Your mastery of the price/demand curve is truly breathtaking. Perhaps you should email their financial director with this astonishing and novel theory nay FACT!
What, so they wouldn't, for example, accept a question about whether or not he's been tempted to use his skills in a negative manner? Oh, wait, they did.
Yet strangely in his answer he claims he's never used them in that way, and that he only uses them when paid to do so by the company whose servers he is to attack. In other words, not only was the topic considered vlid, but Fydor lied through his teeth. Immediately you must ask what else he's used his m4d ski11z for.
Fyodor is a black-hat fucktard. Read the interview (previous story) where he claims to not break into boxes except for those of companies who pay him. He must have forgotten about breaking into SDEM's box then.
'I never do script-kiddie style "hack any random vulnerable box on the Internet" cracking. But sometimes I will launch targeted attacks at specific companies'...'Of course, I only do this when the company is paying me to do so'
Another question is how long it would take to realise that one of the questions modded to +5 and authored by a certain Egg Troll, is mysteriously missing.
It is worth mentioning how much interest the question generated, how on-topic it was, and how significant it was.
Oh, but it wasn't sycophantic enough, I guess. Jesus, why bother throwing the interview questions out to the users at all if they're going to be stripped of all but the most anodyne.
Why did they not include the multitude of Radeon reviews? They are better performing at the top end, and arguably cheaper at the mid/low end. The only eason I can think of is lack of Linux support, but as the Slashdot story the other day pointed out, they are currently putting together a team to work with the Free Software community to create a GPL driver (in a similar architecture to nVidia's unified driver architecture I believe, so as to ensure the GPL driver will support all ATI cards from the Radeon on).
Well, I don't know the exact breakdown, but I believe that it is a rather over-complex system, but which seems to work well.
The first strange thing is that two teams are assigned to work independently, each of which will ultimately produce a score out of 5000 (hence the 10000 total). The logic is that should there be any different approaches taken (especially during the TCO analysis) then they should smooth out somewhat.
Then, the 5000 points are split into "distinct" sections; the reason I quote distinct is because in fact they are anyhting but: security, transition cost, and TCO. Of course, really TCO covers everything, but they chose to extract the first two as different sections because they can be measured in a much more direct way (transition cost) or must be measured in a far more heuristic way (security). TCO on the other hand is an amalgamated figure of ongoing support costs (minus security concerns, of course), training, and initial software cost, amortised over a 5 year period (the standard life-cycle of their system).
I think the 5000 is divided into 900 for security, 1200 for transition costs, and 2900 for TCO. Within each of these, the actual figures they come up with are fit to the appropriate maximum score through a sigmoidal squashing function, that is attenuated at the low end, such that there is not much difference in score between the very cheapest solutions, but a huge difference between expensive solutions. Doesn't help Linux (cheap) look good, but on the other hand it does help Windows (very expensive!) look extremely bad.
Then the scores are simply summed across the two teams to get an aggregate out of 10000. As I say, I don't really know the specifics, but that's more or less how it works.
6218 (out of 10.000) points to Linux/OSS, while the MS Windows platform only scored 5293
Under the Munich government's scoring system, one would generally expect scores around 6000, based on the extremely popular Novell system they had running for many years before they decided to "upgrade" to Windows after being given the hard-sell by MS. To score 6218 shows that Linux is well ahead of the curve; I believe that when they looked at a Solaris installation a couple of years ago, that managed slightly lower at about 6100 (I forget the exact number, but it was somewhere around that).
The most interesting figure is Windows at 5293. AFAIK, that is the lowest score they've ever given out. Certainly the lowest one I've seen that they published.
Point 1: CodeRed and NIMDA were both vulnerabilities in IIS not Win2k - if Win95 ran that software it would be vulnerable too.
Point 2: The vulnerability both those worms used was fixed and a patch available for several months before the exploits appeared, it's just that too many "admins" didn't upgrade.
Point 3: Patch-a-week? Are you subscribed to anything like the RedHat network? I am. I get far more than a patch a week emailed to me. Welcome to the modern world of complex software.
Point 4: Win95 does not have a decent kernel offering full memory protection etc. A badly behaved application can bring the system down; Win95 is not stable enough except as a desktop system, and even then Win2k is noticably more stable when you start stressing it. Unless your definition of "using it right" means "only ever running perfectly behaved applications" then it doesn't matter how you use Win95 - it is not as stable as Win2k. And if that is your definition, you should have stuck with Win3.11 and its cooperative multitasking - after all, that is extremely efficient for code that you know will never ever misbehave.
If you use Linux, think about every core dump you've ever seen. If you use Win2k, think about every time it's popped up a dialog saying an application has stopped responding or the famous "This memory could not be read/written". Each one of those would have stood a reasonable chance of crashing a Win95 box hard.
And yes, Win2k is very slightly slower in some respects. But that is the trade-off for having a strict kernel looking after everything. It's a trade off that is well worth making.
I'm still using Win95 because they haven't produced anything worth upgrading for.
Then you relinquish all rights to talk about MS Windows, or indeed operating systems at all. Why? Because you don't see an advantage to upgrading from a flaky first-attempt at a 32 bit desktop windowing environment, to a mature, rock-solid, fully protected server quality operating system.
Don't bother to reply; as I say, if you can't see a reason to upgrade from Win95 to Win2k then you are probably a 15 year old child who has no idea of what goes on in the world past what slashdot tells you. And you've clearly never used Win2k.
Interesting fact of the day: my PC has been running Win2k for years. It has never crashed, except when I installed some buggy drivers for a modem (which, as it runs in ring 0, cannot possibly ever be preempted by the kernel). Uninstall them, and it goes back to never crashing.
Try looking up snuff films. I think you'll find that they don't exist; nobody has ever seen one.
Guilty as charged. I go suicide now [nt]
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 0
I SAID ENN-GODDAMNED-TEE
Re:slower than the last release....
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Sir, as the chairman for The Society of Prevention of Apostrophe Abuse, I must herby report your post's heinous abuse in the "word" wan<deleted>t. Expect a letter from our solicitors very soon.
It's OK. The other site's back up now, let me just put this blanket over...Easy! Easy. There we go. We'll get you away from these nasty people and back to your friends.
Apache. Well, Apache's a good example for everything, really. You Slashdot zealots can take your Linuces and Mozillae and shove them up your ass; if you want a flagship to parade for OSS, for God's sake use Apache.
It's free, it's flexible, it's powerful and it is extremely popular. It's even pretty damn easy to set up. No other OSS comes close.
The most common way to fix Web site faults today is to reboot the entire system, which takes anywhere from 10 seconds (if the application alone is rebooted) to a minute (if the whole thing is restarted). According to our initial results, micro- rebooting just the necessary subcomponents takes less than a second.
So in fact it's not talking about rebooting machine vs restarting services, it's talking about both of the above vs restarting subcomponents.
But hey, if you want to start talking about rebooting failed SMB services on Windows then go right ahead - you're in front of a friendly audience after all.
Come on, we know that Slashdot is pro-P2P, but can we please do away with the euphamisms? Whether you think it's wrong or not, at least call it "music theft" which is what it is. If you're so convinced it's right then there's no need to sweep it under the rug as "sharing", "freedom", "fair use" or anything like that.
B & O used to stand for uncompromising quality. Then about 15 years ago they changed to uncompromising style. Sure they put effort into sound quality, but it is second to aesthetics, touch sensitive buttons, vertical mounted record players etc.
Nowadays, they are for rich people looking for a big brand, and who can't tell the difference between high-end and top end.
Why would the RIAA, representing the biggest labels and by extension artists in the world, care about you recording your hilarious retro-arcade techno with William Shatner samples over the top?
They wouldn't. The RIAA care about you stealing songs on P2P. Digital recording has been around for a long time. However, there is the question of how you will position the microphones, indeed what types of microphones to have in order to capture the true sound and the room's ambiance. Assuming this is done to a satisfactory standard, who is going to produce it? Oh, right. You. Because as we all know, you are a polymath capable of performing, recording and producing. Oh, you didn't realise that mastering was a step either? Ah well. It's not like anyone's going to be listening.
So I rambled a bit - the point is, this is nothing to do with the RIAA except that they are both associated with music.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bet that their innovations aren't technical though, and will involve innovative new licenses :-(
You'll do well to find anything that can organise you better.
Your mastery of the price/demand curve is truly breathtaking. Perhaps you should email their financial director with this astonishing and novel theory nay FACT!
No reason why you should have known that, but that's kinda what the question was for.
Yet strangely in his answer he claims he's never used them in that way, and that he only uses them when paid to do so by the company whose servers he is to attack. In other words, not only was the topic considered vlid, but Fydor lied through his teeth. Immediately you must ask what else he's used his m4d ski11z for.
Fyodor is a black-hat fucktard. Read the interview (previous story) where he claims to not break into boxes except for those of companies who pay him. He must have forgotten about breaking into SDEM's box then.
'I never do script-kiddie style "hack any random vulnerable box on the Internet" cracking. But sometimes I will launch targeted attacks at specific companies'...'Of course, I only do this when the company is paying me to do so'
Oh really. So you didn't for example break into a certain SDEM's box because he'd exposed you to be a pathetic desperate loser?
It is worth mentioning how much interest the question generated, how on-topic it was, and how significant it was.
Oh, but it wasn't sycophantic enough, I guess. Jesus, why bother throwing the interview questions out to the users at all if they're going to be stripped of all but the most anodyne.
Why did they not include the multitude of Radeon reviews? They are better performing at the top end, and arguably cheaper at the mid/low end. The only eason I can think of is lack of Linux support, but as the Slashdot story the other day pointed out, they are currently putting together a team to work with the Free Software community to create a GPL driver (in a similar architecture to nVidia's unified driver architecture I believe, so as to ensure the GPL driver will support all ATI cards from the Radeon on).
The first strange thing is that two teams are assigned to work independently, each of which will ultimately produce a score out of 5000 (hence the 10000 total). The logic is that should there be any different approaches taken (especially during the TCO analysis) then they should smooth out somewhat.
Then, the 5000 points are split into "distinct" sections; the reason I quote distinct is because in fact they are anyhting but: security, transition cost, and TCO. Of course, really TCO covers everything, but they chose to extract the first two as different sections because they can be measured in a much more direct way (transition cost) or must be measured in a far more heuristic way (security). TCO on the other hand is an amalgamated figure of ongoing support costs (minus security concerns, of course), training, and initial software cost, amortised over a 5 year period (the standard life-cycle of their system).
I think the 5000 is divided into 900 for security, 1200 for transition costs, and 2900 for TCO. Within each of these, the actual figures they come up with are fit to the appropriate maximum score through a sigmoidal squashing function, that is attenuated at the low end, such that there is not much difference in score between the very cheapest solutions, but a huge difference between expensive solutions. Doesn't help Linux (cheap) look good, but on the other hand it does help Windows (very expensive!) look extremely bad.
Then the scores are simply summed across the two teams to get an aggregate out of 10000. As I say, I don't really know the specifics, but that's more or less how it works.
Under the Munich government's scoring system, one would generally expect scores around 6000, based on the extremely popular Novell system they had running for many years before they decided to "upgrade" to Windows after being given the hard-sell by MS. To score 6218 shows that Linux is well ahead of the curve; I believe that when they looked at a Solaris installation a couple of years ago, that managed slightly lower at about 6100 (I forget the exact number, but it was somewhere around that).
The most interesting figure is Windows at 5293. AFAIK, that is the lowest score they've ever given out. Certainly the lowest one I've seen that they published.
Go Linux!
Point 2: The vulnerability both those worms used was fixed and a patch available for several months before the exploits appeared, it's just that too many "admins" didn't upgrade.
Point 3: Patch-a-week? Are you subscribed to anything like the RedHat network? I am. I get far more than a patch a week emailed to me. Welcome to the modern world of complex software.
Point 4: Win95 does not have a decent kernel offering full memory protection etc. A badly behaved application can bring the system down; Win95 is not stable enough except as a desktop system, and even then Win2k is noticably more stable when you start stressing it. Unless your definition of "using it right" means "only ever running perfectly behaved applications" then it doesn't matter how you use Win95 - it is not as stable as Win2k. And if that is your definition, you should have stuck with Win3.11 and its cooperative multitasking - after all, that is extremely efficient for code that you know will never ever misbehave.
If you use Linux, think about every core dump you've ever seen. If you use Win2k, think about every time it's popped up a dialog saying an application has stopped responding or the famous "This memory could not be read/written". Each one of those would have stood a reasonable chance of crashing a Win95 box hard.
And yes, Win2k is very slightly slower in some respects. But that is the trade-off for having a strict kernel looking after everything. It's a trade off that is well worth making.
Then you relinquish all rights to talk about MS Windows, or indeed operating systems at all. Why? Because you don't see an advantage to upgrading from a flaky first-attempt at a 32 bit desktop windowing environment, to a mature, rock-solid, fully protected server quality operating system.
Don't bother to reply; as I say, if you can't see a reason to upgrade from Win95 to Win2k then you are probably a 15 year old child who has no idea of what goes on in the world past what slashdot tells you. And you've clearly never used Win2k.
Interesting fact of the day: my PC has been running Win2k for years. It has never crashed, except when I installed some buggy drivers for a modem (which, as it runs in ring 0, cannot possibly ever be preempted by the kernel). Uninstall them, and it goes back to never crashing.
My heart just isn't in this any more. Sorry.
OSI is ISO backwards. Conspiracy.
Try looking up snuff films. I think you'll find that they don't exist; nobody has ever seen one.
I SAID ENN-GODDAMNED-TEE
Sir, as the chairman for The Society of Prevention of Apostrophe Abuse, I must herby report your post's heinous abuse in the "word" wan<deleted>t. Expect a letter from our solicitors very soon.
Theeeere we go.
It's free, it's flexible, it's powerful and it is extremely popular. It's even pretty damn easy to set up. No other OSS comes close.
You know it makes sense.
So in fact it's not talking about rebooting machine vs restarting services, it's talking about both of the above vs restarting subcomponents.
But hey, if you want to start talking about rebooting failed SMB services on Windows then go right ahead - you're in front of a friendly audience after all.
Respect.
Come on, we know that Slashdot is pro-P2P, but can we please do away with the euphamisms? Whether you think it's wrong or not, at least call it "music theft" which is what it is. If you're so convinced it's right then there's no need to sweep it under the rug as "sharing", "freedom", "fair use" or anything like that.
Nowadays, they are for rich people looking for a big brand, and who can't tell the difference between high-end and top end.
They wouldn't. The RIAA care about you stealing songs on P2P. Digital recording has been around for a long time. However, there is the question of how you will position the microphones, indeed what types of microphones to have in order to capture the true sound and the room's ambiance. Assuming this is done to a satisfactory standard, who is going to produce it? Oh, right. You. Because as we all know, you are a polymath capable of performing, recording and producing. Oh, you didn't realise that mastering was a step either? Ah well. It's not like anyone's going to be listening.
So I rambled a bit - the point is, this is nothing to do with the RIAA except that they are both associated with music.