Last time I checked, Wordperfect 7 could open up Wordperfect 9's documents almost perfectly, so there shouldn't be much problem with only having a Wordperfect 7 filter.
> People have to download the binaries in the first place: if they don't, then there's no binary to execute. If they do, then they were probably going to run it anyway.
The problem is, there's no way to tell the difference between a data file and an executable that's been compressed. Say, you find a font with the letters in the shape of Natalie Portman in Mac format, and download it. If someone decided to put a trojan in instead of a font, then you're screwed.
>> For example there's no way I'd release any softwere using sprintf instead of snprintf . Do you have any idea how much less format string exploits there would be with the n-version? Usually those instructions require gcc because many of those default compilers simply suck.
GCC doesn't implement sprintf and snprintf; that's done in the C library. Any half-decent C compiler should support snprintf as well as sprintf if the C library supports them, and GCC won't save you if the C library doesn't.
The `-ansi' option does not cause non-ISO programs to be rejected gratuitously. For that, `-pedantic' is required in addition to `-ansi'. *Note Warning Options::.
`-pedantic'
Issue all the warnings demanded by strict ISO C and ISO C++; reject all programs that use forbidden extensions, and some other programs that do not follow ISO C and ISO C++. For ISO C, follows the version of the ISO C standard specified by any `-std' option used.
Re:No matter what you use daily, you still need vi
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
As for boot disks, Debian used to use ae on the boot disk, but will use nano for the next release, because no one liked ae and it wasn't maintained. We don't use vi, since nano and ae were self-documenting, and they didn't want anyone to suddenly have to cram on vi just because their system crashed.
What buisness does the government have looking at my mail, even just to see if it's encyrpted or not? If the government's acting legally, then they'll never know I encrypt my mail until they get a tap on me or my recipant.
> System 1: IIS on Windows NT: * monthly: download patch (click)
> System 2: standard Mandrake-Linux distro * daily: Mandrake distro stuff:
How is it that one needs daily checks for new patches, and the other only needs to be checked monthly? How, BTW, do you check that the new NT patch doesn't upgrade parts you don't want to upgrade? And why do you use Mandrake (basically a desktop distribution) instead of a more server orientated distribution?
This doesn't seem like a very apple to apple comparison.
>> Interesting, because, IMO, the prototypical
>> non-OS is MS-DOS and friends. You type in the
>> name of a program and it runs, and you don't
>> touch the OS again.
> Have you ever done any DOS programming?
"you" meaning end-user, since the argument was about whether the OS should be hidden to the end-user. Whether or not a programmer sees the OS is a moot point.
> I think MS has been making a good show of it since Win95.
Interesting, because, IMO, the prototypical non-OS is MS-DOS and friends. You type in the name of a program and it runs, and you don't touch the OS again. Win95+ made the OS much bigger and intrusive. Saying that Win95 is good is hardly an argument that OS's should go away.
> Characters are hardly complex interactive systems with a simple interface.
Language is a complex interactive system, but characters are not a simple interface. We spend years in school learning how to write; we come in mostly competent in speaking. Writing is often quite distant from speaking; spelling often has little to nothing to do with sound (cf. Chinese for an extreme example.)
> with Windows, even if it doesn't ship with a particular driver, is much easier to bring to a fully operational state.
When did this become a Windows vs. Linux thing? Depending on your hardware, either can be hard or impossible to bring to a fully operational state.
They *certainly* don't want to be bothered by an operating system.
I think you miss my point. There are basically OS-less systems - WebTV, MS Bob. Why haven't people flocked to them?
you get a washing machine. They are both von Neumann architecure machines.
A von Neumann architecture is a CPU connected up to memory and IO, IIRC. (There are non-von Neumann computers.) A washing machine isn't a von Neumann architecture machine.
They don't want a prolonged diatribe about how "It wouldn't have broken if the QuuxBar 9.3.4 patch had been installed..."
And I don't want a prolonged diatribe about how I should have checked the oil in my car and replaced it. That does not negate my responsibility to do so, nor does it suddenly create a solution that doesn't need me to check my oil.
If you know that you are running an operating system, you are either an OS hacker, or the OS hackers have failed to protect you from their work.
If you know that you are driving a car, either you're an automobile engineer, or the automobile engineers have failed to protect you from their work.
Or, if you know that you are writing characters, you are either an scribe, or the scribes have failed to protect you from their work.
A computer is a massively flexible tool. People have to learn the interfaces on VCRs, microwaves, and the rest of modern applicances. The computer is much more complex device, so it's going to have a much more complex interface, called an operating system.
If people just wanted to browse the web and do email, WebTV would have gone over better. But people want to play computer games, and write documents and keep their budget and their family tree on the computer, and a million other things. If people wanted a non-OS interface, what happened to Microsoft Bob?
I do *not* want my dishwasher to stop with a message of "Oops in module handle_detergent. Please run ksymoops and report to lkml".
And I do *not* want my car to stop working and start spitting out smoke. But you know what? It happens. If you're perfect enough to write the bug-less OS, then go ahead and write it.
Because somebody can. I can blindly trust some anonymous person somewhere who knows that I can't check him; or I can trust a fellow developer, who will get expelled from Debian if he tried to "fuck a bunch of people over" (i.e. accountability.) At least 3 or 4 people see any change that goes into any major program, and any number of people can look at the code, at any time. If you put a back door in, you will be found out, sooner or later, and people will know who did it.
You might also want to note that Mozilla is going to the (ugly, IMO) MPL/GPL/LGPL for its licensing, so that it can be used in LGPL and GPL projects. MPL/GPL is also a nice mix, as it gives you compatibity with the GPL.
To me, it looks like the market prefers some version of the Artistic license to the MPL.
> You can try the "compression test" for
> encryption. Try compressing some data. Check the
> file size. Now, encrypt the same data and run
> your compression program. You'll notice that the
> "compressed" file is the same size or larger
> than the original. This is because the encrypted
> data is "extremely randomized", and the
> compression program cannot find patterns in it to
> compress it.
This is true of good random numbers, too. It's even more true of compressed data - this test will trigger on every gziped or zipped file to pass through the network. It's also trivial to use some sort of base64 (or more complex encoding that uses letters with English frequency) over your encryption to break this.
It also doesn't distinguish encryption permitted by the government, and cypto using illegal keys and methods.
Re:Comprehensive, but contains a spurious assertio
on
Linux on the Desktop
·
· Score: 2
> the unpageable kernel of windows 2000 was smaller than the unpageable kernel of linux,
Using what configuration options of Linux? How big are we talking about here?
But you can't search every home, to see who has illegal crypto. Even if you somehow can tell ssh-backdoor apart from ssh, you can't tell ssh over ssh-backdoor from ssh-backdoor without decrypting all transmissions.
apt isn't a pancea
on
KDE 2.2.1 Up
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Of course, apt won't install KDE 2.2.1 right now, since unstable has some library version problem (at least on my system.) Probably something got hung in incoming and it will just clear itself up in a few days.
I dual boot too. I'm in very little risk of running into this virus. Linux browses the web just fine, so why reboot into Windows to browse the web? If you boot into Windows only to OCR or play Warcraft (like me) or any other limited purpose, then you won't have a problem.
> THe original copyright holder retains the copyright to the work and to all derivative works.
Nope. You retain full copyright to any of your own work. If you write a sequel to Harry Potter, you own the copyright to your original work. However, J K Rowlings owns the copyright to the characters and what not. So neither of you can copy the book without permission of the other. You can't say "you can't kill so and so" because that's not the way that copyright works; but if you could prove that her work was a ripoff of yours, you could sue her over it - the reason a lot of authors don't like to read unsolicited submissions.
> Your new argument is that arguments don't have to be logical.
No, my argument is that simple logic ignores the subtilties of human conversation.
> Personally, I would talk to Satan himself if it would prevent further bloodshed.
And what happens when you realized you've let your family be killed while you were talking to him? That you've sold your soul, your family, your country down the river? If someone isn't interested in working with you, talking often gives them time to take advantage of you; if you put too high an importance on talking, you'll pay too much of a price for peace, often to discover it won't buy peace after all.
[How pathetic do you have to be to have multiple Slashdot accounts for more karma?]
This is not logic class. Your argument was that we should talk, because if we don't, we'll get war. My response was that if we do talk, we'll get war, so there's no reason to talk if that talk is morally wrong. Furthermore, I pointed out that war is not always the wrong solution; we can not talk and sacrifice all, instead of standing up for the right.
Is there any supporting evidence of this? One poster making a claim raises a little sceptism.
Re:Interesting that he thought of Muslims first...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Why? You don't think that most people worry about similar people (Linux developers, Canadians, Christians, whatever) first and then thought about the rest of humanity caught in this tragedy?
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, Wordperfect 7 could open up Wordperfect 9's documents almost perfectly, so there shouldn't be much problem with only having a Wordperfect 7 filter.
> People have to download the binaries in the first place: if they don't, then there's no binary to execute. If they do, then they were probably going to run it anyway.
The problem is, there's no way to tell the difference between a data file and an executable that's been compressed. Say, you find a font with the letters in the shape of Natalie Portman in Mac format, and download it. If someone decided to put a trojan in instead of a font, then you're screwed.
"If all the other countries jumped off a cliff, would you?"
Capital punishment in the US is not going to be decided by a head count of countries. It will be decided by convincing moral arguments and facts.
>> For example there's no way I'd release any softwere using sprintf instead of snprintf . Do you have any idea how much less format string exploits there would be with the n-version? Usually those instructions require gcc because many of those default compilers simply suck.
GCC doesn't implement sprintf and snprintf; that's done in the C library. Any half-decent C compiler should support snprintf as well as sprintf if the C library supports them, and GCC won't save you if the C library doesn't.
Nope. From the manual:
The `-ansi' option does not cause non-ISO programs to be rejected gratuitously. For that, `-pedantic' is required in addition to `-ansi'. *Note Warning Options::.
`-pedantic'
Issue all the warnings demanded by strict ISO C and ISO C++; reject all programs that use forbidden extensions, and some other programs that do not follow ISO C and ISO C++. For ISO C, follows the version of the ISO C standard specified by any `-std' option used.
As for boot disks, Debian used to use ae on the boot disk, but will use nano for the next release, because no one liked ae and it wasn't maintained. We don't use vi, since nano and ae were self-documenting, and they didn't want anyone to suddenly have to cram on vi just because their system crashed.
>>As for people feeling "cheated" about their options and pay - well, guess what, you entered into that employment voluntarily.
They entered into an agreement to get paid. The other isn't carrying through with their agreement. They have a right to feel cheated.
What buisness does the government have looking at my mail, even just to see if it's encyrpted or not? If the government's acting legally, then they'll never know I encrypt my mail until they get a tap on me or my recipant.
> System 1: IIS on Windows NT: * monthly: download patch (click)
> System 2: standard Mandrake-Linux distro * daily: Mandrake distro stuff:
How is it that one needs daily checks for new patches, and the other only needs to be checked monthly? How, BTW, do you check that the new NT patch doesn't upgrade parts you don't want to upgrade? And why do you use Mandrake (basically a desktop distribution) instead of a more server orientated distribution?
This doesn't seem like a very apple to apple comparison.
>> Interesting, because, IMO, the prototypical
>> non-OS is MS-DOS and friends. You type in the
>> name of a program and it runs, and you don't
>> touch the OS again.
> Have you ever done any DOS programming?
"you" meaning end-user, since the argument was about whether the OS should be hidden to the end-user. Whether or not a programmer sees the OS is a moot point.
> I think MS has been making a good show of it since Win95.
Interesting, because, IMO, the prototypical non-OS is MS-DOS and friends. You type in the name of a program and it runs, and you don't touch the OS again. Win95+ made the OS much bigger and intrusive. Saying that Win95 is good is hardly an argument that OS's should go away.
> Characters are hardly complex interactive systems with a simple interface.
Language is a complex interactive system, but characters are not a simple interface. We spend years in school learning how to write; we come in mostly competent in speaking. Writing is often quite distant from speaking; spelling often has little to nothing to do with sound (cf. Chinese for an extreme example.)
> with Windows, even if it doesn't ship with a particular driver, is much easier to bring to a fully operational state.
When did this become a Windows vs. Linux thing? Depending on your hardware, either can be hard or impossible to bring to a fully operational state.
I think you miss my point. There are basically OS-less systems - WebTV, MS Bob. Why haven't people flocked to them?
you get a washing machine. They are both von Neumann architecure machines.
A von Neumann architecture is a CPU connected up to memory and IO, IIRC. (There are non-von Neumann computers.) A washing machine isn't a von Neumann architecture machine.
They don't want a prolonged diatribe about how "It wouldn't have broken if the QuuxBar 9.3.4 patch had been installed..."
And I don't want a prolonged diatribe about how I should have checked the oil in my car and replaced it. That does not negate my responsibility to do so, nor does it suddenly create a solution that doesn't need me to check my oil.
If you know that you are driving a car, either you're an automobile engineer, or the automobile engineers have failed to protect you from their work.
Or, if you know that you are writing characters, you are either an scribe, or the scribes have failed to protect you from their work.
A computer is a massively flexible tool. People have to learn the interfaces on VCRs, microwaves, and the rest of modern applicances. The computer is much more complex device, so it's going to have a much more complex interface, called an operating system.
If people just wanted to browse the web and do email, WebTV would have gone over better. But people want to play computer games, and write documents and keep their budget and their family tree on the computer, and a million other things. If people wanted a non-OS interface, what happened to Microsoft Bob?
I do *not* want my dishwasher to stop with a message of "Oops in module handle_detergent. Please run ksymoops and report to lkml".
And I do *not* want my car to stop working and start spitting out smoke. But you know what? It happens. If you're perfect enough to write the bug-less OS, then go ahead and write it.
Because somebody can. I can blindly trust some anonymous person somewhere who knows that I can't check him; or I can trust a fellow developer, who will get expelled from Debian if he tried to "fuck a bunch of people over" (i.e. accountability.) At least 3 or 4 people see any change that goes into any major program, and any number of people can look at the code, at any time. If you put a back door in, you will be found out, sooner or later, and people will know who did it.
You might also want to note that Mozilla is going to the (ugly, IMO) MPL/GPL/LGPL for its licensing, so that it can be used in LGPL and GPL projects. MPL/GPL is also a nice mix, as it gives you compatibity with the GPL.
To me, it looks like the market prefers some version of the Artistic license to the MPL.
> You can try the "compression test" for
> encryption. Try compressing some data. Check the
> file size. Now, encrypt the same data and run
> your compression program. You'll notice that the
> "compressed" file is the same size or larger
> than the original. This is because the encrypted
> data is "extremely randomized", and the
> compression program cannot find patterns in it to
> compress it.
This is true of good random numbers, too. It's even more true of compressed data - this test will trigger on every gziped or zipped file to pass through the network. It's also trivial to use some sort of base64 (or more complex encoding that uses letters with English frequency) over your encryption to break this.
It also doesn't distinguish encryption permitted by the government, and cypto using illegal keys and methods.
> the unpageable kernel of windows 2000 was smaller than the unpageable kernel of linux,
Using what configuration options of Linux? How big are we talking about here?
But you can't search every home, to see who has illegal crypto. Even if you somehow can tell ssh-backdoor apart from ssh, you can't tell ssh over ssh-backdoor from ssh-backdoor without decrypting all transmissions.
Of course, apt won't install KDE 2.2.1 right now, since unstable has some library version problem (at least on my system.) Probably something got hung in incoming and it will just clear itself up in a few days.
Besides the fact he was joking . . .
I dual boot too. I'm in very little risk of running into this virus. Linux browses the web just fine, so why reboot into Windows to browse the web? If you boot into Windows only to OCR or play Warcraft (like me) or any other limited purpose, then you won't have a problem.
> THe original copyright holder retains the copyright to the work and to all derivative works.
Nope. You retain full copyright to any of your own work. If you write a sequel to Harry Potter, you own the copyright to your original work. However, J K Rowlings owns the copyright to the characters and what not. So neither of you can copy the book without permission of the other. You can't say "you can't kill so and so" because that's not the way that copyright works; but if you could prove that her work was a ripoff of yours, you could sue her over it - the reason a lot of authors don't like to read unsolicited submissions.
> Your new argument is that arguments don't have to be logical.
No, my argument is that simple logic ignores the subtilties of human conversation.
> Personally, I would talk to Satan himself if it would prevent further bloodshed.
And what happens when you realized you've let your family be killed while you were talking to him? That you've sold your soul, your family, your country down the river? If someone isn't interested in working with you, talking often gives them time to take advantage of you; if you put too high an importance on talking, you'll pay too much of a price for peace, often to discover it won't buy peace after all.
[How pathetic do you have to be to have multiple Slashdot accounts for more karma?]
This is not logic class. Your argument was that we should talk, because if we don't, we'll get war. My response was that if we do talk, we'll get war, so there's no reason to talk if that talk is morally wrong. Furthermore, I pointed out that war is not always the wrong solution; we can not talk and sacrifice all, instead of standing up for the right.
Is there any supporting evidence of this? One poster making a claim raises a little sceptism.
Why? You don't think that most people worry about similar people (Linux developers, Canadians, Christians, whatever) first and then thought about the rest of humanity caught in this tragedy?