This isn't informative; I tell you what, name me two scenarios that will break as a result of a change like this and I'll retract that statement. Especially considering the fact that in the RFC there is a clear section for Compatibility where it states that older setups simply won't do the check.
It's time a concerted effort is made to prevent spam and this is technologically feasible and sound. There isn't one logical reason I can think of that sending email from anonymous domains or a record without a pointer should be allowed.
From what I've read and from what I practice myself this isn't what I'd necessarily refer to as filtering, it's more along the lines of proper technological behavior or better yet closing an unintended and useless feature that is causing nothing but harm. However, spam can still be sent even after implementing this system. It's just that the record is alot easier to deal with. No admin wants to sit there and go through the trouble of finding out where spam came from, ie: going through mail logs, diggin ripe/arin databases searching for who the ip belongs to, emailing abuse, then the abuse team (if there is one) has to take the time to search for what user was using the dynamic ip at the time. Needless to say alot of ISP's and mom and pop services don't even have in-house systems logging this information because it's just too expensive. All this effort to stop one spammer who'll just switch service, isp or whatever and send you more animated gifs of a young woman sucking on a horse penis and what do you get for your trouble? Nothing, nothing but more horse penis; but this time it's 100% better than the last spam around and maybe if you haven't gone completely insane, a mild headache followed by lots of frustration and an urge to kill.
With the new system implemented a record of where the spam comes from makes it easier for client filtering software to send out automatic messages as the spam is received, etc etc. It'll also cut down on alot of the anonymous/no PTR fly by night spamming.
I think it's a step in the right direction and hope that it becomes standard sooner than later.
Nope. Apache, Ftp servers, mail servers, Most user land apps.. etc etc.. you don't need to reboot. Thats mostly because there is a clear seperation between what a userspace program is and its rights.. and what a system program/daemon is and its rights. There is also nothing like a registry where values are loaded into memory on boot and kept there. It's also not really suprising you don't use Linux or a Unix-like system, i've noticed that the higher the uid on slashdot, the more likely the person in question uses windows. The lower the UID the more OS versatility you begin to notice. I could be talking out of my ass, I don't have a large collection of data sitting around.. just an off the cuff observation.
Hope that answers your question. I don't know anything about XP except that it's a Microsoft product so I won't pretend to make a correlation. If it's good enough for you and you get your work done, then run with it.
Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix.
Think of Wine as a Windows compatibility layer. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely alternative implementation consisting of 100% Microsoft-free code, but it can optionally use native system DLLs if they are available. Wine provides both a development toolkit (Winelib) for porting Windows sources to Unix and a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris.
www.winehq.com
Re:Software is behind, not hardware
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
Get over yourself and realize that the human brain is not as astounding as you think it is. Yes, it is incredibly powerful.
Now, tell me what the square root of 1,203,312 is. Oh, you're using a calculator. Something with a 6 mhz Z80 and 24K of ram is "more powerful" than your brain.
I can't, but there are people out there that can do it faster than a computer. You see the brain is a highly dynamic signal based system in every human. Just because I can't doesn't mean another can't. This is why I don't understand how you would even make this statement when the amount known about the human brain is less than what is known about anything else in science and it's actually tangible and here infront of us.
You obviously have no idea how much processing power the brain has because as you typed that message your brain was doing many things at once in real time that a computer could never do or come close to (all of your senses were active, including things you take for granted such a spatial recognition and the actual understanding to reply to what I wrote with what you wrote above; heh) I mean if that's not computational and processing intensive NOTHING is.
Sure I can input numbers at a computer and have it output something back based on an algorithim in nanoseconds. You can do the same with the brain, of course we just haven't figured out how. Again; the brain is so dynamic between the closest of kin that it'll be a very long time before it's mapped. We aren't even near breaking the surface of what it can actually do. Feel free to search google for people who can do this. I'd try to find some links but i'm confident enough they exist or you can pick up American Scientist or a medical journal online and search for "brain patients".
Of course it isn't. But your brain doesn't work like a computer. And your computer doesn't work like a brain.
Your brain is good at learning and recognizing patterns. A computer is good at churning out millions of raw computations per second. It's like comparing a blender to a toaster: yes, the toaster toasts almost infinately better than a blender. And the blender blends almost infinately better than a toaster.
The brain is a signal based organ, it is nothing more than a highly sophiscated tool which can do computation and processing of what we would call our real life surroundings. It takes the input from these surroundings and understands them and our body produces whatever response or output required at the time. It feels no pain as the nerves hold no pain receptors, this is why you don't see people screaming in pain as their brain is destroyed from a degenerative disease.
A computer is a signal based machine, it does computation and processing in an environment we assign to it. It takes the input from a human brain and outputs whatever tasked assigned to it. It feels no pain as it can't even understand pain or the concept of sense.
They operate on the same premise to interpret and make work easier. They are different in the fact that one is inherently dumb and unsophiscated and the other has been tuned by nature over a very long period, tuned and honed is highly sophiscated and learning. Not only the brain of humans but also the brains of things like dolphins, so on and so forth.
If our brains were only good at learning and recognizing patterns then we'd be ant's, it does learning, recognizing patterns, sense, spatial recognition, operates on extremely low power, is dynamic in every human individual, allows for all the senses to even exist, emotion, has record collection etc etc etc etc.
Isn't the whole point of this thread AI? Aren't we supposed to be trying to get the computer to singularity? Are you saying that it isn't possible? That computers and brains are so different that it's like comparing a toaster and blender, items which do two different things no where along the lines of even utility to each other?
Lastly, if the brain is not astounding as to it's operation then I don't know what is. Heh, we can barely recreate the muscles of the body. With that, would you have me get over myself now? Or later?
Re:Software is behind, not hardware
on
AI Going Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No machine, algorithim or other man made item has anything close to the processing power of a human brain, not now or into the forseeable future. The idea of AI has never been about software as the concept is quite simple even in practice. The issue has always been about hardware; the hardware gets faster but it's still no where near fast enough to compete with anything other than a small toddler; feed it too much information and it becomes slower, infact it starts to retard after a certain stage, which makes it useless in the holy grail sense.
So i'll have to disagree that the problem is software, technically if you had infinite processing power you could have something that resembles a human with nothing more than time. Infact if such processing power existed, the time it took such a system to learn would be shorter than that of a human. Especially if it was receiving verfied factual input on a consistent basis, it'd also be nice if it had an everlasting memory which means it would remember something 65 years from now as if it just learned it.
Alot of people play with this same idea in there head day in and day out. Personally, I believe the answer is somewhere between adopting a brain for processing usage and using quantum mechanics to come to the "singularity". This could be right around the corner, or it could be years away it all depends on where the money is spent. Personally robots are a step but not in the right direction because they simply don't address the problem.
Lets say you have your cable modem and you enter and execute the command "host xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" where the xxx octects are filled with your ip number. What is returned is the PTR to that ip which would be your domain name assigned to that ip, which probably looks something like cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net.
This record/entry can be changed by your ISP if you request it, so instead of cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net they could point it to something like machine.yourowndomain.com. There are several ISP's that allow this and several more that don't. The ISP owns the ip's, if you have a static ip you should have no problem requesting this as it's static and never changing and you essentially own it. Dynamic is different as you don't own any of the ips, they are obviously changing (even if yours never changes) and the ISP has one less thing to deal with.
Now a mail server should always have a MX record (Mail Exchange record) when you enter a MX record into your DNS config for whatever (bind,tinydns,etc) that MX record should have a pointer regardless of what you call it. Some people simply don't have this as to evade reverse lookups on their ip's. It doesn't really stop one from looking up where a block of ip's belongs to and starting to investigate from there but it's quite annoying. The only other logical reason that exists it just a poor setup on the DNS administrators part. Alot of people setting up DNS don't take the time to understand what exactly they are doing, they also don't take the time to implement it correctly or understand that an A record and PTR record can't be used interchangeably and that things like a CNAME record should be used sparingly. So just like your ip which is mapped to a machine that has a pointer to cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net, mail servers should have the same because they are nothing but machines, quick example. If you ran a mail server your reverse would be cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net. When mail is sent to my mail server my server says ok, lets reverse lookup what machine this is coming from; oh?? you don't have a PTR record?? sorry, I cannot accept mail from you because you're an anonymous machine. If you have a PTR my mail server looks it up and says OK cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net you are now free to send mail to whatever domains you have access to from here.
I hope this helps. I recommend the Oreilly book DNS and BIND for an understanding of the Domain Name System as well as reading newsgroups, mailing list and anything else you can get your hands on. I don't recommend you use BIND as a DNS server for it's lack of security and bloat. However I do recommend you use an alternative which you should investigate on your own. Personally I use Tinydns which is apart of the DjbDNS package.
That doesn't matter.. even dynamic ip's have ptr records assigned by ISP for whatever block. I didn't say I block mail based on isp just if it doesnt' have a reverse pointer so I don't know what 1 ip address really has to do with it. 1,2,200 it doesn't matter.
One has sex with children, One illegally penetrates networks against their own will. Which obviously leaves the network in question psychologically damaged and physically harmed. Not to mention the black hat didn't give the network a choice, took away it's freedoms and civil liberties as a human bei....
Seriously
If one replaced "black hat" with 'pedophile" in the above post, would the argument still hold water?
Obviously not, the two commit two different crimes affecting two different things. One affects a computer network at the most, maybe gives someone a headache or a longer working day. Eventually things get cleaned up.
One affects the LIFE; approximately 70-75 years of a human being, damages their psyche and generally makes it harder on them in relationships they have with people. They can overcome this but it'll always be suspect as a memory even when they themselves have children., if that ever happens. Some don't overcome it and they themselves become pedophiles and the cycle continues.
I don't even know how you got to the point where you could correlate the two. However I got this detailed to point out that one of these people can walk away with 2 years probation and one of them can be jailed for 20-35 years. I'll let you figure that part out.
You should have a reverse DNS PTR entry for all your mail servers. You don't have to follow the RFC but then you wouldn't be following standard behavior. In this case it's a good standard behavior to follow so I don't see why people don't follow it. My mail servers will not accept mail if there is no reverse DNS entry, if I can't hold the admin of that mailserver responsible for sending me UCE or for any other problems that might cause me time and headache why bother accepting the mail in the first place. One less headache for me.
This concept is lost amongst many here, it seems the Ease-of-Use people seem to think that a user can't simply enter a password to install a program, or to make changes to their system. Surely it's inconvient if you're doing many programs but this has also been solved by allowing the user to authenticate themselves once. Mac OS X does this Redhat does this and Microsoft does this now. I'm sure many other alternative operating systems are starting to adopt this method. For Lindows to run as root in this day and age is pretty silly and I agree; when that dog comes to bite, it's going to bite hard. Thankfully it'll only affect Lindows users, as everyone else will have a fence up. From a business perspective as well as a security perspective, it's really a horrible decision and the answer supplied is even worst.
No, the only people that call "X" X-Windows, are people who don't know that X is a Window System. I don't know who started the X-Windows thing but don't repeat it.
So in summary, what you're saying is, one, that the RIAA has the right to scan a computer for copyrighted material. Two, not verify if that copyrighted material is owned by the person in question whether or not it's on a p2p network and three, physically remove those files from that persons physical disk?
Lastly, I'd point out that almost every one of these countermeasures against RIAA's measures WOULD be pretty convincing evidence of the real intent of these P2P networks.
I don't have any mp3's that can be scanned for by the RIAA presumably. However, i do plan on ripping my cd's in to ogg most likely in the near future as it's becoming bothersome to look for a certain CD I want to listen to. If the RIAA attacks my network, scans it or does anything else considered hostile internet activity. I will do everything in my power to avoid and counter.
As for P2P networks there are plenty of legal uses for them, you allude to banning P2P networks because people are using them to infringe on IP easily. I won't justify that with a response, it's too silly to even fathom. Consumers who illegally steal music, no one could ever support but then I can't support the RIAA who's stole from the consumers either. Which leads to the idea that at the end of the day the consumer makes the choice. If they've been abused by a company and then choose to steal rather than supporting that company. Said company/industry/people/persons need to look at the situation and go about fixing it in a manner that doesn't tread on anyone but the thieves. If it affects me as an innocent, my retaliation and outrage will be legal and just.
As it stands the RIAA has painted themselves into a corner and I won't be giving up my rights so they can play net police.
Such an attack need not be any more invasive than merely preventing further downloads, i.e., it wouldn't consume more bandwidth than a single download, it wouldn't affect other users at that user's ISP, it wouldn't infect the person's computer, and so on. One such way that I might impliment such an attack (though ultimately defeatable) would be to consume all that's person's download queues by slowly downloading with numerous cooperating (fake) clients or maybe an (extremely low volume) SYN attack on that filesharing port or maybe leaching said files as fast as possible to soak up their bandwidth (nothing they're not already offering).
That is a poor implementation and if that's all you can think of you will not be hired by the RIAA or script kid of the week even. People can set the amount of traffic an upload uses, they can set the amount of download traffic. DOS'n their IP's is illegal and any script kid can write an add on for their favorite p2p client to uses the resources of a determined amount of clients returning the favor 2000 times fold. So you'd have to find a situation where you've got a block of random ip's to choose from.. all from a different block to prevent the last situation from occuring. I've thought about it myself for a while and came to the conclusion that the RIAA can either hire someone to implement stuff that isn't going to work or hire someone to setup their new online service. The only other option is for them to continue to fight a loosing battle. There will always be piracy one way or another, in it's current form and before p2p existed people where selling copied CD's on the street, before that it was tape, before that it was people trading vinyl (all of which still occur). Now that P2P is here it's even worst but the it seems with Apple's new introduction of an online service that the RIAA will no longer exist in the future as the company they are now. I'm not an investor but if I was i'd be looking to other venues to place my money.
With this announcement I can see they are going down the wrong path. I don't trade illegal mp3's but if the RIAA attacks my network, I will defend it, which includes retaliation. It's the same i'd give to anyone else and I don't know any other person that wouldn't do the same.
However, i'd really love to actually hear from you which p2p clients don't already have limits to prevent everything you just said. If you could name just one that would be great; Thanks.
The users of the software probably won't care and most authors who write software really don't do it for fame or they could just plaster their names all over the software (which I rarely see). Perhaps there is something else motivating people to write software.. for instance.. If I sit down and write a zeroconf enabled server daemon for whatever it's probably because I need it or want to use it. Not for fame, because honestly, I could care less who used the shit so long as it worked for me. The blood, sweat and tears pays off in being able to have zeroconf enabled whatever. If other people can benefit then thats great, if they can help make it better thats another plus and if it helps someone else solve a problem in shorter time or makes their life easier then that's gold right there. Usually you get dumps of email from people thanking you for something you just wanted yourself.. It's great.. You get bored? Feel like moving on?? People who were helping with code tend to take up the slack and so the cycle continues.
If people want to know who wrote the software they'll just look it up. I mean in GUI software there is an "About" dialog that exists solely for info such as stuff in cli utils at the start of the program you can put name of author and email address as most other people do. Or through it into a --help argc or something.
Also the idea of having someones name plastered all over your personal computer doesn't make it feel that personal anymore. A user will just begin to tune the shit out, and if you write shit like BIND or BitchX etc you catch enough flack.
Re:Network transparency *already* is a "plug in"
on
DRI Comes to DirectFB
·
· Score: 1
It's not even worth wasting time.. 75% of Slashdot is filled with people who can't understand the conceptual design of the stuff they speak about. So basically, they don't even understand what you're saying. They like to think abstractly about problems which they know nothing about, hence, the above. As for the the "X is so bloated" comments that never seem to die, they usually come from people like the previously mentioned. Sadly they don't realize that it's akin to the "BSD is finally dead" type of comment.
No. The purpose of the computer should be to on average allow the user to get work done as fast as possible. If -- because the computer stupidly executed a destructive typo -- it destroys a days worth of work, it has completely defeated it's purpose: to allow work to be done faster.
So what you're saying is that the computer shouldn't respond to a command giving to it? You use the word "stupidly" as if the computer can think; until quantum mechanics/physics and energy become everyday run of the mill topics saying something like "because the computer stupidly executed a destructive typo" is a silly statement. The computer didn't make you press the enter key or even thought of inputting a command that would effectively destroy itself. It was the user who stupidly entered that command and the computer will execute it.
Part of the way to resolve this is simply to have more intelligent command-line options. Command line options that perform destructive tasks should use letters that are *physically* *far* appart from the letters used to invoke harmless command-line options.
That sounds interesting to me, but then that also defeats your earlier statement that computers should work faster for the user. Not only that but that's not going to exactly prevent someone from typing a destructive command. "rm" is a destructive command but by itself it does nothing, if you changed that to "~z" and someone typed "~z -rf/" it'd perform the same functionality and sadly the same destruction of ones / partition.
How often is someone going to 'rm -rf/"? Not very often at all. (in fact, in such a scenario, it would probably be more intelligent to simply reformat that partition). But, in 9/10 times where someone types 'rm -rf/boot', they really meant to type 'rm -rf./boot'. Period. Now, wouldn't it make sense to have some way of specifying directories that you *don't* want to delete recursively, and prompting the rm-command to prompt hte user "are you sure" for such important directories? Also, libtrash as a default library to intercept such destructive commands and move things to a trashcan would be good
Yes that would make sense and it wouldn't affect the functionality of rm much. Good idea, you should now take that idea and extend the functionality of "rm" to include an index feature using a simple text file.
Correct. A truly careless user will tend to fuck things up, even if you prompt him "really want to recursively delete entire home directory?" (shorter is better...the longer a message, the less likely the user will read it). However, you can at least put a speedbump along the road to oblivion. It might actually stop a semi-conscious user from deleting all their important info, and save them time. This is good.
Right that's why "rm -i" exist. "Request confirmation before attempting to remove each file, regardless of the file's permissions, or whether or not the standard input device is a terminal. The -i option overrides any previous -f options."
Because the best program that allows the user to get his/her job done the fastest. A program that increases the likelihood that the user will spend 5-10 minutes finding backups and restoring information is bad. Bad, because those 5-10 minutes are wasted. Then the user is pissed off. And his concentration is broken. Odds are, the rest of that users day are going to be unproductive. See "Joel on Software".
"rm" doesn't exactly inhibit the operational time of a user getting their work done. The user does that themselves by using a command like "rm -rf/" when they didn't intend for such operation. If they've typed that without realizing then the user's concentration has already been broken and odds are that they were already being a danger to themselves and others in such an environment especially with root. That's why everyone always recommends use root sparingly and when you do be careful.
When making something, it is simply *bad engineering* to not consider social phenomena. Technically, there would be nothing wrong with a monitor 40 inches wide and 5 inches high. But the monitor is still fucked up crappy design, because people do not have such a wide field of vision.
I'm going to have to agree with the original poster; you've also obviously never engineered anything. I replied to your earlier post about this topic and unless you are releasing something for mass consumption, you as the engineer have no need to worry about the application of safety unless it's going to harm the actual user of the object in question. That's like saying that someone might cut themselves with a butcher knife, all butcher knives should be made dull. The application of such an act would be alot of meat waiting to be cut or maybe a bigger sale at Costco; personal use knives are different, they come with things like "safety covers" to prevent the accidental stabbing or cutting of not only ones self but others.
Two knives, but each with a different usage, one is for the butcher who knows how to use it, who's been trained and knows how to cut meat. It's a statisical certainty that eventually he will cut himself but it's a mistake he needs to learn not to make or he'll lose a finger tip or continue to cut himself. When the pain of cutting oneself resonates he'll make a concerted effort to make sure that when he's cutting meat he's alert and on point. This type of behavior can be seen in other professions eg: doctors, lawyers, engineers who build bridges and buildings, mathemeticians, etc. The home user who uses personal knives for home kitchen personal usage have their knives equipped with a safety cover. However, when they are cutting they also still need to be careful and alert as to not cut themselves.
The users of the knives are different the same correlation can be made with almost any professional utility or item and/or any incident where a mistake causes pain. This is why you don't put your hand on a hot stove or into a vat of nitrogen. By the way a fighter pilot can accidentally press the drop-bomb button at anytime and it's no different. He interactively finds a target and if he's as careless as rm -rf/target he'll also learn to regret and never make that mistake again.
This is why "rm disasters" should really be called "I fucked up disasters" and if you're a good admin you've already planned for yourself fucking up. Eg: backups etc etc etc.
Sadly, there are no such things as rm disasters. You are blurring the distinction between the operation of a computer. If you give the computer a command it should execute it. "rm -rf/" is a command and simply the computer executes it. If you want the computer to ask you before it removes a file I believe "rm -i" is pretty much standard nowadays. User error is user error and not the computers fault, you are free to add checks but it doesn't make the statement made any less true.
As for your comparisons and correlations, those usually don't make sense in the way you describe them simply because Unix or what your mentality of Unix is; isn't what it is. It's cryptic, and difficult to use for a reason, again; you are free to change this but you shouldn't act in a rage of fury because simply in this case you disagree with someones comment about what boils down to a safelock user error check. Not only that but it's already been adressed.
No, who cares? That's like saying wouldn't it be nice to see porsche compete with a family sedan. Porsches are expensive, they aren't all that user friendly and not everyone can drive one; hence they are in a class of their own.
Can someone use the porsche engine and build a userfriendly car at cheaper price that everyone can drive? Yes, that's fine but don't bother the people who've been driving their regular porsches for years.
Thats the problem, with this new influx of user everyone wants open-source to be like something and I feel the original poster would love to continue doing his own thing and not be associated with all the extra hen-pecking from the people with the new porsches beggin for fucking cup holders.
Re:Sysadmin view - could be useful
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
I could sign all binaries that I trust to run with root privileges, and as long as my private key is safe, running unknown binaries as root becomes impossible.
Think about what you are saying for a second, do you know how inconvient and pointless this would be? Which binaries would you sign, that root couldn't change on the fly? Obviously it wouldn't be any of your vital services that might need to be changed, recompiled or upgraded, which is what would be exploited in the first place ie: web,ftp,mail,etc. It wouldn't make root exploits anymore difficult especially if you think that signing a binary is going to prevent a buffer overflow, smashing stacks or any other number of exploits. It would just make your job all the more tedious and for what? Why don't you just sign those same binaries with checksums and run a cron to check for changes, sort of like say maybe an ids. Which is alot more practical than having to recompile the kernel to sign binaries of an upgraded apache bin because you went from 1.3.26 to 1.3.27. It's stupid.. DRM is pretty pointless except for media in which case in works for the author of the media which in most cases will just be the MPAA and the RIAA.
I don't agree fully
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As i'm not one to just jump into the foray of "yes yes, praise the almighty Linus" there is only one valid reason I see use for DRM and that's the binary signing but as it was pointed out it depends on who's doing the signing. The functionality which makes most sense for DRM already exist in the application arena with checksums/md5sums/etcsums and I just don't see how having DRM in the kernel is really going to change much. Maybe, for local networks, private industry inhouse situations where security is end all, be all it'll allow for tighter integration (ie: with hardware) and one less security issue but I mean this is such a small niche that it becomes retarded, again it can be done with software, ids programs etc and it's not like you can't write a module to monitor file checksums etc. Really the same problem exist, who's signing what.
It seems a little redundant to me really and whenever Microsoft talks about DRM they are talking about media as in video, music etc. 90% of people don't check checksums now all of a sudden they are going to start checking who signs their binaries? So here are a couple of questions that remain.
Is DRM really protecting the consumer? Who's going to sign my binaries? ie: Project maintainer? Microsoft? Redhat? If Joe Q Hacker signs my binary what's to stop it from running? I mean in all reality Joe Q User isn't going to check that it's safe or even care. Is this protecting me as the computer user?
Feel free to answer the questions or point me in the direction of some documentation but as of now I think DRM is pretty retarded and is just going to be more stuff I don't waste time compiling, all it does is add another level of exploitation that already exist, this is just spelling it out and making it easier to exploit platforms that use DRM. Also, correct me if i'm wrong.
Heh you didn't need to point it out to him/her I'm sure he/she would of figured it out on his/her own after a while. Guess you can't make assumptions that people know about the subject matter and not take things literally because they can't understand it's context. Today's Slashdot:)
Finally got to read the story:) and all I can say is.
Haha.. "Linux is based on System V" and how the fuck is Apple based on your stuff? Why did Apple pay SCO money?? Aix, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX the companies that own these OS's I can understand but Apple? I'd really love to see proof of this or hear from Apple on this unless it's for SysV compatibility and they were just in cya mode.
For SCO's sake I hope it's not talking about ipc routines. It better be something other than ipc routines, because you'll definitely lose based on that.
I want to read the story but it's already slashdotted. Now the IBM lawsuit earlier I thought was just a big press stunt, but saying that after IBM they'll go after RedHat and SuSe is psychotic. They honestly can't be thinking they'll make it past IBM to begin with and secondly aren't they going after stuff that is GPL'd in the kernel? Which would mean they would HAVE to go after every single person and/or vendor who has compiled and sold the kernel for anything. Regardless of what the judge says should be proper penalties. I'm not a judge or lawyer but I can already see; "What took you so long to address this problem, surely you had a vested interest". I mean Linux did exist before IBM and if you make it past IBM which i'd probably fall over dead at that news but if, infact you do there is just no way you'll be allowed to exist selling "Unix" anymore. If you are an investor and invest in SCO; I'd sell right now before the IBM lawyers decide to rip SCO down to bare nothing, make them go bankrupt and then buy all their shit at an auction to recoup the lawyer fees.
SCO, you will not be missed and I think the place where you once stood will be scorched earth and well deserved. You're terrorists by every definition of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't informative; I tell you what, name me two scenarios that will break as a result of a change like this and I'll retract that statement. Especially considering the fact that in the RFC there is a clear section for Compatibility where it states that older setups simply won't do the check.
It's time a concerted effort is made to prevent spam and this is technologically feasible and sound. There isn't one logical reason I can think of that sending email from anonymous domains or a record without a pointer should be allowed.
From what I've read and from what I practice myself this isn't what I'd necessarily refer to as filtering, it's more along the lines of proper technological behavior or better yet closing an unintended and useless feature that is causing nothing but harm. However, spam can still be sent even after implementing this system. It's just that the record is alot easier to deal with. No admin wants to sit there and go through the trouble of finding out where spam came from, ie: going through mail logs, diggin ripe/arin databases searching for who the ip belongs to, emailing abuse, then the abuse team (if there is one) has to take the time to search for what user was using the dynamic ip at the time. Needless to say alot of ISP's and mom and pop services don't even have in-house systems logging this information because it's just too expensive. All this effort to stop one spammer who'll just switch service, isp or whatever and send you more animated gifs of a young woman sucking on a horse penis and what do you get for your trouble? Nothing, nothing but more horse penis; but this time it's 100% better than the last spam around and maybe if you haven't gone completely insane, a mild headache followed by lots of frustration and an urge to kill.
With the new system implemented a record of where the spam comes from makes it easier for client filtering software to send out automatic messages as the spam is received, etc etc. It'll also cut down on alot of the anonymous/no PTR fly by night spamming.
I think it's a step in the right direction and hope that it becomes standard sooner than later.
Nope. Apache, Ftp servers, mail servers, Most user land apps.. etc etc.. you don't need to reboot. Thats mostly because there is a clear seperation between what a userspace program is and its rights.. and what a system program/daemon is and its rights. There is also nothing like a registry where values are loaded into memory on boot and kept there. It's also not really suprising you don't use Linux or a Unix-like system, i've noticed that the higher the uid on slashdot, the more likely the person in question uses windows. The lower the UID the more OS versatility you begin to notice. I could be talking out of my ass, I don't have a large collection of data sitting around.. just an off the cuff observation.
Hope that answers your question. I don't know anything about XP except that it's a Microsoft product so I won't pretend to make a correlation. If it's good enough for you and you get your work done, then run with it.
Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X and Unix.
Think of Wine as a Windows compatibility layer. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely alternative implementation consisting of 100% Microsoft-free code, but it can optionally use native system DLLs if they are available. Wine provides both a development toolkit (Winelib) for porting Windows sources to Unix and a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows binaries to run on x86-based Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris.
www.winehq.com
Get over yourself and realize that the human brain is not as astounding as you think it is. Yes, it is incredibly powerful.
Now, tell me what the square root of 1,203,312 is. Oh, you're using a calculator. Something with a 6 mhz Z80 and 24K of ram is "more powerful" than your brain.
I can't, but there are people out there that can do it faster than a computer. You see the brain is a highly dynamic signal based system in every human. Just because I can't doesn't mean another can't. This is why I don't understand how you would even make this statement when the amount known about the human brain is less than what is known about anything else in science and it's actually tangible and here infront of us.
You obviously have no idea how much processing power the brain has because as you typed that message your brain was doing many things at once in real time that a computer could never do or come close to (all of your senses were active, including things you take for granted such a spatial recognition and the actual understanding to reply to what I wrote with what you wrote above; heh) I mean if that's not computational and processing intensive NOTHING is.
Sure I can input numbers at a computer and have it output something back based on an algorithim in nanoseconds. You can do the same with the brain, of course we just haven't figured out how. Again; the brain is so dynamic between the closest of kin that it'll be a very long time before it's mapped. We aren't even near breaking the surface of what it can actually do. Feel free to search google for people who can do this. I'd try to find some links but i'm confident enough they exist or you can pick up American Scientist or a medical journal online and search for "brain patients".
Of course it isn't. But your brain doesn't work like a computer. And your computer doesn't work like a brain.
Your brain is good at learning and recognizing patterns. A computer is good at churning out millions of raw computations per second. It's like comparing a blender to a toaster: yes, the toaster toasts almost infinately better than a blender. And the blender blends almost infinately better than a toaster.
The brain is a signal based organ, it is nothing more than a highly sophiscated tool which can do computation and processing of what we would call our real life surroundings. It takes the input from these surroundings and understands them and our body produces whatever response or output required at the time. It feels no pain as the nerves hold no pain receptors, this is why you don't see people screaming in pain as their brain is destroyed from a degenerative disease.
A computer is a signal based machine, it does computation and processing in an environment we assign to it. It takes the input from a human brain and outputs whatever tasked assigned to it. It feels no pain as it can't even understand pain or the concept of sense.
They operate on the same premise to interpret and make work easier. They are different in the fact that one is inherently dumb and unsophiscated and the other has been tuned by nature over a very long period, tuned and honed is highly sophiscated and learning. Not only the brain of humans but also the brains of things like dolphins, so on and so forth.
If our brains were only good at learning and recognizing patterns then we'd be ant's, it does learning, recognizing patterns, sense, spatial recognition, operates on extremely low power, is dynamic in every human individual, allows for all the senses to even exist, emotion, has record collection etc etc etc etc.
Isn't the whole point of this thread AI? Aren't we supposed to be trying to get the computer to singularity? Are you saying that it isn't possible? That computers and brains are so different that it's like comparing a toaster and blender, items which do two different things no where along the lines of even utility to each other?
Lastly, if the brain is not astounding as to it's operation then I don't know what is. Heh, we can barely recreate the muscles of the body. With that, would you have me get over myself now? Or later?
No machine, algorithim or other man made item has anything close to the processing power of a human brain, not now or into the forseeable future. The idea of AI has never been about software as the concept is quite simple even in practice. The issue has always been about hardware; the hardware gets faster but it's still no where near fast enough to compete with anything other than a small toddler; feed it too much information and it becomes slower, infact it starts to retard after a certain stage, which makes it useless in the holy grail sense.
So i'll have to disagree that the problem is software, technically if you had infinite processing power you could have something that resembles a human with nothing more than time. Infact if such processing power existed, the time it took such a system to learn would be shorter than that of a human. Especially if it was receiving verfied factual input on a consistent basis, it'd also be nice if it had an everlasting memory which means it would remember something 65 years from now as if it just learned it.
Alot of people play with this same idea in there head day in and day out. Personally, I believe the answer is somewhere between adopting a brain for processing usage and using quantum mechanics to come to the "singularity". This could be right around the corner, or it could be years away it all depends on where the money is spent. Personally robots are a step but not in the right direction because they simply don't address the problem.
Lets say you have your cable modem and you enter and execute the command "host xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx" where the xxx octects are filled with your ip number. What is returned is the PTR to that ip which would be your domain name assigned to that ip, which probably looks something like cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net.
This record/entry can be changed by your ISP if you request it, so instead of cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net they could point it to something like machine.yourowndomain.com. There are several ISP's that allow this and several more that don't. The ISP owns the ip's, if you have a static ip you should have no problem requesting this as it's static and never changing and you essentially own it. Dynamic is different as you don't own any of the ips, they are obviously changing (even if yours never changes) and the ISP has one less thing to deal with.
Now a mail server should always have a MX record (Mail Exchange record) when you enter a MX record into your DNS config for whatever (bind,tinydns,etc) that MX record should have a pointer regardless of what you call it. Some people simply don't have this as to evade reverse lookups on their ip's. It doesn't really stop one from looking up where a block of ip's belongs to and starting to investigate from there but it's quite annoying. The only other logical reason that exists it just a poor setup on the DNS administrators part. Alot of people setting up DNS don't take the time to understand what exactly they are doing, they also don't take the time to implement it correctly or understand that an A record and PTR record can't be used interchangeably and that things like a CNAME record should be used sparingly. So just like your ip which is mapped to a machine that has a pointer to cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net, mail servers should have the same because they are nothing but machines, quick example. If you ran a mail server your reverse would be cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net. When mail is sent to my mail server my server says ok, lets reverse lookup what machine this is coming from; oh?? you don't have a PTR record?? sorry, I cannot accept mail from you because you're an anonymous machine. If you have a PTR my mail server looks it up and says OK cablemodemxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.isp.net you are now free to send mail to whatever domains you have access to from here.
I hope this helps. I recommend the Oreilly book DNS and BIND for an understanding of the Domain Name System as well as reading newsgroups, mailing list and anything else you can get your hands on. I don't recommend you use BIND as a DNS server for it's lack of security and bloat. However I do recommend you use an alternative which you should investigate on your own. Personally I use Tinydns which is apart of the DjbDNS package.
That doesn't matter.. even dynamic ip's have ptr records assigned by ISP for whatever block. I didn't say I block mail based on isp just if it doesnt' have a reverse pointer so I don't know what 1 ip address really has to do with it. 1,2,200 it doesn't matter.
One has sex with children, One illegally penetrates networks against their own will. Which obviously leaves the network in question psychologically damaged and physically harmed. Not to mention the black hat didn't give the network a choice, took away it's freedoms and civil liberties as a human bei....
Seriously
If one replaced "black hat" with 'pedophile" in the above post, would the argument still hold water?
Obviously not, the two commit two different crimes affecting two different things. One affects a computer network at the most, maybe gives someone a headache or a longer working day. Eventually things get cleaned up.
One affects the LIFE; approximately 70-75 years of a human being, damages their psyche and generally makes it harder on them in relationships they have with people. They can overcome this but it'll always be suspect as a memory even when they themselves have children., if that ever happens. Some don't overcome it and they themselves become pedophiles and the cycle continues.
I don't even know how you got to the point where you could correlate the two. However I got this detailed to point out that one of these people can walk away with 2 years probation and one of them can be jailed for 20-35 years. I'll let you figure that part out.
You should have a reverse DNS PTR entry for all your mail servers. You don't have to follow the RFC but then you wouldn't be following standard behavior. In this case it's a good standard behavior to follow so I don't see why people don't follow it. My mail servers will not accept mail if there is no reverse DNS entry, if I can't hold the admin of that mailserver responsible for sending me UCE or for any other problems that might cause me time and headache why bother accepting the mail in the first place. One less headache for me.
This concept is lost amongst many here, it seems the Ease-of-Use people seem to think that a user can't simply enter a password to install a program, or to make changes to their system. Surely it's inconvient if you're doing many programs but this has also been solved by allowing the user to authenticate themselves once. Mac OS X does this Redhat does this and Microsoft does this now. I'm sure many other alternative operating systems are starting to adopt this method. For Lindows to run as root in this day and age is pretty silly and I agree; when that dog comes to bite, it's going to bite hard. Thankfully it'll only affect Lindows users, as everyone else will have a fence up. From a business perspective as well as a security perspective, it's really a horrible decision and the answer supplied is even worst.
No, the only people that call "X" X-Windows, are people who don't know that X is a Window System. I don't know who started the X-Windows thing but don't repeat it.
So in summary, what you're saying is, one, that the RIAA has the right to scan a computer for copyrighted material. Two, not verify if that copyrighted material is owned by the person in question whether or not it's on a p2p network and three, physically remove those files from that persons physical disk?
Lastly, I'd point out that almost every one of these countermeasures against RIAA's measures WOULD be pretty convincing evidence of the real intent of these P2P networks.
I don't have any mp3's that can be scanned for by the RIAA presumably. However, i do plan on ripping my cd's in to ogg most likely in the near future as it's becoming bothersome to look for a certain CD I want to listen to. If the RIAA attacks my network, scans it or does anything else considered hostile internet activity. I will do everything in my power to avoid and counter.
As for P2P networks there are plenty of legal uses for them, you allude to banning P2P networks because people are using them to infringe on IP easily. I won't justify that with a response, it's too silly to even fathom. Consumers who illegally steal music, no one could ever support but then I can't support the RIAA who's stole from the consumers either. Which leads to the idea that at the end of the day the consumer makes the choice. If they've been abused by a company and then choose to steal rather than supporting that company. Said company/industry/people/persons need to look at the situation and go about fixing it in a manner that doesn't tread on anyone but the thieves. If it affects me as an innocent, my retaliation and outrage will be legal and just.
As it stands the RIAA has painted themselves into a corner and I won't be giving up my rights so they can play net police.
How did this get modded up? As interesting? It should be +1 Funny.
Such an attack need not be any more invasive than merely preventing further downloads, i.e., it wouldn't consume more bandwidth than a single download, it wouldn't affect other users at that user's ISP, it wouldn't infect the person's computer, and so on. One such way that I might impliment such an attack (though ultimately defeatable) would be to consume all that's person's download queues by slowly downloading with numerous cooperating (fake) clients or maybe an (extremely low volume) SYN attack on that filesharing port or maybe leaching said files as fast as possible to soak up their bandwidth (nothing they're not already offering).
That is a poor implementation and if that's all you can think of you will not be hired by the RIAA or script kid of the week even. People can set the amount of traffic an upload uses, they can set the amount of download traffic. DOS'n their IP's is illegal and any script kid can write an add on for their favorite p2p client to uses the resources of a determined amount of clients returning the favor 2000 times fold. So you'd have to find a situation where you've got a block of random ip's to choose from.. all from a different block to prevent the last situation from occuring. I've thought about it myself for a while and came to the conclusion that the RIAA can either hire someone to implement stuff that isn't going to work or hire someone to setup their new online service. The only other option is for them to continue to fight a loosing battle. There will always be piracy one way or another, in it's current form and before p2p existed people where selling copied CD's on the street, before that it was tape, before that it was people trading vinyl (all of which still occur). Now that P2P is here it's even worst but the it seems with Apple's new introduction of an online service that the RIAA will no longer exist in the future as the company they are now. I'm not an investor but if I was i'd be looking to other venues to place my money.
With this announcement I can see they are going down the wrong path. I don't trade illegal mp3's but if the RIAA attacks my network, I will defend it, which includes retaliation. It's the same i'd give to anyone else and I don't know any other person that wouldn't do the same.
However, i'd really love to actually hear from you which p2p clients don't already have limits to prevent everything you just said. If you could name just one that would be great; Thanks.
The users of the software probably won't care and most authors who write software really don't do it for fame or they could just plaster their names all over the software (which I rarely see). Perhaps there is something else motivating people to write software.. for instance.. If I sit down and write a zeroconf enabled server daemon for whatever it's probably because I need it or want to use it. Not for fame, because honestly, I could care less who used the shit so long as it worked for me. The blood, sweat and tears pays off in being able to have zeroconf enabled whatever. If other people can benefit then thats great, if they can help make it better thats another plus and if it helps someone else solve a problem in shorter time or makes their life easier then that's gold right there. Usually you get dumps of email from people thanking you for something you just wanted yourself.. It's great.. You get bored? Feel like moving on?? People who were helping with code tend to take up the slack and so the cycle continues.
If people want to know who wrote the software they'll just look it up. I mean in GUI software there is an "About" dialog that exists solely for info such as stuff in cli utils at the start of the program you can put name of author and email address as most other people do. Or through it into a --help argc or something.
Also the idea of having someones name plastered all over your personal computer doesn't make it feel that personal anymore. A user will just begin to tune the shit out, and if you write shit like BIND or BitchX etc you catch enough flack.
It's not even worth wasting time.. 75% of Slashdot is filled with people who can't understand the conceptual design of the stuff they speak about. So basically, they don't even understand what you're saying. They like to think abstractly about problems which they know nothing about, hence, the above. As for the the "X is so bloated" comments that never seem to die, they usually come from people like the previously mentioned. Sadly they don't realize that it's akin to the "BSD is finally dead" type of comment.
No. The purpose of the computer should be to on average allow the user to get work done as fast as possible. If -- because the computer stupidly executed a destructive typo -- it destroys a days worth of work, it has completely defeated it's purpose: to allow work to be done faster.
/" it'd perform the same functionality and sadly the same destruction of ones / partition.
/"? Not very often at all. (in fact, in such a scenario, it would probably be more intelligent to simply reformat that partition). But, in 9/10 times where someone types 'rm -rf /boot', they really meant to type 'rm -rf ./boot'. Period. Now, wouldn't it make sense to have some way of specifying directories that you *don't* want to delete recursively, and prompting the rm-command to prompt hte user "are you sure" for such important directories? Also, libtrash as a default library to intercept such destructive commands and move things to a trashcan would be good
/" when they didn't intend for such operation. If they've typed that without realizing then the user's concentration has already been broken and odds are that they were already being a danger to themselves and others in such an environment especially with root. That's why everyone always recommends use root sparingly and when you do be careful.
So what you're saying is that the computer shouldn't respond to a command giving to it? You use the word "stupidly" as if the computer can think; until quantum mechanics/physics and energy become everyday run of the mill topics saying something like "because the computer stupidly executed a destructive typo" is a silly statement. The computer didn't make you press the enter key or even thought of inputting a command that would effectively destroy itself. It was the user who stupidly entered that command and the computer will execute it.
Part of the way to resolve this is simply to have more intelligent command-line options. Command line options that perform destructive tasks should use letters that are *physically* *far* appart from the letters used to invoke harmless command-line options.
That sounds interesting to me, but then that also defeats your earlier statement that computers should work faster for the user. Not only that but that's not going to exactly prevent someone from typing a destructive command. "rm" is a destructive command but by itself it does nothing, if you changed that to "~z" and someone typed "~z -rf
How often is someone going to 'rm -rf
Yes that would make sense and it wouldn't affect the functionality of rm much. Good idea, you should now take that idea and extend the functionality of "rm" to include an index feature using a simple text file.
Correct. A truly careless user will tend to fuck things up, even if you prompt him "really want to recursively delete entire home directory?" (shorter is better...the longer a message, the less likely the user will read it). However, you can at least put a speedbump along the road to oblivion. It might actually stop a semi-conscious user from deleting all their important info, and save them time. This is good.
Right that's why "rm -i" exist. "Request confirmation before attempting to remove each file, regardless of the file's permissions, or whether or not the standard input device is a terminal. The -i option overrides any previous -f options."
Because the best program that allows the user to get his/her job done the fastest. A program that increases the likelihood that the user will spend 5-10 minutes finding backups and restoring information is bad. Bad, because those 5-10 minutes are wasted. Then the user is pissed off. And his concentration is broken. Odds are, the rest of that users day are going to be unproductive. See "Joel on Software".
"rm" doesn't exactly inhibit the operational time of a user getting their work done. The user does that themselves by using a command like "rm -rf
When making something, it is simply *bad engineering* to not consider social phenomena. Technically, there would be nothing wrong with a monitor 40 inches wide and 5 inches high. But the monitor is still fucked up crappy design, because people do not have such a wide field of vision.
/target he'll also learn to regret and never make that mistake again.
I'm going to have to agree with the original poster; you've also obviously never engineered anything. I replied to your earlier post about this topic and unless you are releasing something for mass consumption, you as the engineer have no need to worry about the application of safety unless it's going to harm the actual user of the object in question. That's like saying that someone might cut themselves with a butcher knife, all butcher knives should be made dull. The application of such an act would be alot of meat waiting to be cut or maybe a bigger sale at Costco; personal use knives are different, they come with things like "safety covers" to prevent the accidental stabbing or cutting of not only ones self but others.
Two knives, but each with a different usage, one is for the butcher who knows how to use it, who's been trained and knows how to cut meat. It's a statisical certainty that eventually he will cut himself but it's a mistake he needs to learn not to make or he'll lose a finger tip or continue to cut himself. When the pain of cutting oneself resonates he'll make a concerted effort to make sure that when he's cutting meat he's alert and on point. This type of behavior can be seen in other professions eg: doctors, lawyers, engineers who build bridges and buildings, mathemeticians, etc. The home user who uses personal knives for home kitchen personal usage have their knives equipped with a safety cover. However, when they are cutting they also still need to be careful and alert as to not cut themselves.
The users of the knives are different the same correlation can be made with almost any professional utility or item and/or any incident where a mistake causes pain. This is why you don't put your hand on a hot stove or into a vat of nitrogen. By the way a fighter pilot can accidentally press the drop-bomb button at anytime and it's no different. He interactively finds a target and if he's as careless as rm -rf
This is why "rm disasters" should really be called "I fucked up disasters" and if you're a good admin you've already planned for yourself fucking up. Eg: backups etc etc etc.
Sadly, there are no such things as rm disasters. You are blurring the distinction between the operation of a computer. If you give the computer a command it should execute it. "rm -rf /" is a command and simply the computer executes it. If you want the computer to ask you before it removes a file I believe "rm -i" is pretty much standard nowadays. User error is user error and not the computers fault, you are free to add checks but it doesn't make the statement made any less true.
As for your comparisons and correlations, those usually don't make sense in the way you describe them simply because Unix or what your mentality of Unix is; isn't what it is. It's cryptic, and difficult to use for a reason, again; you are free to change this but you shouldn't act in a rage of fury because simply in this case you disagree with someones comment about what boils down to a safelock user error check. Not only that but it's already been adressed.
No, who cares? That's like saying wouldn't it be nice to see porsche compete with a family sedan. Porsches are expensive, they aren't all that user friendly and not everyone can drive one; hence they are in a class of their own.
Can someone use the porsche engine and build a userfriendly car at cheaper price that everyone can drive? Yes, that's fine but don't bother the people who've been driving their regular porsches for years.
Thats the problem, with this new influx of user everyone wants open-source to be like something and I feel the original poster would love to continue doing his own thing and not be associated with all the extra hen-pecking from the people with the new porsches beggin for fucking cup holders.
I could sign all binaries that I trust to run with root privileges, and as long as my private key is safe, running unknown binaries as root becomes impossible.
Think about what you are saying for a second, do you know how inconvient and pointless this would be? Which binaries would you sign, that root couldn't change on the fly? Obviously it wouldn't be any of your vital services that might need to be changed, recompiled or upgraded, which is what would be exploited in the first place ie: web,ftp,mail,etc. It wouldn't make root exploits anymore difficult especially if you think that signing a binary is going to prevent a buffer overflow, smashing stacks or any other number of exploits. It would just make your job all the more tedious and for what? Why don't you just sign those same binaries with checksums and run a cron to check for changes, sort of like say maybe an ids. Which is alot more practical than having to recompile the kernel to sign binaries of an upgraded apache bin because you went from 1.3.26 to 1.3.27. It's stupid.. DRM is pretty pointless except for media in which case in works for the author of the media which in most cases will just be the MPAA and the RIAA.
As i'm not one to just jump into the foray of "yes yes, praise the almighty Linus" there is only one valid reason I see use for DRM and that's the binary signing but as it was pointed out it depends on who's doing the signing. The functionality which makes most sense for DRM already exist in the application arena with checksums/md5sums/etcsums and I just don't see how having DRM in the kernel is really going to change much. Maybe, for local networks, private industry inhouse situations where security is end all, be all it'll allow for tighter integration (ie: with hardware) and one less security issue but I mean this is such a small niche that it becomes retarded, again it can be done with software, ids programs etc and it's not like you can't write a module to monitor file checksums etc. Really the same problem exist, who's signing what.
It seems a little redundant to me really and whenever Microsoft talks about DRM they are talking about media as in video, music etc. 90% of people don't check checksums now all of a sudden they are going to start checking who signs their binaries? So here are a couple of questions that remain.
Is DRM really protecting the consumer?
Who's going to sign my binaries? ie: Project maintainer? Microsoft? Redhat?
If Joe Q Hacker signs my binary what's to stop it from running? I mean in all reality Joe Q User isn't going to check that it's safe or even care.
Is this protecting me as the computer user?
Feel free to answer the questions or point me in the direction of some documentation but as of now I think DRM is pretty retarded and is just going to be more stuff I don't waste time compiling, all it does is add another level of exploitation that already exist, this is just spelling it out and making it easier to exploit platforms that use DRM. Also, correct me if i'm wrong.
Heh you didn't need to point it out to him/her I'm sure he/she would of figured it out on his/her own after a while. Guess you can't make assumptions that people know about the subject matter and not take things literally because they can't understand it's context. Today's Slashdot :)
Finally got to read the story :) and all I can say is.
:)
Haha.. "Linux is based on System V" and how the fuck is Apple based on your stuff? Why did Apple pay SCO money?? Aix, Solaris, Irix, HP-UX the companies that own these OS's I can understand but Apple? I'd really love to see proof of this or hear from Apple on this unless it's for SysV compatibility and they were just in cya mode.
For SCO's sake I hope it's not talking about ipc routines. It better be something other than ipc routines, because you'll definitely lose based on that.
Jeezsus I can't wait for this to unfold
I want to read the story but it's already slashdotted. Now the IBM lawsuit earlier I thought was just a big press stunt, but saying that after IBM they'll go after RedHat and SuSe is psychotic. They honestly can't be thinking they'll make it past IBM to begin with and secondly aren't they going after stuff that is GPL'd in the kernel? Which would mean they would HAVE to go after every single person and/or vendor who has compiled and sold the kernel for anything. Regardless of what the judge says should be proper penalties. I'm not a judge or lawyer but I can already see; "What took you so long to address this problem, surely you had a vested interest". I mean Linux did exist before IBM and if you make it past IBM which i'd probably fall over dead at that news but if, infact you do there is just no way you'll be allowed to exist selling "Unix" anymore. If you are an investor and invest in SCO; I'd sell right now before the IBM lawyers decide to rip SCO down to bare nothing, make them go bankrupt and then buy all their shit at an auction to recoup the lawyer fees.
SCO, you will not be missed and I think the place where you once stood will be scorched earth and well deserved. You're terrorists by every definition of the word.