I use Linux all the time. It doesn't seem to me like a long boot-up, or possibly it's just so much less than a Windows boot-up that it seems short. Regardless, a Linux system with a bunch of daemons takes the same amount of time as Windows without all such stuff. My main argument is that you can keep Linux running and so not waste time booting.
A shoddy Windows app can crash the entire system handily. My main argument is that the operating system is insecure and leaks memory, situations which are remedied by rebooting and so flushing the cache and reloading the operating system.
The boot-up time being talked about here is the boot-up time of the system. Starting apps isn't often called "booting up" anyhow. Besides, a program in Linux can be started up almost instantly and even in Windows is quite quick.
You're "stop being a 'me too' weiner" is obviously just a simple flame, but...I had not seen this idea expressed and was not even bashing Windows.
The way I see, a type of RAM that allows instant-on computers is rather pointless. In an unstable system (such as Windows), you need to clear the RAM in order to free resources and bring back semblance of stability. In a stable system, the system does not need to be shutdown so instant-on computers aren't that special because you don't have to reboot anyway. Even if you wanted to reboot, in a system such as Linux, the bootup is so quick that instant-on doesn't make much difference anyhow.
Before I signed up for this just to check it out a while back, I had never recieved a piece of junk e-mail or spam. Just a few hours after I entered my e-mail for this, I started recieving spam. DON'T USE THIS, all this in addition to the fact that it was pretty much a useless piece of software.
I came across this post in comp.os.linux.misc from April 14, 1996 when looking over Andy Tanenbaum's past newsgroup posts:
"[Minix] runs as a user program on the Macintosh and SPARC (on top of Solaris). This mode is especially convenient for people (e.g. students) who want to play with an operating system but don't want to allocate it a disk partition and keep having to reboot it.
"I was thinking that it might be useful to many people to have a version of MINIX that ran on top of Linux, as a user program. Since a version of MINIX for the SPARC already runs on Solaris as a user program, porting this to Linux might not be so hard. I am looking for a volunteer who has the time and interest to do this.
I was curious as to what ever happened with this and if anything, the results. Possibly this might be restarted or reinvigorated by this announcement of a license change?
It was merely a speculation on the irony of it. I can't really find the right words here, but it wasn't meant to seriously say that censorship started with websites.
And, of course, this post would be stuck at -1.:) But seriously, this belongs more in an article with the Topic of Slashdot and regarding suggestions for improvements of Slashdot.
The thread you linked to was from late January of 1992. Linux has changed substantially since then. Concerning the arguments about Linux's monolithicity, Linux is no where near as monolithic as it once was. About portability, TONS has changed in eight years. Andy Tanenbaum says that Linux is tied fairly close to the 80x86. This has changed substantially since then. Linux is ported to two (680x0, SPARC) of the three (I don't even know what the NS3201 is) architectures mentioned there. He also says that "[w]hat is going to happen is that [RISC] will gradually take over from the 80x86 line." This has shown itself to be not true, regardless of whether it's a good thing to happen.
He puts up a banner ad, this would pay for the ISP bill and he might even make a little money. In the end it's much better to be linked to. Even if you don't make any money, your ideas are being disseminated.
This article is regarding DEEP linking, not simple linking. It's not really about the number of hits, but about bypassing any crap that might be on the frontpage, etc.
A honeypot is not entrapment. The legal definition of entrapment is a situation whereby law enforcement officers encourage somebody to commit a crime that they were not already disposed to do. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition defines "entrapment" as the noun for the verb "entrap," which means "To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act."
By the legal definition, if you are not a law enforcement officer, you cannot entrap. By both the legal definition and the dictionary definition, a honeypot is also not entrapment. A hacker who cracks the honeypot system is doing it of his own volition, without outside enticement. It is not a previously uncontemplated act, nor is the hacker not otherwise disposed to do it. The person who sets up the honeypot is not going out and telling everyyone about the system. So, in order for it to be found vulnerable, the person has to specifically find the vulnerable system, which is just one of many which the person scans, looking for systems to crack. If the person who sets up the honeypot system "advertised" the system and presented some sort of bounty for a successful penetration, it would fall into the dictionary definition and part of the legal definition. As the person is not a law enforcement officer, it does not fulfill the legal definition. Also, the article states that the goal is not to capture the cracker, but rather to monitor what they do.
And consider this: what about those groups such as LinuxPPC that specifically request someone to crack the system for a prize. Is this illegal? No. They are not law enforcement officers, nor is the goal to capture and punish the intruder(s).
I believe that at least a sizeable part of the problem is that people think that all the "right's groups" will protect them universally and powerfully. This is not always the case. Another part is that people seem to only be able to be worked into a fervor by the media, especially the television newsmedia, which frequently reports on insignificant things, most of which actually do not have any impact on most people. The people that actually are concerned over this thing are frequently dismissed as extremists. Most people think that the government would never do anything to the American people. Even if this were entirely true, the government only has to consistently pass enough small laws that even they see as "the right thing." If rights are consistently eroded away, it might be too late for them to be regained before Something Bad Happens.
Even when most companies delay the release of a product, the product still has a large number of bugs, at least relative to a release of the Linux kernel. This is clearly illustrated by Microsoft and Windows 2000. They delayed Windows 2000, yet it was still released with 27,000+ KNOWN bugs that could become "real problems" and an even greater number of optimazations they could have done. Also, as was already said in this thread, when a company says they're going to delay a release, you can't get the features that release offered until they end up releasing it. This is not the case with Linux. You can sacrifice stability/security with a development kernel if you really want or need a particular feature. This is not the case with commercial products.
P.S: I believe vaporware is a software that not only is delayed and hasn't been released, but has not been seen by the public or has been seen so little only in self-running demos.
While Red Hat may be targeted at servers, it has, at least in the past, not been the most secure. Corel is definitely not targeted at servers. They say clearly that they're for desktop users. They're even less secure than Red Hat, with more root exploits than you can shake a stick at. There's nothing wrong with Debian waiting to be secure and stable in their releases. This ensures that people can know that a Debian release is stable and secure. Anyone can upgrade their kernel if they wish.
Not only is this not true GNU software in that they're not releasing the source code ("until 1.0"), but it's not anything spectacular. There are frequent comments about how the system is unsuccessful. Also, there are other programs, posted on freshmeat, that do the same thing.
There are four sources from the first two pages of a Google search ("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance") that also say it was Thomas Jefferson, and one that says it was Benjamin Franklin.
But if this network does such a thing, why would you want to go back there in the first place? The only thing I can think of is to flame and be an ass;)
The Boston Globe article said that these people are not to be confused with people who vandalize computers. It doesn't really say that hackers are or aren't vandals at all. It merely sets people straight concerning the article, those people that don't know the difference between a vandal and a hacker.
1) Microsoft did have a version of Unix: Microsoft XENIX. In August of 1980, Microsoft announced the Microsoft XENIX OS, a portable operating system for 16-bit microprocessors. It was an interactive, multi-user, multi-tasking system that ran on Intel 8086, Zilog Z8000, Motorola M68000, and DEC PDP-11 series.
2) Linux is not Unix. It is a free Unix-type operating system.
He means that they may have lifted some Linux code and put it in Windows 2000 either verbatim or as a derivative work. This is illegal. Linus did not illegally take any code from any Unix. The point is not that Windows 2000 lifted the "invention" from Linux but that they may have illegally taken code.
Does this mean we can stop hearing about e-this and e-that all the time? And with this put an end to the Windows 2000 commercials about this great (:P) OS for "the Business Internet" We can only hope...
Slashdot Mirror
I use Linux all the time. It doesn't seem to me like a long boot-up, or possibly it's just so much less than a Windows boot-up that it seems short. Regardless, a Linux system with a bunch of daemons takes the same amount of time as Windows without all such stuff. My main argument is that you can keep Linux running and so not waste time booting.
A shoddy Windows app can crash the entire system handily. My main argument is that the operating system is insecure and leaks memory, situations which are remedied by rebooting and so flushing the cache and reloading the operating system.
The boot-up time being talked about here is the boot-up time of the system. Starting apps isn't often called "booting up" anyhow. Besides, a program in Linux can be started up almost instantly and even in Windows is quite quick.
You're "stop being a 'me too' weiner" is obviously just a simple flame, but...I had not seen this idea expressed and was not even bashing Windows.
Chris Hagar
The way I see, a type of RAM that allows instant-on computers is rather pointless. In an unstable system (such as Windows), you need to clear the RAM in order to free resources and bring back semblance of stability. In a stable system, the system does not need to be shutdown so instant-on computers aren't that special because you don't have to reboot anyway. Even if you wanted to reboot, in a system such as Linux, the bootup is so quick that instant-on doesn't make much difference anyhow.
Chris Hagar
Before I signed up for this just to check it out a while back, I had never recieved a piece of junk e-mail or spam. Just a few hours after I entered my e-mail for this, I started recieving spam. DON'T USE THIS, all this in addition to the fact that it was pretty much a useless piece of software.
Chris Hagar
"[Minix] runs as a user program on the Macintosh and SPARC (on top of Solaris). This mode is especially convenient for people (e.g. students) who want to play with an operating system but don't want to allocate it a disk partition and keep having to reboot it.
"I was thinking that it might be useful to many people to have a version of MINIX that ran on top of Linux, as a user program. Since a version of MINIX for the SPARC already runs on Solaris as a user program, porting this to Linux might not be so hard. I am looking for a volunteer who has the time and interest to do this.
I was curious as to what ever happened with this and if anything, the results. Possibly this might be restarted or reinvigorated by this announcement of a license change?
Chris Hagar
It was merely a speculation on the irony of it. I can't really find the right words here, but it wasn't meant to seriously say that censorship started with websites.
Chris Hagar
And, of course, this post would be stuck at -1. :) But seriously, this belongs more in an article with the Topic of Slashdot and regarding suggestions for improvements of Slashdot.
Chris Hagar
The thread you linked to was from late January of 1992. Linux has changed substantially since then. Concerning the arguments about Linux's monolithicity, Linux is no where near as monolithic as it once was. About portability, TONS has changed in eight years. Andy Tanenbaum says that Linux is tied fairly close to the 80x86. This has changed substantially since then. Linux is ported to two (680x0, SPARC) of the three (I don't even know what the NS3201 is) architectures mentioned there. He also says that "[w]hat is going to happen is that [RISC] will gradually take over from the 80x86 line." This has shown itself to be not true, regardless of whether it's a good thing to happen.
Chris Hagar
This article is regarding DEEP linking, not simple linking. It's not really about the number of hits, but about bypassing any crap that might be on the frontpage, etc.
Chris Hagar
By the legal definition, if you are not a law enforcement officer, you cannot entrap. By both the legal definition and the dictionary definition, a honeypot is also not entrapment. A hacker who cracks the honeypot system is doing it of his own volition, without outside enticement. It is not a previously uncontemplated act, nor is the hacker not otherwise disposed to do it. The person who sets up the honeypot is not going out and telling everyyone about the system. So, in order for it to be found vulnerable, the person has to specifically find the vulnerable system, which is just one of many which the person scans, looking for systems to crack. If the person who sets up the honeypot system "advertised" the system and presented some sort of bounty for a successful penetration, it would fall into the dictionary definition and part of the legal definition. As the person is not a law enforcement officer, it does not fulfill the legal definition. Also, the article states that the goal is not to capture the cracker, but rather to monitor what they do.
And consider this: what about those groups such as LinuxPPC that specifically request someone to crack the system for a prize. Is this illegal? No. They are not law enforcement officers, nor is the goal to capture and punish the intruder(s).
Chris Hagar
Could this be what's causing Windows to crash? Whatever am I to do.
Chris Hagar
Gore did, everyone knows that.
Chris Hagar
Part of the same reason we land on the moon, or other seemingly stupid things.
Chris Hagar
Do they have anything to say concerning their "WAVE program" and "hot grits/Natalie Portman" or the ubiquitous "first post"? ;)
But seriously. I think it's great that a company is taking our ideas seriously, or at least appearing to.
Chris Hagar
I believe that at least a sizeable part of the problem is that people think that all the "right's groups" will protect them universally and powerfully. This is not always the case. Another part is that people seem to only be able to be worked into a fervor by the media, especially the television newsmedia, which frequently reports on insignificant things, most of which actually do not have any impact on most people. The people that actually are concerned over this thing are frequently dismissed as extremists. Most people think that the government would never do anything to the American people. Even if this were entirely true, the government only has to consistently pass enough small laws that even they see as "the right thing." If rights are consistently eroded away, it might be too late for them to be regained before Something Bad Happens.
Chris Hagar
P.S: I believe vaporware is a software that not only is delayed and hasn't been released, but has not been seen by the public or has been seen so little only in self-running demos.
Chris Hagar
While Red Hat may be targeted at servers, it has, at least in the past, not been the most secure. Corel is definitely not targeted at servers. They say clearly that they're for desktop users. They're even less secure than Red Hat, with more root exploits than you can shake a stick at. There's nothing wrong with Debian waiting to be secure and stable in their releases. This ensures that people can know that a Debian release is stable and secure. Anyone can upgrade their kernel if they wish.
Chris Hagar
Not only is this not true GNU software in that they're not releasing the source code ("until 1.0"), but it's not anything spectacular. There are frequent comments about how the system is unsuccessful. Also, there are other programs, posted on freshmeat, that do the same thing.
Chris Hagar
There are four sources from the first two pages of a Google search ("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance") that also say it was Thomas Jefferson, and one that says it was Benjamin Franklin.
Chris Hagar
But if this network does such a thing, why would you want to go back there in the first place? The only thing I can think of is to flame and be an ass ;)
Chris Hagar
Isn't this "Go away and I'll replace you with a very small shell script"?
Chris Hagar
I was moseying on my April Fool's high when you had to just go and ruin the whole day by posting this drivel. shame :P
Chris Hagar
The Boston Globe article said that these people are not to be confused with people who vandalize computers. It doesn't really say that hackers are or aren't vandals at all. It merely sets people straight concerning the article, those people that don't know the difference between a vandal and a hacker.
Chris Hagar
2) Linux is not Unix. It is a free Unix-type operating system.
Chris Hagar
He means that they may have lifted some Linux code and put it in Windows 2000 either verbatim or as a derivative work. This is illegal. Linus did not illegally take any code from any Unix. The point is not that Windows 2000 lifted the "invention" from Linux but that they may have illegally taken code.
Chris Hagar
Does this mean we can stop hearing about e-this and e-that all the time? And with this put an end to the Windows 2000 commercials about this great (:P) OS for "the Business Internet" We can only hope...
Chris Hagar