I would assume the networking guys at IBM and GE know their shit a lot better than I do. Either way it's ICANN policy that underestimated the demand for IPs when it was first concieved that's the problem, not corporate greed.
easy there killer, you can put the tinfoil hat away for now. I don't think there are (m)any companies that actually NEED 16.5 million IPs, but that's the way things were set up and why we need to move to IPv6. IP space was first come first server so i can see most of those companies being involved in the internet early on enough to get them. GE and Ford definitely have extremely large global IT infrastructures and would definitely be using more IPs than Apple.
moving entire class ranges you control is one thing, that's the way it's supposed to work. this company wants to take the IPs the ISP let them use as part of the service contract and move them somewhere else. that would be very bad because 1 the ISP isn't allowed to do that by their contract with Arin and 2 because the addresses are part of a larger class, so it would break internet routing.
this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want. It's been their longterm goal for a while now. They've got a whole site dedicated to it. companies want control and security so AOL is trying to get them to buy stuff like encryption, identity verification, domained screen names, and i think they've got a version of aim that allows network admins to control who talks to who and logs conversations. everyone is familiar with their basic product so it allows them to make a pretty good pitch once they add in the extras.
*LOGICAL FALACY ALERT*
"i recieved more spam from them this week" does not translate into "they sent more spam". it is entirely possible for their spam numbers to go down and yours to go up, that just means someone else got 40% less spam from them this week.
In theory that's the way it should be. In practice (at lest where I am) university IT departments isolate themselves from the CS departments. There certainly is a lot of communication between the two but the priorities of the two groups are markedly different. generally if you asked for a plan from both groups the academics would give you a design that was implemented as much to standard as possible using the best of what's out there while the IT department would be a lot more focused on the bottom line and would most likely cut a few corners.
There's also a quite a bit of ego clashing because some of the CS profs feel that they could do a better job if they were in charge, and a few of them could be right about that.
well that means that the problem really isn't on the software end of things as the user end. if someone doesn't know what the hell they're and goes through the installer turning everything on, of course it's going to be slow. a ton of the responses here have some great tips on trimming the fat but it seems like the best ideas are the most complicated. a red hat install in my experience is way easier than a debian install, but the debian install is way more tweakable. the formula ends up being performance = 1/difficulty of set up
I took the AP exam when it was C++ and the only credit i ended up getting was a buisness programming class. The CS departments aren't going to give you much credit for the exam unless everyone's required to take an intro to programming freshman year or something like that. The stuff covered in the AP test is pretty much amounts to learn the language and get a broad overview of some important topics. once you get to school they cover everything in a lot more depth. it's definitely good experience but don't think that you're going to be getting out of any useful classes if you're a CS or Computer Engineering major.
a fun tidbit about Eiffel, because one of the teachers at my school loves it: when you compile Eiffel code, it compiles into C++ and then into assembly, so there's nothing Eiffel has over C++ other than another layer of abstraction and a longer compile time.
it's worth noting too that the actual performance numbers for gigabit on a desktop are still around 300Mbit/s in optimal conditions thanks to the PCI bus on most computers. so while you may be able to brag about how fast your network is, you'll be wasting a lot of bandwith.
you know if you're going to be a grammar nazi, you should at least know what you're talking about
an article about how wonderful open source security is following one about how superior closed source security is wouldn't be ironic because one could see it as a reasonable next occurance and could possibly be expected. the last thing most people would expect would be to see that the world's most well known piece of closed source software had a code leak and is now less closed; situational irony.
i think my analogy in context of its parent makes sense. the parent sound like the mere act of viewing the code forever infects you with microsoft code and you can never make any contributions to any open source project ever again (talk about viral). obviously copying code from windows into linux would be a big no no, but to just looking at it does nothing.
to further my analogy a little bit, say a beatles song uses a C G D chord progression and i've written a song using the same progression i'm still safe even if i know that i'm using the same chord progression so long as i didn't take it from the beatles. i could either have come up with it on my own messing around or been shown it elsewhere.
The fact is that all OS's are vulnerable to the same types of attacks. It has nothing to do with open vs. closed source and everything to do with bad programing. Sure it's easy for a hacker to poke through open source code and look for unchecked buffers to launch attacks at but then again a white hat could just as easily pick that up and fix it. With closed source software, while it may be tricker to figure out where the unchecked buffers are, there are going to be fewer goodguys looking for them.
The real problem is that we test software to make sure it does what it's supposed to do while hackers look for where the software does what it's not supposed to do. That's why the hackers are always one step ahead because we're looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
Re:When Will they Learn
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 1
hate to respond to my own post but a small correction. they didn't sign a contract with SCO, they signed it with AT&T but SCO is now in control of the contract after it changed hands several times
Re:When Will they Learn
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 4, Informative
ah but they're not suing over code similarities anymore. they're suing because they see AIX and dynix as "derivative works" of SysV, which they are, but then SCO concludes (and it seems overreachingly) that therefore every line of code in AIX and dynix are "derivative works" of SysV as well. the suit is now about whether or not IBM violated the contract they signed with SCO by distributing publicly "derivative work" code.
just posted over at groklaw
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
it appears Novell has just torpedoed SCO's newest acusations against IBM. here's the letter they sent SCO waiving the claim to any Sequent developed code that touched SysV. Since Novell already waived the claim to IBM code, there's not a lot left for SCO to stand on.
if you go the ROTC route, you also will have to take some extra courses, pass physicals, and fitness tests throughout your time at school. then after you graduate you've obligated yourself to service for something like 5 years in exchange for the government footing the bill for your education. you'll also start with a higher rank then if you just enlisted and if you're tech inclined you'd most likely not see the front lines as your skills would make you more valuable elsewhere.
(note:i'm not in ROTC myself but a lot of my friends are)
Slashdot Mirror
I would assume the networking guys at IBM and GE know their shit a lot better than I do. Either way it's ICANN policy that underestimated the demand for IPs when it was first concieved that's the problem, not corporate greed.
easy there killer, you can put the tinfoil hat away for now. I don't think there are (m)any companies that actually NEED 16.5 million IPs, but that's the way things were set up and why we need to move to IPv6. IP space was first come first server so i can see most of those companies being involved in the internet early on enough to get them. GE and Ford definitely have extremely large global IT infrastructures and would definitely be using more IPs than Apple.
moving entire class ranges you control is one thing, that's the way it's supposed to work. this company wants to take the IPs the ISP let them use as part of the service contract and move them somewhere else. that would be very bad because 1 the ISP isn't allowed to do that by their contract with Arin and 2 because the addresses are part of a larger class, so it would break internet routing.
well, he can have the IP if he really wants it, it won't do him a damn bit of good if no one routes packets to him
I think it's only tuesdays because that's when they release the next batch of overpriced filth onto the market.
seriously, i'm at Notre Dame and most of the time i feel like i'm the only american in the engineering building this summer
this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want. It's been their longterm goal for a while now. They've got a whole site dedicated to it. companies want control and security so AOL is trying to get them to buy stuff like encryption, identity verification, domained screen names, and i think they've got a version of aim that allows network admins to control who talks to who and logs conversations. everyone is familiar with their basic product so it allows them to make a pretty good pitch once they add in the extras.
*LOGICAL FALACY ALERT* "i recieved more spam from them this week" does not translate into "they sent more spam". it is entirely possible for their spam numbers to go down and yours to go up, that just means someone else got 40% less spam from them this week.
In theory that's the way it should be. In practice (at lest where I am) university IT departments isolate themselves from the CS departments. There certainly is a lot of communication between the two but the priorities of the two groups are markedly different. generally if you asked for a plan from both groups the academics would give you a design that was implemented as much to standard as possible using the best of what's out there while the IT department would be a lot more focused on the bottom line and would most likely cut a few corners.
There's also a quite a bit of ego clashing because some of the CS profs feel that they could do a better job if they were in charge, and a few of them could be right about that.
well that means that the problem really isn't on the software end of things as the user end. if someone doesn't know what the hell they're and goes through the installer turning everything on, of course it's going to be slow. a ton of the responses here have some great tips on trimming the fat but it seems like the best ideas are the most complicated. a red hat install in my experience is way easier than a debian install, but the debian install is way more tweakable. the formula ends up being performance = 1/difficulty of set up
I took the AP exam when it was C++ and the only credit i ended up getting was a buisness programming class. The CS departments aren't going to give you much credit for the exam unless everyone's required to take an intro to programming freshman year or something like that. The stuff covered in the AP test is pretty much amounts to learn the language and get a broad overview of some important topics. once you get to school they cover everything in a lot more depth. it's definitely good experience but don't think that you're going to be getting out of any useful classes if you're a CS or Computer Engineering major.
a fun tidbit about Eiffel, because one of the teachers at my school loves it: when you compile Eiffel code, it compiles into C++ and then into assembly, so there's nothing Eiffel has over C++ other than another layer of abstraction and a longer compile time.
it's worth noting too that the actual performance numbers for gigabit on a desktop are still around 300Mbit/s in optimal conditions thanks to the PCI bus on most computers. so while you may be able to brag about how fast your network is, you'll be wasting a lot of bandwith.
i wouldn't say that. they're just going after the people who are the easiest targets to find and who are the most likely to cough up the money.
you know if you're going to be a grammar nazi, you should at least know what you're talking about
an article about how wonderful open source security is following one about how superior closed source security is wouldn't be ironic because one could see it as a reasonable next occurance and could possibly be expected. the last thing most people would expect would be to see that the world's most well known piece of closed source software had a code leak and is now less closed; situational irony.
to further my analogy a little bit, say a beatles song uses a C G D chord progression and i've written a song using the same progression i'm still safe even if i know that i'm using the same chord progression so long as i didn't take it from the beatles. i could either have come up with it on my own messing around or been shown it elsewhere.
oh take off the tinfoil hat already.
that's like saying the beatles can sue every musician who ever listened to them for copyright infringement
right after a story that was about open vs. closed source
The fact is that all OS's are vulnerable to the same types of attacks. It has nothing to do with open vs. closed source and everything to do with bad programing. Sure it's easy for a hacker to poke through open source code and look for unchecked buffers to launch attacks at but then again a white hat could just as easily pick that up and fix it. With closed source software, while it may be tricker to figure out where the unchecked buffers are, there are going to be fewer goodguys looking for them.
The real problem is that we test software to make sure it does what it's supposed to do while hackers look for where the software does what it's not supposed to do. That's why the hackers are always one step ahead because we're looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
hate to respond to my own post but a small correction. they didn't sign a contract with SCO, they signed it with AT&T but SCO is now in control of the contract after it changed hands several times
ah but they're not suing over code similarities anymore. they're suing because they see AIX and dynix as "derivative works" of SysV, which they are, but then SCO concludes (and it seems overreachingly) that therefore every line of code in AIX and dynix are "derivative works" of SysV as well. the suit is now about whether or not IBM violated the contract they signed with SCO by distributing publicly "derivative work" code.
it appears Novell has just torpedoed SCO's newest acusations against IBM. here's the letter they sent SCO waiving the claim to any Sequent developed code that touched SysV. Since Novell already waived the claim to IBM code, there's not a lot left for SCO to stand on.
and then he promptly shoestrung the budget for it...
MS Paint anyone?
(note:i'm not in ROTC myself but a lot of my friends are)