly failed to come up with solutions for this problem.
i find it amusing that while many people will point to gov't waste, they just accept failures in private industry as part of the process. obviously on that playing field (gov't only works if it makes no mistakes, private industry is supposed to make mistakes) then of *course* private industry is better...
what happens if a node in a mosix cluster dies? i've hunted through the docs to no avail.
i know there's a difference between producer and exporter, but i wonder how many people know that ireland is the number one exporter of software in the world?
it's not new. i remember using an apple newton that had a picture based password option.
i am not an ms fan, in fact part of the reson this story will be successful is because of ms's history of poor quality management and it's closed source systems, but this article is most likely fud. after all, it's easier to *say* you've planted such things in xp then to actually do it. and since ms has a poor track record for security and since there is no public peer review of their code, it will certainly cause reasonable people fear, uncertainty and doubt about microsoft's software.
truly a case of reaping what you sow. ah, how amusing.
good. i'm glad.
the only thing i disagree with is that it costs companies money. i think microsoft in particular makes tons of money off people who initially get illegally copied software and then end up having to pay for it in later versions.
but your math fails to make sense. it's my understanding that locust users are paying full price for sms messages, so orange is getting the full price there.
sms consumes a tiny bit of resources. if locust is shut down on the 18th, orange won't have more capacity, but it will have less sms messages which means less money. bandwidth, once there is always there, the only real way to make money with it is to make sure it gets used.
could this question please die? considering the realities behind shrinkwrap licenses and ever dedicated support contracts, you can't sue anyone. and even if you could - how can you hope to win? the us gov't sued microsoft and look at how victorious it was?
a better question is: if things go wrong with widget x, what are my options to get it fixed? with closed s/w, the only option is the vendor you got it from (and really, knowing that, do you want to sue them?). with free software you can use your vendor, another vendor, your own staff, or private contractors (and knowing that, you could feel free to sue your vendor; assuming they failed to live up to their support contract).
note: i'm assuming in an enterprise situation you'd have some sort of support contract with ibm, redhat, microsoft, suse, sun, linuxcare, apple, etc.
squeak.
encryption needs to be used more widely. don't just yammer about how important it is use it. for mutt users, see justin miller's work on a mutt and gpg tutorial. even if you'rean expert, check it out, he's looking for feedback.
this is true for every mua + gpg/pgp. see if people working on a doc to make it easier to use for your favourite mua.
for an answer to point one, i suggest doing the following: point your web browser to google and type pgp human rights. you'll see that phil has even answered this question before.
for the second point gov'ts don't protect against encryption. they try to break it. they get wiretaps, they get keyboard taps, they use the law to get passphrases and keys.
and as for what happened on 11/9, many in the intelligence community have noted that what they really lacked was human intelligence, not signals intelligence.
the fact is, is that strong crypto exists. tools exist to hide the fact that strong crypto is being used. so a gov't that depends on backdoors in encryption products in order to stop criminals is practically criminal itself in neglecting the safety of the people it is to protect. if a group of people thinks it's ok to fly planes into buildings, *surely* they'll have no problem using illegal encryption products...
isn't that how we got in this situation to begin with?
er, i think he was soliciting opinions. have you considered that there's more to many articles then just a byline?
actually from what i've heard, the faa and other gov't agencies pushed for greater domestic flight security but the airlines (yes, that's private industry) resisted. also the faa has been continually conducting tests of airport security - boston was fined ove $100k because of security lapses. unlike you, the faa has never found security lapses funny and has worked hard to fix them.
and so now, suddenly realising the gravity of the situation, you yell at them.
brilliant.
the way to fight terrorism is through unity. currently it's assumed that it was fundamentalist islamic terrorists. true or not, i hope non-muslim americans will reach out to the muslims in their community who are no doubt just as horrified. all americans - muslim and non-muslim - as well as citizens the free world over need to be united in their revulsion to this horror.
if there's a mosque in your area, today might be a day to visit it. like non-muslims, i'm sure most muslims in amaerica are horrified and shocked by what's happened. they too might have friends and relatives who have died, and worse still there segments of the media inciting hatred of them. i know very little about islam, but i'm sure there are people who horribly misinterpret islam just like they misinterpret christianity or judiaism.
terrorism is about spreading terror, fear and divisions between people. fight back. broaden your world, reduce fear and help add to the voices of condemnation.