>Also women on the Internet are much easier, they've no qualms with getting fucked in the arse by someone they've only just met.
Dude, it's a MOVIE. A film. Not the Real Thing (TM). Etc...
Those models wouldn't give you the time of day if they met you on the street, the only reason they seem so "willing" is that they are being paid well for their "services"
"Look at Oracle and IBM. Oracle is using Linux as the OS for its grid. This shows that there is a solution stack on top of Linux that is not just Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP/Perl, but a mixture of open source and proprietary software. ISVs such as Oracle, CA, SAP and IBM are fleshing out the Linux stack,"
I agree, it means Linux is becoming a general-purpose tool: home users AND scientists/engineers/hackers (using hackers in the comp-sci sense, not the thug) are now starting to focus on the benefits of an open development model.
That means that no one is really fascinated by Microsoft anymore. Oh sure, Microsoft can still spend bucks on PR and FUD, but there is no amount of that that will make users forget this other more fascinating thing that Linux is.
In the end it's a numbers game: Microsoft may have hired spectacular staff, but they can't compete against collected might of THE WORLD, can they? India and China will lead the way, no doubt.
And besides, Linux (for the most part) exists simply because people enjoy making tools out of computers, it's not about trying to raise revenue for the coming quarter, but (funny enough) it seems to be doing just that!
If Microsoft wants to matter anymore, they'll roll with it, like they did on the Internet; late.
MS should open-source some code and actually let the Wine guys run with it; they're the only ones REALLY trying to preserve Windows, by writing a great application suite, to support the Windows user.
I know MS have been accused of fighting Wine users, but it really is to MS's own detriment; it alienates more users.
I disagree. The best reason for a firewall is stealth. The second-best reason is to restrict access to certain service-ports for local-area network use only.
But even when you do that, the local machines can still use an exploit (knowingly or as zombies) on one of the open ports if an exploit for that port exists.
It's best BY FAR to fix your protocol to prevent exploits than hope the firewall keeps the Internet badguys out while praying none of your local machines are hostile.
Cool. You summed it up right there. Only I always thought that the two slits always were separated by time; since they are physically separate, whatever distance between them is a measure of time because space is defined by time. Intervals of time are akin to intervals of space, right? Can't have space without time, right? OK, I'm NOT a physicist, but if I am wrong about space and time being defined one with the other, please tell me.
Pizza, your last two comments, that were moderated as trolls and flamebaits deserved insightful and funny instead...
You can never understand why mods moderate as they do...
About the new math; it's simple, you only need to rework the underlying assumptions -
First create something revolutionary whose fabric is that of freedom (like Linux) and the worms (established players, people with the most to lose; Microsoft) come right of the woodwork with their own "new math" that flies against empirical knowledge and logical thought.
Every time something damning for SCO comes out in this case, there is a sharp drop in their stock price.
But it never lasts very long, it seems to (suspiciously) quickly spike back up.
Give me a tinfoil award for this, but I'm convinced that as real investors flee SCO, Microsoft (through some shell) is buying up the jettisoned shares with part of that 80 million they've earmarked for their "Battle against Linux" they publicized some time ago.
Maybe I'm simply paranoid. If I'm wrong, it's no biggie, but if I am RIGHT, then when the judge finally pulls the plug on this fiaSCO and the stock flatlines, Microsoft will be left holding ashes...
If by Windows 2003 containing 500% more unpatched vulnerabilities (5) than Redhat (0) or Suse (0) you mean secure, then yes, Windows 2003 is more secure.
But mind you, you aren't really defining secure that way, you're defining un-secure.
But I suppose in Microsoft's bizarro-universe, where left is right and up is down there is no contradiction.
Does this mean we can expect source Linux distros to start taking advantage of this?
I know I'll sound like a wannabe leet for saying this, but I already really like my Gentoo workstation because it is a stage1 install (all from source), and I expect this will only make it even faster!
>When you put quotes around it, yes it does mean exactly that. Specifically, google returns the text Results 1 - 10 of about 5,290 for "Bill Gates is the devil", so I'd say his answer is full of shit.
Yes, but if you do the same search on MSN, you get less than 2000 hits;-)
Much more likely the result of your mom closing the door after the Roomba's system might have gotten confused and caused Roomba to get lost. Your mom can be forgiven for forgetting about it (age) and subsequently "discovering" this emergent bahaviour.
>>[...] you can rely on Microsoft to provide updates. You *can't* legally rely on Linus Torvalds or any of the other developers to provide a solution to the problem.
Historically, we've seen that Microsoft CAN'T be counted on to provide updates. They might get around to closing *some* holes, but it's usually so late that it doesn't make any difference because all the damage has already been done.
Historically, we've seen that Linux DOES get updated MUCH faster than Microsoft, often immediately.
A better question is "Who is responsible for the security of Windows?"
Through its inaction, Microsoft has shown that no one at Microsoft is.
And worse, because Windows is closed-source, anyone who is a victim of Microsoft's reckless disregard for security can't do a thing about it.
At least with open source, you can either close the holes yourself or hire someone to do it.
With Microsoft, you're guaranteed to suffer forever because of limited resources: Developers at Microsoft are not hired to look out for clients, they are hired to do what marketing says and implement security models that make no sense because MS needs to sell product. Quality and security are not even a secondary considerations.
At Microsoft, it is more important to hobble a competitor's product (like they did to Novel and Wordperfect) and continue to dominate than it is to build quality or security.
Microsoft will never match the quality and security of hundreds of thousands of developers who review and contribute to open-source projects. their claims to the contrary are ridiculous
Microsoft is only conserned about their next financial quarter, not about anything intrisically important to any of their users.
Linux is only concerned about correctly implementing code and algorithms.
The sooner we realize this and stop giving MS money and instead start donating it to open-source projects, the faster open-source will gather strength.
"Oh yeah, the MPAA, I remember them, they tattled on me to my parents..."
I wonder what kind of effect the MPAA is hoping for when they keep targetting their patrons and future patrons with lawsuits.
They have GOT to be smoking some serious crack... Almost like all those Metallica users petitioning to get rid of producer Bob Rock because they blame HIM for how much Metallica has come to suck.
Everything you've written is really informative, I thank you. However, I must disagree with your assesment of vnc being hard to install so that it is running during the login window:
I use UltraVNC all the time for that and have 5 machines (WXP W2K W98) and for the ones that are true Win32 implementations, with a service manager and all that, UltraVNC installs as a service perfectly. As a bonus it is also the VNC server that renders with the least amount of artifacts.
On the DOS-based versions of Windows (9x,ME), I've seen login bugs a few times with a few VNC servers.
I had never used sudo explicitly before. It's not a big thing to get used to to do 'sudo x', and like you said it's safer than enabling the root account.
But how would you add items in the services dialog?
For example, I'm also using osxvnc, which is a vnc server for osx. I start it by hand when I log on, but it keeps shutting itself down if I log off.
So I thought that there must be a way to install it as a service, sure enough, one of its dialog tabs lets you select that as an option, but it doesn't seem to work.
So i thought of adding it as a service. but other than the existing entries in the list, there doesn't seem (as far a I can see yet) to be an easy way of adding services.
And followed the directions, which were clear. I was able to get X11 installed.
There's already a terminal on OSX, but it doesn't know about the DISPLAY variable.
There's also an ssh client, and an ssh daemon, but I couldn't figure out how to enable the ssh daemon, does anyone know how?
For example, I tried adding it to the/etc/inetd but I couldn't write to the file.
The 'su' command doesn't seem to work either; no matter which password I tried or even if I changed the password of the administrator user, 'su, would still give an error.
I know there must be a 'Mac' way to do all this, but what I'd really like is a list of DIFFERENCES between say an average Linux distro and OSX.
I know OSX is based on FreeBSD, which I've never run, but I expect it can't be that different from Linux.
Anyhow, if anyone has a link to an sshd how-to for OSX, I would both appreciate it and thank you in advance!
Slashdot Mirror
>Also women on the Internet are much easier, they've no qualms with getting fucked in the arse by someone they've only just met.
Dude, it's a MOVIE. A film. Not the Real Thing (TM). Etc...
Those models wouldn't give you the time of day if they met you on the street, the only reason they seem so "willing" is that they are being paid well for their "services"
It's called reality, look into it.
Amen to that.
;-)
Developers are brothers, this whole shiatstorm is purely a management issue, don't you forget it.
props.
No mod points though, sorry.
"Look at Oracle and IBM. Oracle is using Linux as the OS for its grid. This shows that there is a solution stack on top of Linux that is not just Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP/Perl, but a mixture of open source and proprietary software. ISVs such as Oracle, CA, SAP and IBM are fleshing out the Linux stack,"
I agree, it means Linux is becoming a general-purpose tool: home users AND scientists/engineers/hackers (using hackers in the comp-sci sense, not the thug) are now starting to focus on the benefits of an open development model.
That means that no one is really fascinated by Microsoft anymore. Oh sure, Microsoft can still spend bucks on PR and FUD, but there is no amount of that that will make users forget this other more fascinating thing that Linux is.
In the end it's a numbers game: Microsoft may have hired spectacular staff, but they can't compete against collected might of THE WORLD, can they? India and China will lead the way, no doubt.
And besides, Linux (for the most part) exists simply because people enjoy making tools out of computers, it's not about trying to raise revenue for the coming quarter, but (funny enough) it seems to be doing just that!
If Microsoft wants to matter anymore, they'll roll with it, like they did on the Internet; late.
MS should open-source some code and actually let the Wine guys run with it; they're the only ones REALLY trying to preserve Windows, by writing a great application suite, to support the Windows user.
I know MS have been accused of fighting Wine users, but it really is to MS's own detriment; it alienates more users.
I disagree.
The best reason for a firewall is stealth.
The second-best reason is to restrict access to certain service-ports for local-area network use only.
But even when you do that, the local machines can still use an exploit (knowingly or as zombies) on one of the open ports if an exploit for that port exists.
It's best BY FAR to fix your protocol to prevent exploits than hope the firewall keeps the Internet badguys out while praying none of your local machines are hostile.
Cool.
You summed it up right there.
Only I always thought that the two slits always were separated by time; since they are physically separate, whatever distance between them is a measure of time because space is defined by time.
Intervals of time are akin to intervals of space, right?
Can't have space without time, right?
OK, I'm NOT a physicist, but if I am wrong about space and time being defined one with the other, please tell me.
Pizza, your last two comments, that were moderated as trolls and flamebaits deserved insightful and funny instead...
;-)
You can never understand why mods moderate as they do...
About the new math; it's simple, you only need to rework the underlying assumptions -
First create something revolutionary whose fabric is that of freedom (like Linux) and the worms (established players, people with the most to lose; Microsoft) come right of the woodwork with their own "new math" that flies against empirical knowledge and logical thought.
I'd go on, but I think you're trolling again
I've noticed a pattern:
Every time something damning for SCO comes out in this case, there is a sharp drop in their stock price.
But it never lasts very long, it seems to (suspiciously) quickly spike back up.
Give me a tinfoil award for this, but I'm convinced that as real investors flee SCO, Microsoft (through some shell) is buying up the jettisoned shares with part of that 80 million they've earmarked for their "Battle against Linux" they publicized some time ago.
Maybe I'm simply paranoid. If I'm wrong, it's no biggie, but if I am RIGHT, then when the judge finally pulls the plug on this fiaSCO and the stock flatlines, Microsoft will be left holding ashes...
Sort of poetic. For a lunatic's idea, isn't it?
If by Windows 2003 containing 500% more unpatched vulnerabilities (5) than Redhat (0) or Suse (0) you mean secure, then yes, Windows 2003 is more secure.
But mind you, you aren't really defining secure that way, you're defining un-secure.
But I suppose in Microsoft's bizarro-universe, where left is right and up is down there is no contradiction.
>I think the link to the blog should NOT have been included. It's just driving even more traffic there now that wouldn't be generated otherwise.
Finally a use for slashdotting.
After this the guy can retire.
Does this mean we can expect source Linux distros to start taking advantage of this?
I know I'll sound like a wannabe leet for saying this, but I already really like my Gentoo workstation because it is a stage1 install (all from source), and I expect this will only make it even faster!
Yay!
>When you put quotes around it, yes it does mean exactly that. Specifically, google returns the text Results 1 - 10 of about 5,290 for "Bill Gates is the devil", so I'd say his answer is full of shit.
;-)
Yes, but if you do the same search on MSN, you get less than 2000 hits
Much more likely the result of your mom closing the door after the Roomba's system might have gotten confused and caused Roomba to get lost.
Your mom can be forgiven for forgetting about it (age) and subsequently "discovering" this emergent bahaviour.
fnah
>>[...] you can rely on Microsoft to provide updates. You *can't* legally rely on Linus Torvalds or any of the other developers to provide a solution to the problem.
Historically, we've seen that Microsoft CAN'T be counted on to provide updates. They might get around to closing *some* holes, but it's usually so late that it doesn't make any difference because all the damage has already been done.
Historically, we've seen that Linux DOES get updated MUCH faster than Microsoft, often immediately.
A better question is "Who is responsible for the security of Windows?"
Through its inaction, Microsoft has shown that no one at Microsoft is.
And worse, because Windows is closed-source, anyone who is a victim of Microsoft's reckless disregard for security can't do a thing about it.
At least with open source, you can either close the holes yourself or hire someone to do it.
With Microsoft, you're guaranteed to suffer forever because of limited resources: Developers at Microsoft are not hired to look out for clients, they are hired to do what marketing says and implement security models that make no sense because MS needs to sell product. Quality and security are not even a secondary considerations.
At Microsoft, it is more important to hobble a competitor's product (like they did to Novel and Wordperfect) and continue to dominate than it is to build quality or security.
Microsoft will never match the quality and security of hundreds of thousands of developers who review and contribute to open-source projects. their claims to the contrary are ridiculous
Microsoft is only conserned about their next financial quarter, not about anything intrisically important to any of their users.
Linux is only concerned about correctly implementing code and algorithms.
The sooner we realize this and stop giving MS money and instead start donating it to open-source projects, the faster open-source will gather strength.
and become voters.
"Oh yeah, the MPAA, I remember them, they tattled on me to my parents..."
I wonder what kind of effect the MPAA is hoping for when they keep targetting their patrons and future patrons with lawsuits.
They have GOT to be smoking some serious crack... Almost like all those Metallica users petitioning to get rid of producer Bob Rock because they blame HIM for how much Metallica has come to suck.
*rolls eyes*
Everything you've written is really informative, I thank you.
However, I must disagree with your assesment of vnc being hard to install so that it is running during the login window:
I use UltraVNC all the time for that and have 5 machines (WXP W2K W98) and for the ones that are true Win32 implementations, with a service manager and all that, UltraVNC installs as a service perfectly. As a bonus it is also the VNC server that renders with the least amount of artifacts.
On the DOS-based versions of Windows (9x,ME), I've seen login bugs a few times with a few VNC servers.
You're right. Safety is important.
I had never used sudo explicitly before. It's not a big thing to get used to to do 'sudo x', and like you said it's safer than enabling the root account.
But how would you add items in the services dialog?
For example, I'm also using osxvnc, which is a vnc server for osx. I start it by hand when I log on, but it keeps shutting itself down if I log off.
So I thought that there must be a way to install it as a service, sure enough, one of its dialog tabs lets you select that as an option, but it doesn't seem to work.
So i thought of adding it as a service. but other than the existing entries in the list, there doesn't seem (as far a I can see yet) to be an easy way of adding services.
Big surprise, each side is pulling for a bigger piece of the blanket.
The Last Question
Hey!
That's it!
Funny thing is I had enabled the Windows Sharing in that same dialog earlier to get samba working, and i hadn't noticed that ssh was in there.
Actually I didn't expect something as arcane as ssh to be so simple, but that's Mac for you.
I just received this machine (A G5 Powermac, the 64 bit one with dual processors) and I can see I still have a bit of "unlearning" to do.
Thanks thesman, very kind of you.
And followed the directions, which were clear.
/etc/inetd
I was able to get X11 installed.
There's already a terminal on OSX, but it doesn't know about the DISPLAY variable.
There's also an ssh client, and an ssh daemon, but I couldn't figure out how to enable the ssh daemon, does anyone know how?
For example, I tried adding it to the
but I couldn't write to the file.
The 'su' command doesn't seem to work either; no matter which password I tried or even if I changed the password of the administrator user, 'su, would still give an error.
I know there must be a 'Mac' way to do all this, but what I'd really like is a list of DIFFERENCES between say an average Linux distro and OSX.
I know OSX is based on FreeBSD, which I've never run, but I expect it can't be that different from Linux.
Anyhow, if anyone has a link to an sshd how-to for OSX, I would both appreciate it and thank you in advance!
I think the term "saber rattling" is what you were looking for.
Everyone knows computers don't really possess intelligence.
So they'd pick music that is artificial and without intelligence...