I find the main obstacle with Linux documentation to be that in the real world we have all of the Linux variants, varying hardware support, varying system configurations etc. On the other hand, in even a good book, when explaining how to do any task, it always explains it in a step by step fashion, from start to finish. Great, except at step 4 I get an error. So I read the chapter from the start. I repeat everything. I get the same error. As somebody who is not a Linux admin (though a comfortable Linux user - it is my job) I have no idea what to do next. Now I know that this is an inherent problem with having many distributions etc, but take my specific case:
I bought a Red Hat 7 book. I downloaded Red Hat 7.1 Is it really that unreasonable to expect the various config tools to be called the same name? This is a minor update, and yet many sections of the book failed at easy-to-follow section 1 - where the command name is wrong.
Another example: I installed this on a computer with 128MB ram. I knew this for 2 reasons, firstly that I could see the stick in there myself, and secondly, Windows had happily used 128MB. When I installed Linux, it used 64MB. My only option of course was to go to the book. After much scouring I found an obscure (I guess not obscure for those in the know) option to tell the kernel to use a certain amount of ram. So I did this, and guess what? Kernel panic.
Eventually I found the problem, after brainstorming with my friends; the onboard graphics card that was sharing main memory was confusing the hell out of Linux. Now to start with, this should not happen. Hell, maybe people don't care enough to fix this. But even if this is not the case, why could I not find this in any book I looked at? And before anybody tells me I'm wrong because it says it in their book, I looked in 2 distinct Red Hat 7 books - 2 books on configuring a desktop system should be overkill. It's all very well explaining everything in a step by step fashion, but after I went through this experience, I paid more attenton to the books, and noticed they virtually *never* explained reasons why things might fail.
In my experience, with the documentation available, if you ever have a problem that takes you offthe beaten track then you will not find your way back on without expert assistance.
BTW, the only time I had a similar problem under Windows was when installing hardware that conflicted. This had nothing to do with Windows, and was fixed by exchanging the hardware.
Bit of a rant, but my experiences left me a little frustrated with the installation (the graphics thing was only one of many examples)
NVIDIA dont give a crap about the free software community, why even consider them, they are like microsoft.
You started off as if you might be about to make a rational argument, but then this. I don't give a crap about the free software community - am I like Microsoft? If anybody wants to sell proprietary software are they like Microsoft?
I think that when referring to a company trying to make money, the name 'Microsoft' is hardly pejorative.
Got to go now - I have to return my monitor to the shop, as I just discovered that the manufacturers don't care about the free software community.
Hey, if you could change it from big->little endian and back, it wouldn't matter if you woke up with a hangover and accidentally put the watch on upside down.
Bollocks. Everybody who says this about free webmail 'knows' this just because it's common knowledge. Whenever anybody tries to prove this theory, they come to the same concludion - if you sign up for a free account and never give the address out at all then you never get spammed.
I seem to remember a/. article a month or 2 ago about the various web activities that lead to spam, and he said the same as me. 6 months after opening an account, he had received no messages, except those from the provider (2 mails a month for them to provide you with a mailbox sounds fair to me).
I'd provide a link, but I'm crap at finding old stories on slashdot.
So why is it always free mailboxes that get so much spam? Well because I for one would never use my 'real' addresses for, say, subscribing to an online newsletter etc. That's what free mail accounts are for - subscribing to things where you think they'll sell mail lists.
Read your subject line.
Note that it was submitted to the 'It's funny. Laugh.' section.
Fits pretty well then.
Re:could work for the holodeck...
on
Electronic Paper
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
WTF is wrong with you people? Just because the car is Windowless doesn't make it any safer. Presumably you'd prefer Linux? Well not may people know how to use that - and I know that if I'm driving at 70mph I want to have support from a proper large company rather than the open source community.
I mean come on, while it's fun for desktops, and even servers, when we're talking about people's safety, we need to know that there's a company who is culpable in case anything goes wrong, in order to guarantee they will thoroughly test the systems.
I don't want to gamble with my family's life just because I dislike Microsoft.
Re:Phase Three: Profit!
on
Electronic Paper
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've just finished college where I had a friend who insisted on photocopying the textbooks etc
Reminds me of my final year at university. One of the lecturer's courses was based almost entirely on a book he had published, and to do wel in the course it was understood that you had to buy this book. He figured this wasn't too bad, as it only cost £15.
One day he came in and said 'I've just been told that the publishers have increased the price to £40. I think that's out of the price range for most student, and can't ask you to pay that'
His solution? Telling everybody to fuck the publishers and photocopy the entire book! Those publishers must've been mightily pissed off.
Might get a few Dozers to switch to *nix and use Kmail, Evolution, Mutt, Pine...
Are you *really* trying to tell me that Pine is comparable to Outlook? Come on.
Oh, and I notice that as yet nobody has mentioned the fact it spreads by ICQ as well. Also worth remembering that a properly patched system (patches available for a long time) is only vulnerable if the user executes the attachment.
Open Cygwin. Run Mutt. Think "Ooh. An hilarious screensaver, better run that." D'oh.
Doesn't matter what mail client it is if the user is stupid enough.
This would work just as well on *nix - send a file containing 'rm -rf/' with the text "Really, funny. Must SU root for work" (grammatical atrocities added for authenticity)
Once stupid users start switching to a secure OS, it won't seem nearly as secure any more.
No, but the usual crappy Katz bashing has been replaced by a more directed assault on his journalistic integrity (or lack of) Did you read that Afghanistan article? If you had you would realise just why Katz needs to be slapped.
Really, that story was made up bollocks from the start.
Oh, I'm not denying that the post should be marked off-topic, but you really should read the Catz article in question (sorry, no link) and then you'll realise why somebody gave it Insightful. And the Troll mod was totally unjustified.
I'm off to dig up the ZX Spectrum I left buried and install the SETI client while cracking MD5 hashes. Oh, sorry, I thought I lived in Afghanistan for a moment.
Moderators: This post is off-topic, not troll, flamebait, or overrated. Please moderate accordingly.
If you're willing to sieve through the source code, and then try to prove the security of the algorithms, why not make sure that the programming half of the team speaks assembly? Disassemble the binary et voila!
Of course, even if you establish there's no back doors, it's still a far cry from proving the algorithm is secure. Most encryption security is inherently entwined with the whole P/NP problem - maybe you really meant a good programmer and a *fucking* good mathematician;-)
I previewed that and in both uses I had typed 'algorythms' - what the hell is wrong with me today?
No-one denies they have a (deplorable) history of astroturfing, but my point was that this article is about Microsoft using a different way of communicating with testers, not about Microsoft astroturfing. I suspect the original poster got no further than reading that Microsoft were actively posting about the product, before he posted about astroturfing.
For the other ACs who replied
Angry? On re-reading, guilty as charged. I was having a bad day.
...stop following the party directives...Touché
Bad logic? The only bad logic was a parody of the original poster's logic. If it weren't bad I wouldn't have posted it!
Now to hassle the fool who just tried to hack port 139
The article is nothing about astroturfing. RTFA and you will see such specific things as teh fact that employees are told to use their real, internal email address. Also note that the forums (fora?) to which they post are password protected CE Beta forums. I don't know how to say this any clearer, this has nothing to do with astroturfing
Microsoft (among other groups/companies) runs "astroturf" campaigns where its marketeers post as ordinary readers to bullshit and browbeat the real readers into believing microsofts company line. Witness the recent bizarre pro-xbox and pro-winxp threads on this board.
Well, by the same logic I could claim that Linus must be personally funding Linux astroturfing campaigns - witness the recent bizarre pro-Linux threads that I think I may have seen once or twice.
Oh, and I am one of the people who frequently defends Microsoft against uninformed attacks; note that I work for a company who develops for Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL. And I've yet to receive a brown envelope containing pay from Microsoft.
I see the benefits of OSS, esp. Linux on servers, but I also see the benefit of Windows on client machines. To dismiss this attitude as clearly indicating astroturfing is childish. And finally, at the time of writing your comment has had a +1 mod, whereas the parent you referred to has not been modded at all.
Anyway, I don't use Windows, so this is not my problem. Ask yourself; is it really yours?:-)
I don't think it is useful to assume that you are safe because you are using Ye Sacred Linux. If a Linux version of the trojan were written, it could be installed in 3 ways (that I can see):
By exploiting known weaknesses - well, I guess Linux has a lot going for it on that one.
By user stupidity - Linux users in general are more security savvy than Windows users, but that is different from saying that using Linux is protecting you. Stupid Linux users can still install anna-kournikova.lantern.rpm if they want.
By physical intrusion - not many boxes can stand up to tech people with a warrant entering your house and installing the software
But you're still right with most of your point. It's not my problem (because I don't live in USA) and it's not your problem (because you have not done anything to attract the attentions of the CIA/FBI/NSA/FDA/TLA have you)
I really don't think they'll install it without cause - and even if they did, who's going to monitor keystrokes on every computer in America?
Oh, for the stupidity example, I'm assuming that Magic Lantern wouldn't be sent to Linux users as source...
He has said that what he wants to do is keep the format free (as opposed to selling licenses)
I believe that BSD would be a better choice of license; I don't think I could explain it better than Zeev Suraski did when he announced PHP moving to a pure BSD license at the PHP developers conference (apologies if I misquote, this is from memory):
GPL is based on the concept that software should be free; BSD license is based on the concept that people should be free
I think that sums it up wonderfully. RMS is so obsessed with licenses protecting the freedom of software that he seems to have made it to restrictive for the people using it.
Oh shit, on previewing, it looks like I'm trying to start a flame war.
>Bastes self ready for roasting<
Oh, you made it up? Why are you crying? Oh, you wanted people to be impressed so they'd stop posting the petition to have you fired?
Somebody please supply petition link
Oh, and can I just say how brave it is for Jon Katz to write an article on Troll Tuesday.
I'm off to rip a dvd to divx using the C64 I dug up from where I stashed it when the Taliban took control. Honestly - I never joined in the Katz bashing until that story. Sheesh.
There is no excuse for such lax security though. It is forgivable not to have a cast iron security system, as the only truly secure system is, of course, never to deal with CCs etc over the Internet anyway.
Our company holds CC numbers, and has no mechanism for displaying them to anyboddy over HTTP. Furthermore (and at no real cost in terms of difficulty) we GPG the numbers immediately as they are received, and keep the private key on a machine that runs no http/ftp/DB services (or similar), and is behind a firewall blocking external access.
I'd have thought that encryption of this sort is minimum - you can't rely on a single server not being cracked.
Of course, if the machine was compromised, the DB password discovered, the public key discovered, and the encrypted CC numbers downloaded, it is true that *eventually* they could be cracked. But asI said at the start, you've got to draw the line somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the main obstacle with Linux documentation to be that in the real world we have all of the Linux variants, varying hardware support, varying system configurations etc. On the other hand, in even a good book, when explaining how to do any task, it always explains it in a step by step fashion, from start to finish. Great, except at step 4 I get an error. So I read the chapter from the start. I repeat everything. I get the same error. As somebody who is not a Linux admin (though a comfortable Linux user - it is my job) I have no idea what to do next. Now I know that this is an inherent problem with having many distributions etc, but take my specific case:
I bought a Red Hat 7 book. I downloaded Red Hat 7.1 Is it really that unreasonable to expect the various config tools to be called the same name? This is a minor update, and yet many sections of the book failed at easy-to-follow section 1 - where the command name is wrong.
Another example: I installed this on a computer with 128MB ram. I knew this for 2 reasons, firstly that I could see the stick in there myself, and secondly, Windows had happily used 128MB. When I installed Linux, it used 64MB. My only option of course was to go to the book. After much scouring I found an obscure (I guess not obscure for those in the know) option to tell the kernel to use a certain amount of ram. So I did this, and guess what? Kernel panic.
Eventually I found the problem, after brainstorming with my friends; the onboard graphics card that was sharing main memory was confusing the hell out of Linux. Now to start with, this should not happen. Hell, maybe people don't care enough to fix this. But even if this is not the case, why could I not find this in any book I looked at? And before anybody tells me I'm wrong because it says it in their book, I looked in 2 distinct Red Hat 7 books - 2 books on configuring a desktop system should be overkill. It's all very well explaining everything in a step by step fashion, but after I went through this experience, I paid more attenton to the books, and noticed they virtually *never* explained reasons why things might fail.
In my experience, with the documentation available, if you ever have a problem that takes you offthe beaten track then you will not find your way back on without expert assistance.
BTW, the only time I had a similar problem under Windows was when installing hardware that conflicted. This had nothing to do with Windows, and was fixed by exchanging the hardware.
Bit of a rant, but my experiences left me a little frustrated with the installation (the graphics thing was only one of many examples)
No, I think there is some NASDAQ rule that states 13yr old weenies are not allowes to get pathetic symbols.
I think that when referring to a company trying to make money, the name 'Microsoft' is hardly pejorative.
Got to go now - I have to return my monitor to the shop, as I just discovered that the manufacturers don't care about the free software community.
Hey, if you could change it from big->little endian and back, it wouldn't matter if you woke up with a hangover and accidentally put the watch on upside down.
Bollocks. Everybody who says this about free webmail 'knows' this just because it's common knowledge. Whenever anybody tries to prove this theory, they come to the same concludion - if you sign up for a free account and never give the address out at all then you never get spammed.
/. article a month or 2 ago about the various web activities that lead to spam, and he said the same as me. 6 months after opening an account, he had received no messages, except those from the provider (2 mails a month for them to provide you with a mailbox sounds fair to me).
I seem to remember a
I'd provide a link, but I'm crap at finding old stories on slashdot.
So why is it always free mailboxes that get so much spam? Well because I for one would never use my 'real' addresses for, say, subscribing to an online newsletter etc. That's what free mail accounts are for - subscribing to things where you think they'll sell mail lists.
Just my opinion, but fuck me it's a good one.
Read your subject line.
Note that it was submitted to the 'It's funny. Laugh.' section.
Fits pretty well then.
WTF is wrong with you people? Just because the car is Windowless doesn't make it any safer. Presumably you'd prefer Linux? Well not may people know how to use that - and I know that if I'm driving at 70mph I want to have support from a proper large company rather than the open source community.
I mean come on, while it's fun for desktops, and even servers, when we're talking about people's safety, we need to know that there's a company who is culpable in case anything goes wrong, in order to guarantee they will thoroughly test the systems.
I don't want to gamble with my family's life just because I dislike Microsoft.
One day he came in and said 'I've just been told that the publishers have increased the price to £40. I think that's out of the price range for most student, and can't ask you to pay that'
His solution? Telling everybody to fuck the publishers and photocopy the entire book! Those publishers must've been mightily pissed off.
Oh, and I notice that as yet nobody has mentioned the fact it spreads by ICQ as well. Also worth remembering that a properly patched system (patches available for a long time) is only vulnerable if the user executes the attachment.
Open Cygwin. Run Mutt. Think "Ooh. An hilarious screensaver, better run that." D'oh.
Doesn't matter what mail client it is if the user is stupid enough.
This would work just as well on *nix - send a file containing 'rm -rf
Once stupid users start switching to a secure OS, it won't seem nearly as secure any more.
No, but the usual crappy Katz bashing has been replaced by a more directed assault on his journalistic integrity (or lack of) Did you read that Afghanistan article? If you had you would realise just why Katz needs to be slapped.
Really, that story was made up bollocks from the start.
Oh, I'm not denying that the post should be marked off-topic, but you really should read the Catz article in question (sorry, no link) and then you'll realise why somebody gave it Insightful. And the Troll mod was totally unjustified.
I'm off to dig up the ZX Spectrum I left buried and install the SETI client while cracking MD5 hashes. Oh, sorry, I thought I lived in Afghanistan for a moment.
Moderators: This post is off-topic, not troll, flamebait, or overrated. Please moderate accordingly.
I believe the word you're looking for is 'oxymoron'
Rubbish. That was the most blatant piss-take I've ever seen - hardly propaganda.
It's a little like one of the episodes (can't remember which) where the text at the start of the credits reads Coming soon to an illegal dvd near you
While they may not like their work being pirated, they know who their fans are. It's an in joke, not serious propaganda.
So who'd you choose? Brittney Cleary or the Mary-Kate/Ashley tag-team?
If you're willing to sieve through the source code, and then try to prove the security of the algorithms, why not make sure that the programming half of the team speaks assembly? Disassemble the binary et voila!
;-)
Of course, even if you establish there's no back doors, it's still a far cry from proving the algorithm is secure. Most encryption security is inherently entwined with the whole P/NP problem - maybe you really meant a good programmer and a *fucking* good mathematician
I previewed that and in both uses I had typed 'algorythms' - what the hell is wrong with me today?
For the other ACs who replied
Now to hassle the fool who just tried to hack port 139
Well, by the same logic I could claim that Linus must be personally funding Linux astroturfing campaigns - witness the recent bizarre pro-Linux threads that I think I may have seen once or twice.
Oh, and I am one of the people who frequently defends Microsoft against uninformed attacks; note that I work for a company who develops for Linux/Apache/PHP/MySQL. And I've yet to receive a brown envelope containing pay from Microsoft.
I see the benefits of OSS, esp. Linux on servers, but I also see the benefit of Windows on client machines. To dismiss this attitude as clearly indicating astroturfing is childish. And finally, at the time of writing your comment has had a +1 mod, whereas the parent you referred to has not been modded at all.
I don't think it is useful to assume that you are safe because you are using Ye Sacred Linux. If a Linux version of the trojan were written, it could be installed in 3 ways (that I can see):
But you're still right with most of your point. It's not my problem (because I don't live in USA) and it's not your problem (because you have not done anything to attract the attentions of the CIA/FBI/NSA/FDA/TLA have you)
I really don't think they'll install it without cause - and even if they did, who's going to monitor keystrokes on every computer in America?
Oh, for the stupidity example, I'm assuming that Magic Lantern wouldn't be sent to Linux users as source...
He has said that what he wants to do is keep the format free (as opposed to selling licenses)
I believe that BSD would be a better choice of license; I don't think I could explain it better than Zeev Suraski did when he announced PHP moving to a pure BSD license at the PHP developers conference (apologies if I misquote, this is from memory):
GPL is based on the concept that software should be free; BSD license is based on the concept that people should be free
I think that sums it up wonderfully. RMS is so obsessed with licenses protecting the freedom of software that he seems to have made it to restrictive for the people using it.
Oh shit, on previewing, it looks like I'm trying to start a flame war.
>Bastes self ready for roasting<
Seconded. Where's the mail Jon?
Oh, you made it up? Why are you crying? Oh, you wanted people to be impressed so they'd stop posting the petition to have you fired?
Somebody please supply petition link
Oh, and can I just say how brave it is for Jon Katz to write an article on Troll Tuesday.
I'm off to rip a dvd to divx using the C64 I dug up from where I stashed it when the Taliban took control. Honestly - I never joined in the Katz bashing until that story. Sheesh.
There is no excuse for such lax security though. It is forgivable not to have a cast iron security system, as the only truly secure system is, of course, never to deal with CCs etc over the Internet anyway.
Our company holds CC numbers, and has no mechanism for displaying them to anyboddy over HTTP. Furthermore (and at no real cost in terms of difficulty) we GPG the numbers immediately as they are received, and keep the private key on a machine that runs no http/ftp/DB services (or similar), and is behind a firewall blocking external access.
I'd have thought that encryption of this sort is minimum - you can't rely on a single server not being cracked.
Of course, if the machine was compromised, the DB password discovered, the public key discovered, and the encrypted CC numbers downloaded, it is true that *eventually* they could be cracked. But asI said at the start, you've got to draw the line somewhere.
And just what would somebody inadvertantly running Microsoft Personal Webserver be doing with a list of CC numbers in their WWW tree, hmm?
My mistake, I misread the * as x. I guess they are bloody idiots after all.
Well, on the one hand it gives us usernames.
Fortuantely, their unix security is better than their http security - they're using shadow passwords, so this is not as bad as it seems.
Thank you. Prompt service is always appreciated :-)
FWIW, I am not American.