1) BASH and that means any program that can be included in a BASH shell, ls, cd, rm, mv, chmod, chown, chattr, etc
2) emacs or if FreeBSD, edit
3) PERL
4) IPTables, or if FreeBSD, ipfw
5) ssh
6) telnet
7) gzip/gunzip
8) any of the c compilers, plus gmake or make
9) If setting up a Unix/Linux server inside a private network, nfs
10) If a database is needed then postgreSQL, plus the DBI stuffies, plus DBD, etc. May as well include an Apache web server with mod_perl
Actually, SFU enables you to do things like run an NFS server on Windows. Basically it is meant to enable PHBs to replace Unix servers with cheap Dell boxes running Windows admined by MCSEs. It has nothing to do with desktop linux or OS X.
NFS is long considered to be a security nightmare. I would only run NFS on a private network and only on Linux/BSD servers.
I fail to see an advantage in running a seriously insecure Unix daemon using an OS known to be even more dangerous (Windows *)
But, by all means do so. I need the work to undo the damage that could potentially be caused by such a move.
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ...
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The signifigance of the Cannes award is lost on me. If F911 goes on to be proven to be a propogandistic screed, it will without doubt place the Cannes Film Festival in the same league as the Nobel Peace Prize and the United Nations: institutions which soiled their reputations in order to pursue a political agenda.
I realize that 'Bowling for Columbine' won an Oscar and if this piece of propoganda does too, I will place the Oscars in the same category as all the others above: old, tired institutions which shat on their own reputations in order to pursue a politically inspired agenda.
National defense information and work product was given to China in the 90s in exchange for campaign cash from the People's Liberation Army under Clinton's watch is acceptable behavior?
I don't think Bush's former business relationships are in the same league as this matter but Mike Moore wants you to believe that conducting legitimate business prior to taking office which is not approved of by Michael Moore is not; and Moore wants you to believe that Rich White Men(tm) have it in for democracy. Well, if that is true, then at the top of the list is Michael Moore and his films.
Readers should also consider what the Bush administration has done to protect the USA from further attack from terrorists and what Mike Moore has done. One element has taken pro-active and solid steps for our nations security, the other is like a yelping 300 pound chihuahua, complaining loudly about what Bush did, all the while failing to offer what he should have done.
It may not happen this year but I feel certain that F911 along with 'Bowling for Columbine' will be shown to be propoganda films, not documentaries, and the awards presented to them will be forever stained with this stigma.
I once had a friend who was a psychology major. She asked me, "How can you study computer science when there are children out there being abused, and women out there being raped?"
Maybe that was her way of asking you out on a date?
Remember how Linux advocates, real early on, used to love to quote Ghandi? You know, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you've won? Well, it works both ways.
Somehow, the visual of Ghandi limping around the planet from a $30 billion dollar roll in his shorts just doesn't seem real.
Now, going back to your scenario, say we have Joe Clueless Luser in front of a Linux box, logged in as a regular system user. He opens your Brittney\ Spears\ Nekkid.jpg.sh e-mail attachment, which executes and runs a rootkit that exploits a local hole in GNU screen. Now the virus has root-level access to the system and begins wreaking havoc, installing ircds and backdoor FTP daemons. Now we're screwed.
You must be on crack.
How is this script going to launch if it is saved as read and write only as Linux/Unix OS's routinely handle such events? How is it going to initiate a daemon without being root? It can't execute, so it can't make a copy of itself: only the user can make that file executable and then any putative damage is restricted to the user's space, so it can't install, so it can't exploit anything.
And if you administer a Linux machine that permits users in your "Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware" environment to allow scripts and executable to be set as executable automatically or casually as a user, you are a scary security administrator.
So a trojan or worm or virus could still wipe out a user's home directory without any intervention - this is the most valuable data on any computer. If the user types in the password it could wipe out another good portion of the machine. So they have to clean their computer and reinstall everything anyway. How is this different from just having root access?
You are ignoring the fact that even if a user is dumb enough to download a shell script executable to their home directory in Linux, they still have to switch that file to executable or it is not going to do a damn thing. Files ALWAYS save as read and write only regardless of who moves or creates the files, even root, unless it is specified in the copy command to preserve executable attributes and MUST be switched to execute as a deliberate act. And as many Linux users or adminstrators should know computer security starts at the console, not at the NIC card.
Having root access is way different than being a lowly user. A user's account is commonly placed in a part of the computer disk drive where damage can be minimized. And the structure of the Linux or Unix OSs is very secure from users who have Windowsitis.
Reading one of the attack reports on Samizdat, it appears the author wishes to attribute remarks and jokes posted in an open forum to Linux Torvalds himself..
This is a classic means of attacking an individual on the internet: go to a forum known to have readers and posters dedicated to an idea like open soruce, monitor it for every syllable, every out of place comma, then use those comments to attack a person who most likely had nothing to do with those posts.
The report is rich with legal phrases relating to private property, but it is very careful not to apply such concepts to an individual: they apply it to a group they know cannot speak coherently against the author(s).
If Microsoft funded any of these studies, I fail to see to what benefit MS could possiblly claim.
The code is there for anyone to use at least, hell even Microsoft can use it under the right conditions.
I can see how they getting antsy: I read somewhere that XP was only in about half the computers worldwide even two years after its release. MS is only just now getting caught up in the multi-user OS game, but Linux is rapidly getting on par with MS in the desktop game, and the other 800 pound gorilla in IT, IBM, is putting its weight and reputation behind Linux; the coming days may get pretty tough for Microsoft.
I was a subscriber for many months, and quit my subscription. I cited that the only game I was interested in was SW Galaxies, and that until it was supported, I would no longer subscribe. I contributed a chunk of change, and now I'll have to put my money where my mouth is and re-subscribce to run the game I want.
You and me both.
I subscribed for almost 18 months myself and begged and pleaded for any information concerning the Campaign Series of games.
I came to the conclusion after those many months of hacking and praying that Wine was really a losing proposition espcially in regards to Windows games, not simply because of the technical aspects but for the very paradigm Windows game manufactueres operate under.
For years and years the only way anyone could play any DOS game was in single person mode, and while that improved somewhat with the advent of email and with the even more recent advent of online play, most of those extensions, to call them what they are, are based on a the DirectPlay product made by Microsoft.
In my experience, no element of Wine has ever dealt properly with DirectPlay and while it would seem that dealing with DirectPlay, making it better for actual use, it is still a terrible implementation for multiplayer use. MS can't seem to get it right, so it is impossible to ask Wine to do it either.
Now, I am not crapping on MS's product. It is the best they could do, but they have zero incentive to improve this most awful element of their product line given that they are the Big Kahuna in OS software and they are spending huge sums of money and effort trying to bump Linux off server/desktop sales.
That is why I came to the conclusion that the only way anyone could possibly hope to play a decent game in Linux is to write a decent game in Linux; one that is multiplayer as well as able to serve as many players as the OS/platform can handle. It doesn't seem to be a lot to ask, except there is a lot of effort, espeically on my part to learn the programming in graphics, and in Unix sockets programming to create a decent military game in Linux.
Transgaming broke my heart, but it really isn't their fault. Wine can never be up to the task it has set for itself, but that is okay.
Listen assholes, Microsoft is patching things fine. You're just not RUNNING the patches! It's like getting shot with an arrow and blaming your blacksmith, when you were the one who didn't raise your shield up to avoid the barrage!
It's more like having a shield in which a major section falls off through no fault of your own.
Imagine if GM or States Industries in 1941 had produced a product that had vulnerabilities.
The Sherman tank: great vehicle, but in combat, the front slope falls off and it's the tank crew's fault for not patching the armor to begin with. Shame they have to die for it, but then that's life in a combat zone. Should had that GM patch. It's all their fault for the hole being there.
THAT is closer to the truth about Microsoft.
And the 'asshole' appelation? That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week.
Well, the absence of something that is not included in items which are exempt, does not mean that it is included as a an item which is not exempted. In other words, its absence does not make it an element of violation of any law.
All I have seen so far, aside from your snide remarks, is references to copyright law, which I do not care to read, and which I doubt anyone cares to prosecute under. I asked you post a specific example, which you either refuse to do, or you cannot do.
But I will do that which you will not: There is nothing in the law which says that using software on my compuer for my purposes is illegal under any interpretation of any law, here or in Eurostan.
I don't know which is worse: the panicky interpretation of the DCMA, or the even further flung, even more panicky interpretations of those interpretations.
Believe it or not, Americans know snake oil when they see it. You, sir, are selling it by the barrel full.
People have reverse engineered the technology for the purpose of playing DVD's on linux and written open source software to do it. However thanks to the DMCA it's illegal to download one of these programs in the states to play a DVD you own, on a computer you own, running a legally licensed program and Operating system.
convince the wavering that Redmond is as at least cheap and as secure as its open-source rival and to spread the word that Windows is better than Linux
The fact that Windows is everywhere is why it's such a tempting target; a hit rate of 1% on virus infection of Windows PCs is a good number, so it's worth going after. If linux had a good market share, it would be running the spam zombies.
I guess the writer is unaware of the incredible hoops even root has to jump through to install any executable on a Linux/Unix box. (Disclaimer: Someone help me out here, if I am incorrect ) A server daemon used to relay spam/mail is an even more stultifying set of hoops to jump through.
But this appears to be conventional wisdom: if Linux was the most popular computer it would have the same problem windows has. This thought is advanced amoungst Windows enthusiasts/employees?/VARs? I guess to disclaim their own responsibility to other users on the internet.
Neat trick, but as always, the actual facts are much more mundane, and therefore much harder to diseminate.
Slashdot Mirror
BACKUPS!
1) BASH and that means any program that can be included in a BASH shell, ls, cd, rm, mv, chmod, chown, chattr, etc
2) emacs or if FreeBSD, edit
3) PERL
4) IPTables, or if FreeBSD, ipfw
5) ssh
6) telnet
7) gzip/gunzip
8) any of the c compilers, plus gmake or make
9) If setting up a Unix/Linux server inside a private network, nfs
10) If a database is needed then postgreSQL, plus the DBI stuffies, plus DBD, etc. May as well include an Apache web server with mod_perl
Could you at least wait until I am done with my morning Penguin prayers?
NFS is long considered to be a security nightmare. I would only run NFS on a private network and only on Linux/BSD servers.
I fail to see an advantage in running a seriously insecure Unix daemon using an OS known to be even more dangerous (Windows *)
But, by all means do so. I need the work to undo the damage that could potentially be caused by such a move.
That's when I decided chattr +i /customdir/scripts is my best friend. It's a pain to edit scripts, but it has saved my bacon.
Here is my indemnifcation plan.
I realize that 'Bowling for Columbine' won an Oscar and if this piece of propoganda does too, I will place the Oscars in the same category as all the others above: old, tired institutions which shat on their own reputations in order to pursue a politically inspired agenda.
National defense information and work product was given to China in the 90s in exchange for campaign cash from the People's Liberation Army under Clinton's watch is acceptable behavior?
I don't think Bush's former business relationships are in the same league as this matter but Mike Moore wants you to believe that conducting legitimate business prior to taking office which is not approved of by Michael Moore is not; and Moore wants you to believe that Rich White Men(tm) have it in for democracy. Well, if that is true, then at the top of the list is Michael Moore and his films.
Readers should also consider what the Bush administration has done to protect the USA from further attack from terrorists and what Mike Moore has done. One element has taken pro-active and solid steps for our nations security, the other is like a yelping 300 pound chihuahua, complaining loudly about what Bush did, all the while failing to offer what he should have done.
It may not happen this year but I feel certain that F911 along with 'Bowling for Columbine' will be shown to be propoganda films, not documentaries, and the awards presented to them will be forever stained with this stigma.
I guess BSD users are cut out of seti@home? There was no link for a BSD version.
Maybe that was her way of asking you out on a date?
Somehow, the visual of Ghandi limping around the planet from a $30 billion dollar roll in his shorts just doesn't seem real.
You must be on crack.
How is this script going to launch if it is saved as read and write only as Linux/Unix OS's routinely handle such events? How is it going to initiate a daemon without being root? It can't execute, so it can't make a copy of itself: only the user can make that file executable and then any putative damage is restricted to the user's space, so it can't install, so it can't exploit anything.
And if you administer a Linux machine that permits users in your "Windows/Linux/Solaris/Netware" environment to allow scripts and executable to be set as executable automatically or casually as a user, you are a scary security administrator.
You are ignoring the fact that even if a user is dumb enough to download a shell script executable to their home directory in Linux, they still have to switch that file to executable or it is not going to do a damn thing. Files ALWAYS save as read and write only regardless of who moves or creates the files, even root, unless it is specified in the copy command to preserve executable attributes and MUST be switched to execute as a deliberate act. And as many Linux users or adminstrators should know computer security starts at the console, not at the NIC card.
Having root access is way different than being a lowly user. A user's account is commonly placed in a part of the computer disk drive where damage can be minimized. And the structure of the Linux or Unix OSs is very secure from users who have Windowsitis.
This is a classic means of attacking an individual on the internet: go to a forum known to have readers and posters dedicated to an idea like open soruce, monitor it for every syllable, every out of place comma, then use those comments to attack a person who most likely had nothing to do with those posts.
The report is rich with legal phrases relating to private property, but it is very careful not to apply such concepts to an individual: they apply it to a group they know cannot speak coherently against the author(s).
If Microsoft funded any of these studies, I fail to see to what benefit MS could possiblly claim. The code is there for anyone to use at least, hell even Microsoft can use it under the right conditions.
I can see how they getting antsy: I read somewhere that XP was only in about half the computers worldwide even two years after its release. MS is only just now getting caught up in the multi-user OS game, but Linux is rapidly getting on par with MS in the desktop game, and the other 800 pound gorilla in IT, IBM, is putting its weight and reputation behind Linux; the coming days may get pretty tough for Microsoft.
You and me both.
I subscribed for almost 18 months myself and begged and pleaded for any information concerning the Campaign Series of games.
I came to the conclusion after those many months of hacking and praying that Wine was really a losing proposition espcially in regards to Windows games, not simply because of the technical aspects but for the very paradigm Windows game manufactueres operate under.
For years and years the only way anyone could play any DOS game was in single person mode, and while that improved somewhat with the advent of email and with the even more recent advent of online play, most of those extensions, to call them what they are, are based on a the DirectPlay product made by Microsoft.
In my experience, no element of Wine has ever dealt properly with DirectPlay and while it would seem that dealing with DirectPlay, making it better for actual use, it is still a terrible implementation for multiplayer use. MS can't seem to get it right, so it is impossible to ask Wine to do it either.
Now, I am not crapping on MS's product. It is the best they could do, but they have zero incentive to improve this most awful element of their product line given that they are the Big Kahuna in OS software and they are spending huge sums of money and effort trying to bump Linux off server/desktop sales.
That is why I came to the conclusion that the only way anyone could possibly hope to play a decent game in Linux is to write a decent game in Linux; one that is multiplayer as well as able to serve as many players as the OS/platform can handle. It doesn't seem to be a lot to ask, except there is a lot of effort, espeically on my part to learn the programming in graphics, and in Unix sockets programming to create a decent military game in Linux.
Transgaming broke my heart, but it really isn't their fault. Wine can never be up to the task it has set for itself, but that is okay.
Neither can Microsoft.
And the second someone pirates his work, he will be at the front of the line screaming for DRM.
Midnight Commander is a much more powerful alternative to Windows Explorer.
It's more like having a shield in which a major section falls off through no fault of your own.
Imagine if GM or States Industries in 1941 had produced a product that had vulnerabilities.
The Sherman tank: great vehicle, but in combat, the front slope falls off and it's the tank crew's fault for not patching the armor to begin with. Shame they have to die for it, but then that's life in a combat zone. Should had that GM patch. It's all their fault for the hole being there.
THAT is closer to the truth about Microsoft.
And the 'asshole' appelation? That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week.
All I have seen so far, aside from your snide remarks, is references to copyright law, which I do not care to read, and which I doubt anyone cares to prosecute under. I asked you post a specific example, which you either refuse to do, or you cannot do.
But I will do that which you will not: There is nothing in the law which says that using software on my compuer for my purposes is illegal under any interpretation of any law, here or in Eurostan.
I don't know which is worse: the panicky interpretation of the DCMA, or the even further flung, even more panicky interpretations of those interpretations.
Believe it or not, Americans know snake oil when they see it. You, sir, are selling it by the barrel full.
They are offered in the states with an operating system offered in the states onto computing platforms in the states.
You so far have failed to show the operative part of the DMCA that states a person cannot own dvd ripping software on their own computers.
I am really curious where in the law that is.
Enquiring minds wanna know!
Really??
Sometimes the material just writes itself.
Do you use the bind interfaces directive to do that?
I guess the writer is unaware of the incredible hoops even root has to jump through to install any executable on a Linux/Unix box. (Disclaimer: Someone help me out here, if I am incorrect ) A server daemon used to relay spam/mail is an even more stultifying set of hoops to jump through.
But this appears to be conventional wisdom: if Linux was the most popular computer it would have the same problem windows has. This thought is advanced amoungst Windows enthusiasts/employees?/VARs? I guess to disclaim their own responsibility to other users on the internet.
Neat trick, but as always, the actual facts are much more mundane, and therefore much harder to diseminate.
They should be called Borgs.
I, for one, welcome our leftist journalistic overlords