If its in the crater, notice the bottom of the crater is in shadow. No way to recharge its batteries (which it does automatically for up to 20 days) if there is no sunlight.
Every DVD I have purchased in the last 12 months have had zero previews on the movie disk, and all the extras come on one or two extra DVDs, making for a total of 2 or 3 DVDs in the package. The movie itself comes with sound tracks in several languages, and usually either comes DTS encoded, or surround sound encoded.
All that for ~ 15.00 (about $20), and I get a physical thing to own. No wonder I do not touch kazaa, or any other p2p app, I am getting a good deal.
No, rather it would be like Ford Motor Company releasing a car range called the SteeringWheel (tm). Perfectly fine, another company could not release a car range called the same, but it could still use steering wheel technology within it.
Absolution Gap 'completed' the loose Inhibitors trilogy started in Revelation Space and continued in Redemption Ark.
Set in the future, several hundred years from now, humanity lives off world due to an iceage that has set in, and split up into several groups. Unknown to them, a force that lives between the stars has spotted them and begun its never ending task - that of supressing space faring species.
The first two books were fantastic, they told the story really well, and built believable characters out of figures that you at first dispise in some cases. The storyline is disjointed in someplaces, with some scenes skipped altogether, but it is done in such a fantastic way that you hardly notice, with the jumps doing more to move the story along than to distract from it.
Unfortunately, Absolution Gap, the final book in the series, fails to deliver. The entire book is building up to a conclusion that really never happens, and the entire arc is wrapped up after the end of the story, in an epilogue that makes you feel as tho you have been cheated. In all, the book feels like it was too long, and the author decided to jsut give up. The entire premise of the book, and one which you would buy the book on, is that there is a massive climax to the story arc that has taken two books to build up, but in reality you come away feeling cheated, because the climax never happens. None of the characters you care about are expanded, indeed several are killed off, and everything you think is going to make a difference jsut whithers away. The story just is not ended at all. Its like watching the first two films in the LotR trilogy, and then finding out they decided not to make the third, but to finish it off in a two page pamphlet included with the second film.
I really liked A. Reynolds based on his past work, but this book really makes me want to give up reading him. He just did not deliver the goods, and if I could get a refund for my time taken reading this pile of crap, then I think I would. Sorry guys, definately my Worst Read of the year.
They should better work on a noob-proof attachment handling and add a dozen of messageboxes when the luser double-clicks the attachment... 'Are really you sure you want to open nudeteens.jpg.exe?'
Later versions of Outlook and OE make it very hard indeed to open some kinds of attachments. They still get opened, even if they have to be saved and ran.
If they'd at least integrate a virus scanner... they did buy a AV company, why dont they use their knowledge?
And open themselves up to more "OMG ANTITRUST!!!!!!111!!1!1!!!" calls?
The human cost of an invasion of Japan was estimated to be over a million lives. While the loss of 100,000 lives in the two bombed cities was bad, it would have been much much worse for the Japanese had the United States NOT used the bomb.
And therein lies the issue. An invasion of Japan would have cost lives on both sides, many more than were lost by using two atomic bombs. Noone in the longterm learnt from it, noone had to deal with the many dead that would have resulted from an invasion. The lessons that were presented by the 100,000 dead were easily forgotten, precisely because the deaths were all on one side, and were easily dealt. Two bombers dropping two bombs killed 100,000, and it was all too easy.
The victory over Germany was earnt, precisely because we had to fight them all the way to Hitlers doorstep. Now please do not get me wrong, I understand that a great many people died in the pacific front fighting for our freedoms, and I sincerly thank all the surviviors and the fallen, but the victory over Japan was far too easy to learn any long term lessons from. We now have the bomb, killing a large population is now easy. We tend to forget the people involved, and go after anti ballistic missile systems, so we can throw our bombs at them while they cant throw theirs at ours. We try and regain the same advantage that we had when we dropped the bombs on Japan, lack of the ability to retaliate, so there is no kick back on using these weapons.
Attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, threatening North Korea, Iran and god knows who else is easy to us western nations because there is little kickback. The US people got to know a bit about civilian casualties when the WTC was hit, and they didnt like it one bit. 3000 people died that day, and the voice of America that day was one of retaliation. And they got it.
Why do the people who back these wars think Germany, France and other nations were against hte invasion of iraq? Because they have felt the ramifications of war first hand, and fairly recently. They have knowledge that the US, the UK and others are sorely lacking, that of oppression and internal strife. They know that it is better to resolve difficulties through diplomatic channels, however long it takes, rather than in battle. Hitler would never have come about if Germany had been better treated after World War 1. World War 1 would never have taken place if the European royalty had sat down and talked about the assassination of a minor political figure, rather than square off against one another.
I applaud the current stance taken by Libya. They held secret talks with potential enemies, talks that had to be secret so there was no pressure to deliver. They discussed their problems, and settled on a solution. Some could say they did this because of Iraq, but if this was the case, then Iraq has had a net negative effect on the world. Its a case of the play ground bully making an example of one of his victims. They didnt pay up, you could be next.
For all the people who have replied to this story with "Why not KDE? Why not include KDE? KDE is better! KDE has much over Gnome!" my reply is thus:
Its opensource, fork the bastard if you are so inclined.
This choice was made by people who were looking at a unified and distinct desktop for corporate usage. If they want to concentrate one one single desktop, making it consistant and better, then that is their porogative, as much as forking it is yours. Call your fork 'ReallyUserLinux' if you so want, but stop deriding this choice.
Ive jsut cut and pasted that url into my IE 6, and after thinking about it (and saying "looking up www.mozilla.org" in the status bar) it actually takes me to the correct url AND displays the url www.heisec.de in the address bar, but gets rid of everything before the @.
Clinton actually was very cunning here, as when he was asked this question, he requested that the Judge define exactly what "sexual relations" were. The definition that the judge gave precluded oral sex from the scope of the definition, so he was perfectly in his right to answer "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
This is why he has never been tried for purjery, as he did not commit a crime by using the judges own definition.
Hardly. It went on, but most certainly neither the U.S. or the U.K. put their blessing on such an event. By the standard you seem to hold, the fact that hit happened meant it went on with the "blessing" of ALL of the world.
We sold him the weapons, weapons that we had a great understanding about and thus cannot plead ignorance. I would say that goes some way to putting their blessing on these events.
Its interesting to note that with all the effort that went into trying to put Saddam into a hole in the ground during the war, he hid in one voluntarily.
Malvin: I can't believe it, Jim. That girl's standing over there listening and you're telling him about our back doors?
Jim Sting: [yelling] Mister Potato Head! Mister Potato Head! Back doors are not secrets!
Malvin: Yeah, but Jim, you're giving away all our best tricks!
Jim Sting: They're not tricks.
Marcelo Tosatti, the deputy that Linux leader Linus Torvalds appointed to maintain the 2.4 Linux kernel, said in a posting to the Linux Kernel Mailing List this week that the follow-on 2.6 kernel is mature enough that it should be the foundation of new projects.
Tosatti will accept some significant changes and some support for selected new hardware in version 2.4.24, now under development. But versions 2.4.25 and beyond will be released only to fix security problems or other critical issues, he said.
"2.6 is becoming more stable each day, and we will hopefully see a 2.6.0 release during this month or January," Tosatti said in a posting to the Linux Kernel Mailing List on Monday.
The 2.6 kernel is in final testing, and its maintainer, Andrew Morton, said in November that he expects to release it in December. The new kernel includes several features, such as the ability to work better on large multiprocessor servers, that are expected to make Linux more appealing to corporate customers.
Tosatti's decision didn't sit well with some who are reluctant to move so soon to untested software.
"I am terrified of the following scenario, which is extremely probable to happen soon," responded Jan Rychter in a Wednesday post. "2.4 is being moved into 'pure maintenance' mode and people are being encouraged to move to 2.6. While people slowly start using 2.6, Linus starts 2.7 and all kernel developers move on to the really cool and fashionable things. 2.6 bug reports receive little attention, as it's much cooler to work on new features than fix bugs."
But shifting attention to the new kernel isn't unreasonable, D.H. Brown analyst Tony Iams said. "It makes perfect sense to me that they'd focus on putting new features into 2.6," he said. "As soon as the new release is ready, the old release goes into maintenance mode. Any software release is going to work that way, whether commercial or open source."
The discussion about 2.4 and 2.6 was triggered Monday by a request by Silicon Graphics programmer Nathan Scott, who on Monday asked Tosatti to accept SGI file system software called XFS. Tosatti rejected the software, saying advocates should submit it for inclusion in 2.6, though he later relented somewhat.
File system software controls how information is written on hard drives, and XFS is a "journaling" file system in which logging features make it easier for a computer to recover from a crash. Three other journaling file systems--ext3, ReiserFS and IBM's JFS--have been accepted into the 2.4 kernel.
SGI developed XFS for Irix, its version of the Unix operating system, and said in 1999 it would contribute XFS to the Linux community. But SGI's handling of the software has led to a chilly reception by some--including Al Viro, a deputy who oversees Linux file system work.
SGI's emphasis could change, however, Iams said.
"Historically, it was true that SGI has focused on Irix as the primary platform for XFS, but I wouldn't be surprised to see tha
Having that mentioned, I pretend to:
- Fix pending problems which might required more intrusive modifications
during 2.4.24. New drivers will be accept during this period (for example,
Cyclades PC300 driver, input userlevel driver support, or other sane
driver which might come up).
- From 2.4.25 on, fix only critical/security problems.
Heh, so that solves the issue of being a kernel maintainer with little time on your hands, only pretend to do stuff:)
From the story text:
. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold
Seriously, are people expecting major changes and new features to be added to a kernel that is supposed to be the stable branch? Doesnt this stuff belong in 2.6? or hell, even 2.7? I for one wouldnt like my kernel to constantly have new and untested features when its supposed to be production capable!
Why doesn't anybody talk about FreeBSD security lockdown levels? My friend was telling me something about this. Supposedly it's possible to prevent some files from being written to, even by root. And you cannot go to a lesser security level, you can only go higher (until a reboot).
I was talking about security in general, so that is why I didnt talk about the BSDs secure levels. Basically they allow you to set bits on certain files, and then move into a higher secure level where you cannot alter those files, so you can protect things like system binaries or the kernel very easily. Also you can look at append only filesystems, great for logs as they do what they say they do, allow appending only to a file, you cannot change what is already there.
There are a few kernel patches out there that give root more and more control over what his users see and do, and limiting system calls is one of those. OpenBSD contains things like this by default.
SELinux was closed last I heard, because of an internal conflict between the NSA and other govmnt depts. It was a nice hardened kernel, and you can still get ahold of it if you want it.
There are several methods with which you can gain access.
1. Buffer overflows, or out of bounds issues, with services running on a server, eg ftpd, httpd, sendmail, bind (dns). This is where it is discovered to be possible to send malformed data to a service which the service is not expecting and wont deal with naturally. This sometimes results in the ability to send it some executable code which is read straight into memory and executed. Very easy to code around, very easy to detect, fairly easy to detect and very easy to exploit. This is the sort of attack that normally occurs against MS Windows et al, although sendmail, bind and various ftpds (wu-ftpd) have a reputation for being full of them.
2. Password sniffing. This is where someone sits between a user and their box and sniffs network traffic, etiher getting a password unencrypted (normal ftp login, pop3 etc etc) or a weak hashed. Fairly easy to do, and you have a login to the system when you do. Not normally seen these days as ssh is used, and you should always have a seperate restricted user login for other services which do not encrypt passwords (imap, pop3, ftp etc).
3. Issues with web scripts, that sometimes allow you to insert data into a database which the owner doesnt want you to do (or get a copy of his database) via SQL Injection attacks. Also it has been fairly common in the past to be able to get a copy of/etc/passwd by passing certain variables to a script run on a webserver, and from there you can attack user accounts. Also certain scripts have the error of allowing you to run system binaries, which again can be exploited. Always run your database daemon and your httpd in a chroot environment, with minimal access to system binaries, and always as a non privileged user.
The biggest problem these days is that a lot of services run as root, because they need to to bind to ports lower than 1024. This was done so it allows you to "trust" services on those ports as being proper ones, rather than ones run by a normal user. A way around this is to run all services as a standard user, on port ranges above 1024 and bound only to IP 127.0.0.1. This means that your services are no longer on the standard ports, but you can get around this by using ipfilter, pf or another port fordwarding tool to forward all traffic on external priviledged ports to the services on 127.0.0.1, allowing you to run services as non priviledged users while retaining compatability with the outside world.
It is VERY difficult to secure a server to near 100% levels, although you can get pretty close if you want to constantly be working at it. The goalposts change rapidly from day to day, and it can be hard to keep up. If you only run the services you really need, in chroot environments, and ensure that those services are well known services (apache for httpd, exim postfix or qmail for smtpd, pure-ftpd or pro-ftpd for ftpd, DJBDNS or bind 9 for dns) then you can be assured that there are trusted people looking at the source for exploits to fix as well as the untrusted people doing the same to exploit.
Good logging firewall rulesets, an IDS (intrusion detection system), and a remote logging facility are all plusses in the fight.
OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it.
The bit that most people leave out here is that OJ appealed the responsable verdict and it was found in his favour, so essentially he came out of the whole ordeal with nothing against him, except now his reputation was in tatters.
In some European legal systems, you have a tier of courts. In the UK this goes from your local magistrate, all the way up to the House of Lords (yes, one part of our government actually takes part in the legal process), and increasingly, the Euorpean Court of Human Rights. Either party can apply to the court above the one that returned the verdict for leave to appeal, which basically means you move up a stage in the courts to a court which has more standing. That court can either grant your application for an appeal, or turn it down. If you get it turned down, you have one more chance to have that decision overturned, if not then the last verdict returned stands.
The Double Jepordy stands if the above process has been exhausted and the defendant is still found not guilty. He cannot be arrested and charged with the same crime for successive times, even if compelling new evidence has been discovered. This is about to change in the UK, as the current government is introducing legislation which will allow a person to be tried for a crime multiple times if compelling new evidence is discovered.
From what I know, the Norwedgen legal system is much like the UKs, with tiers of courts, each having more standing than the one below. A verdict can be appealed to the court above, basically in the hope that that court may have different ideas, or understand the situation better. Indeed, some cases are passed up the chain voluntarily by lesser courts who deem themselves to not have enough legal standing to deal with the situations that arise.
From what I can tell, this permits open theft by corporations of any individual's information
To use the same arguement that comes up in software copyright infringement stories on slashdot, this is not theft because you have not actually lost anything. You still have the information to hand, and can use it in any manner you want.
There's shitloads of products for both platforms. Unless you want to talk companies, then even in the linux world, it's a one to one relation, one to two for some some projects if you want to count Open Source and Proprietary offerings.
Yes, but I think the point was that although there may be MULTIPLE products in the closed source arena, they are all by DIFFERENT companies and compete. OpenSource is supposed to be a place where this shouldnt happen, everyone should work together to make one single product better. In essance, if OpenSource really really worked, there would only be one Browser that really kicked ass rather than 6 or seven that all basically do the same and yet somehow feel unfinished. Unfortunately, it only "works" right atm, and this is why we end up with 500 versions of the same old crap.
Yes, but is it income? How would the gub`ment view it? Would they want a cut? Im suspecting this is an area that an accountant would need to be consulted on. It isnt as simple as cashing 1500 checks for $10 each.
Slashdot Mirror
If its in the crater, notice the bottom of the crater is in shadow. No way to recharge its batteries (which it does automatically for up to 20 days) if there is no sunlight.
Every DVD I have purchased in the last 12 months have had zero previews on the movie disk, and all the extras come on one or two extra DVDs, making for a total of 2 or 3 DVDs in the package. The movie itself comes with sound tracks in several languages, and usually either comes DTS encoded, or surround sound encoded.
All that for ~ 15.00 (about $20), and I get a physical thing to own. No wonder I do not touch kazaa, or any other p2p app, I am getting a good deal.
1885 eh?
Did they meet Marty and Doc?
No, rather it would be like Ford Motor Company releasing a car range called the SteeringWheel (tm). Perfectly fine, another company could not release a car range called the same, but it could still use steering wheel technology within it.
Absolution Gap 'completed' the loose Inhibitors trilogy started in Revelation Space and continued in Redemption Ark.
Set in the future, several hundred years from now, humanity lives off world due to an iceage that has set in, and split up into several groups. Unknown to them, a force that lives between the stars has spotted them and begun its never ending task - that of supressing space faring species.
The first two books were fantastic, they told the story really well, and built believable characters out of figures that you at first dispise in some cases. The storyline is disjointed in someplaces, with some scenes skipped altogether, but it is done in such a fantastic way that you hardly notice, with the jumps doing more to move the story along than to distract from it.
Unfortunately, Absolution Gap, the final book in the series, fails to deliver. The entire book is building up to a conclusion that really never happens, and the entire arc is wrapped up after the end of the story, in an epilogue that makes you feel as tho you have been cheated. In all, the book feels like it was too long, and the author decided to jsut give up. The entire premise of the book, and one which you would buy the book on, is that there is a massive climax to the story arc that has taken two books to build up, but in reality you come away feeling cheated, because the climax never happens. None of the characters you care about are expanded, indeed several are killed off, and everything you think is going to make a difference jsut whithers away. The story just is not ended at all. Its like watching the first two films in the LotR trilogy, and then finding out they decided not to make the third, but to finish it off in a two page pamphlet included with the second film.
I really liked A. Reynolds based on his past work, but this book really makes me want to give up reading him. He just did not deliver the goods, and if I could get a refund for my time taken reading this pile of crap, then I think I would. Sorry guys, definately my Worst Read of the year.
They should better work on a noob-proof attachment handling and add a dozen of messageboxes when the luser double-clicks the attachment... 'Are really you sure you want to open nudeteens.jpg.exe?'
Later versions of Outlook and OE make it very hard indeed to open some kinds of attachments. They still get opened, even if they have to be saved and ran.
If they'd at least integrate a virus scanner... they did buy a AV company, why dont they use their knowledge?
And open themselves up to more "OMG ANTITRUST!!!!!!111!!1!1!!!" calls?
The human cost of an invasion of Japan was estimated to be over a million lives. While the loss of 100,000 lives in the two bombed cities was bad, it would have been much much worse for the Japanese had the United States NOT used the bomb.
And therein lies the issue. An invasion of Japan would have cost lives on both sides, many more than were lost by using two atomic bombs. Noone in the longterm learnt from it, noone had to deal with the many dead that would have resulted from an invasion. The lessons that were presented by the 100,000 dead were easily forgotten, precisely because the deaths were all on one side, and were easily dealt. Two bombers dropping two bombs killed 100,000, and it was all too easy.
The victory over Germany was earnt, precisely because we had to fight them all the way to Hitlers doorstep. Now please do not get me wrong, I understand that a great many people died in the pacific front fighting for our freedoms, and I sincerly thank all the surviviors and the fallen, but the victory over Japan was far too easy to learn any long term lessons from. We now have the bomb, killing a large population is now easy. We tend to forget the people involved, and go after anti ballistic missile systems, so we can throw our bombs at them while they cant throw theirs at ours. We try and regain the same advantage that we had when we dropped the bombs on Japan, lack of the ability to retaliate, so there is no kick back on using these weapons.
Attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, threatening North Korea, Iran and god knows who else is easy to us western nations because there is little kickback. The US people got to know a bit about civilian casualties when the WTC was hit, and they didnt like it one bit. 3000 people died that day, and the voice of America that day was one of retaliation. And they got it.
Why do the people who back these wars think Germany, France and other nations were against hte invasion of iraq? Because they have felt the ramifications of war first hand, and fairly recently. They have knowledge that the US, the UK and others are sorely lacking, that of oppression and internal strife. They know that it is better to resolve difficulties through diplomatic channels, however long it takes, rather than in battle. Hitler would never have come about if Germany had been better treated after World War 1. World War 1 would never have taken place if the European royalty had sat down and talked about the assassination of a minor political figure, rather than square off against one another.
I applaud the current stance taken by Libya. They held secret talks with potential enemies, talks that had to be secret so there was no pressure to deliver. They discussed their problems, and settled on a solution. Some could say they did this because of Iraq, but if this was the case, then Iraq has had a net negative effect on the world. Its a case of the play ground bully making an example of one of his victims. They didnt pay up, you could be next.
For all the people who have replied to this story with "Why not KDE? Why not include KDE? KDE is better! KDE has much over Gnome!" my reply is thus:
Its opensource, fork the bastard if you are so inclined.
This choice was made by people who were looking at a unified and distinct desktop for corporate usage. If they want to concentrate one one single desktop, making it consistant and better, then that is their porogative, as much as forking it is yours. Call your fork 'ReallyUserLinux' if you so want, but stop deriding this choice.
Ive jsut cut and pasted that url into my IE 6, and after thinking about it (and saying "looking up www.mozilla.org" in the status bar) it actually takes me to the correct url AND displays the url www.heisec.de in the address bar, but gets rid of everything before the @.
Yes, because my install of MS Office mutates every weekend when im not looking.
Infact, my glibc does exactly the same thing!!!
Clinton actually was very cunning here, as when he was asked this question, he requested that the Judge define exactly what "sexual relations" were. The definition that the judge gave precluded oral sex from the scope of the definition, so he was perfectly in his right to answer "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
This is why he has never been tried for purjery, as he did not commit a crime by using the judges own definition.
Hardly. It went on, but most certainly neither the U.S. or the U.K. put their blessing on such an event. By the standard you seem to hold, the fact that hit happened meant it went on with the "blessing" of ALL of the world.
We sold him the weapons, weapons that we had a great understanding about and thus cannot plead ignorance. I would say that goes some way to putting their blessing on these events.
Its interesting to note that with all the effort that went into trying to put Saddam into a hole in the ground during the war, he hid in one voluntarily.
GCC is littered with HUNDREDS of very cool extensions. Just make sure it's worth giving up portability...
That would be called "embrace and extend" under a different thread and compiler name.
Malvin: I can't believe it, Jim. That girl's standing over there listening and you're telling him about our back doors?
Jim Sting: [yelling] Mister Potato Head! Mister Potato Head! Back doors are not secrets!
Malvin: Yeah, but Jim, you're giving away all our best tricks!
Jim Sting: They're not tricks.
That help?
That was the V2, the V1 was the impulse engine powered cruise missile (doodlebug)
Leave the government and artificial laws out for a second, and tell me this:
If it were just you and me in a room, what rights do you have that I cannot take away from you there and then?
Cnet article:
Marcelo Tosatti, the deputy that Linux leader Linus Torvalds appointed to maintain the 2.4 Linux kernel, said in a posting to the Linux Kernel Mailing List this week that the follow-on 2.6 kernel is mature enough that it should be the foundation of new projects.
Tosatti will accept some significant changes and some support for selected new hardware in version 2.4.24, now under development. But versions 2.4.25 and beyond will be released only to fix security problems or other critical issues, he said.
"2.6 is becoming more stable each day, and we will hopefully see a 2.6.0 release during this month or January," Tosatti said in a posting to the Linux Kernel Mailing List on Monday.
The 2.6 kernel is in final testing, and its maintainer, Andrew Morton, said in November that he expects to release it in December. The new kernel includes several features, such as the ability to work better on large multiprocessor servers, that are expected to make Linux more appealing to corporate customers.
Tosatti's decision didn't sit well with some who are reluctant to move so soon to untested software.
"I am terrified of the following scenario, which is extremely probable to happen soon," responded Jan Rychter in a Wednesday post. "2.4 is being moved into 'pure maintenance' mode and people are being encouraged to move to 2.6. While people slowly start using 2.6, Linus starts 2.7 and all kernel developers move on to the really cool and fashionable things. 2.6 bug reports receive little attention, as it's much cooler to work on new features than fix bugs."
But shifting attention to the new kernel isn't unreasonable, D.H. Brown analyst Tony Iams said. "It makes perfect sense to me that they'd focus on putting new features into 2.6," he said. "As soon as the new release is ready, the old release goes into maintenance mode. Any software release is going to work that way, whether commercial or open source."
The discussion about 2.4 and 2.6 was triggered Monday by a request by Silicon Graphics programmer Nathan Scott, who on Monday asked Tosatti to accept SGI file system software called XFS. Tosatti rejected the software, saying advocates should submit it for inclusion in 2.6, though he later relented somewhat.
File system software controls how information is written on hard drives, and XFS is a "journaling" file system in which logging features make it easier for a computer to recover from a crash. Three other journaling file systems--ext3, ReiserFS and IBM's JFS--have been accepted into the 2.4 kernel.
SGI developed XFS for Irix, its version of the Unix operating system, and said in 1999 it would contribute XFS to the Linux community. But SGI's handling of the software has led to a chilly reception by some--including Al Viro, a deputy who oversees Linux file system work.
SGI's emphasis could change, however, Iams said.
"Historically, it was true that SGI has focused on Irix as the primary platform for XFS, but I wouldn't be surprised to see tha
From the linked email:
Having that mentioned, I pretend to: - Fix pending problems which might required more intrusive modifications during 2.4.24. New drivers will be accept during this period (for example, Cyclades PC300 driver, input userlevel driver support, or other sane driver which might come up). - From 2.4.25 on, fix only critical/security problems.
Heh, so that solves the issue of being a kernel maintainer with little time on your hands, only pretend to do stuff :)
From the story text:
. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold
Seriously, are people expecting major changes and new features to be added to a kernel that is supposed to be the stable branch? Doesnt this stuff belong in 2.6? or hell, even 2.7? I for one wouldnt like my kernel to constantly have new and untested features when its supposed to be production capable!
Why doesn't anybody talk about FreeBSD security lockdown levels? My friend was telling me something about this. Supposedly it's possible to prevent some files from being written to, even by root. And you cannot go to a lesser security level, you can only go higher (until a reboot).
I was talking about security in general, so that is why I didnt talk about the BSDs secure levels. Basically they allow you to set bits on certain files, and then move into a higher secure level where you cannot alter those files, so you can protect things like system binaries or the kernel very easily. Also you can look at append only filesystems, great for logs as they do what they say they do, allow appending only to a file, you cannot change what is already there.
There are a few kernel patches out there that give root more and more control over what his users see and do, and limiting system calls is one of those. OpenBSD contains things like this by default.
SELinux was closed last I heard, because of an internal conflict between the NSA and other govmnt depts. It was a nice hardened kernel, and you can still get ahold of it if you want it.
There are several methods with which you can gain access.
/etc/passwd by passing certain variables to a script run on a webserver, and from there you can attack user accounts. Also certain scripts have the error of allowing you to run system binaries, which again can be exploited. Always run your database daemon and your httpd in a chroot environment, with minimal access to system binaries, and always as a non privileged user.
1. Buffer overflows, or out of bounds issues, with services running on a server, eg ftpd, httpd, sendmail, bind (dns). This is where it is discovered to be possible to send malformed data to a service which the service is not expecting and wont deal with naturally. This sometimes results in the ability to send it some executable code which is read straight into memory and executed. Very easy to code around, very easy to detect, fairly easy to detect and very easy to exploit. This is the sort of attack that normally occurs against MS Windows et al, although sendmail, bind and various ftpds (wu-ftpd) have a reputation for being full of them.
2. Password sniffing. This is where someone sits between a user and their box and sniffs network traffic, etiher getting a password unencrypted (normal ftp login, pop3 etc etc) or a weak hashed. Fairly easy to do, and you have a login to the system when you do. Not normally seen these days as ssh is used, and you should always have a seperate restricted user login for other services which do not encrypt passwords (imap, pop3, ftp etc).
3. Issues with web scripts, that sometimes allow you to insert data into a database which the owner doesnt want you to do (or get a copy of his database) via SQL Injection attacks. Also it has been fairly common in the past to be able to get a copy of
The biggest problem these days is that a lot of services run as root, because they need to to bind to ports lower than 1024. This was done so it allows you to "trust" services on those ports as being proper ones, rather than ones run by a normal user. A way around this is to run all services as a standard user, on port ranges above 1024 and bound only to IP 127.0.0.1. This means that your services are no longer on the standard ports, but you can get around this by using ipfilter, pf or another port fordwarding tool to forward all traffic on external priviledged ports to the services on 127.0.0.1, allowing you to run services as non priviledged users while retaining compatability with the outside world.
It is VERY difficult to secure a server to near 100% levels, although you can get pretty close if you want to constantly be working at it. The goalposts change rapidly from day to day, and it can be hard to keep up. If you only run the services you really need, in chroot environments, and ensure that those services are well known services (apache for httpd, exim postfix or qmail for smtpd, pure-ftpd or pro-ftpd for ftpd, DJBDNS or bind 9 for dns) then you can be assured that there are trusted people looking at the source for exploits to fix as well as the untrusted people doing the same to exploit.
Good logging firewall rulesets, an IDS (intrusion detection system), and a remote logging facility are all plusses in the fight.
No, different in every case.
OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it.
The bit that most people leave out here is that OJ appealed the responsable verdict and it was found in his favour, so essentially he came out of the whole ordeal with nothing against him, except now his reputation was in tatters.
In some European legal systems, you have a tier of courts. In the UK this goes from your local magistrate, all the way up to the House of Lords (yes, one part of our government actually takes part in the legal process), and increasingly, the Euorpean Court of Human Rights. Either party can apply to the court above the one that returned the verdict for leave to appeal, which basically means you move up a stage in the courts to a court which has more standing. That court can either grant your application for an appeal, or turn it down. If you get it turned down, you have one more chance to have that decision overturned, if not then the last verdict returned stands.
The Double Jepordy stands if the above process has been exhausted and the defendant is still found not guilty. He cannot be arrested and charged with the same crime for successive times, even if compelling new evidence has been discovered. This is about to change in the UK, as the current government is introducing legislation which will allow a person to be tried for a crime multiple times if compelling new evidence is discovered.
From what I know, the Norwedgen legal system is much like the UKs, with tiers of courts, each having more standing than the one below. A verdict can be appealed to the court above, basically in the hope that that court may have different ideas, or understand the situation better. Indeed, some cases are passed up the chain voluntarily by lesser courts who deem themselves to not have enough legal standing to deal with the situations that arise.
From what I can tell, this permits open theft by corporations of any individual's information
To use the same arguement that comes up in software copyright infringement stories on slashdot, this is not theft because you have not actually lost anything. You still have the information to hand, and can use it in any manner you want.
There's shitloads of products for both platforms. Unless you want to talk companies, then even in the linux world, it's a one to one relation, one to two for some some projects if you want to count Open Source and Proprietary offerings.
Yes, but I think the point was that although there may be MULTIPLE products in the closed source arena, they are all by DIFFERENT companies and compete. OpenSource is supposed to be a place where this shouldnt happen, everyone should work together to make one single product better. In essance, if OpenSource really really worked, there would only be one Browser that really kicked ass rather than 6 or seven that all basically do the same and yet somehow feel unfinished. Unfortunately, it only "works" right atm, and this is why we end up with 500 versions of the same old crap.
Yes, but is it income? How would the gub`ment view it? Would they want a cut? Im suspecting this is an area that an accountant would need to be consulted on. It isnt as simple as cashing 1500 checks for $10 each.