No, I don't think so. Proving P=NP just means that some polynomial-time algorithm exists to solve any problem that can be verified by a polynomial-time algorithm. It doesn't necessarily tell you how to find such an algorithm,
I'm just saying this attitude of "Only tech people can possibly understand," is extremely arrogant.
It's also bad engineering. If the system is so fragile that you're the only one who can work on it, then you're doing a bad job. What if you get hit by a bus? What if you decide to quit so you can accept your dream job? Whatever you build should be (at least mostly) maintainable by any other average practitioner with similar credentials.
I think that was the case in the U.K., but not in the U.S.
Re:IBM PCs compared extremely poorly with Amigas
on
The Amiga Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
That way, one could run a el-cheapo at home, using the same software and hardware as the official IBM, with whatever support agreement the workplace had with IBM and so on, at work.
What parts of it do you actually use? I've had no luck with it at all.
I manage a couple of OS X Servers for two different offices of about 4-8 workstations each (nothing fancy), and I can't recommend it to anybody, ever. It just spontaneously breaks for no reason if we don't reboot it on a regular basis, and there are many documented features (PPTP VPN, mailing lists, and email virtual domains, to name a few) that just don't work out of the box.
If something does work out of the box, OS X updates break it. The wiki server just stopped authenticating some users after the 10.6.4 upgrade. Solution? Dig around on the Apple forums, where on the second or third page of a long discussion, somebody mentions that you have to shut down the wiki server, delete some index file, and start it up again. WTF?
In other words, I end up having to mess with command line stuff that's much more obscure and poorly documented than anything on a decent Linux distro. Also, it makes me look like an incompetent buffoon, because everyone "knows" that Apple stuff doesn't break.
And it's not the hardware. I've observed the same behaviour across different hardware, with different installation media, on different networks, across both 10.5 and 10.6.
Okay, I used to use BitTorrent for downloading Linux and a bunch of other things, rather than downloading directly from mirrors. Do you know why I don't know? Because Bell Canada throttles BitTorrent traffic, but not plain HTTP and FTP traffic.
Those bastards broke legitimate uses of BitTorrent, and now they complain that only pirates use it.
If your bug is so big that you can't fix it in 60 days, then you need to drop the secrecy anyway so that the rest of the world can help you fix it (or work around the fact that you can't).
Remember that these bugs are things that shouldn't exist in the first place.
I'm sure a lot of people here will lament that 60 days is way too long to release a fix for most vulnerabilities, and I think that's true. On the other hand, it's probably a "reasonable upper bound" for very complex problems like the TLS session re-negotiation vulnerability, which required coordination between multiple vendors and the IETF in order to fix.
In other words, if you think you should get a 60-day head start to fix a security bug, your bug had better be at least as complex as CVE-2009-3555.
IPv4 has almost 256^4 or around 4 billion IP's that's almost one IP per person on the planet and plenty to last a *LONG* time.
Now all we need to do is to replace all the routers on the Internet with ones that can manage 4 billion routing table entries. Wanna bet that IPv6 will be cheaper?
Aunt Myrtle is irrelevant here. She's just going to drop a black box in between her computer and the Internet. That box will be designed by people with enough know-how to build a stateful firewall.
Seriously, NAT is effectively a huge tax on developing new Internet applications. Instead of just opening a connection to whatever node you want to talk to on the network, you have to implement complex protocols that provide no benefit other than their ability to work around NAT. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I don't think so. Proving P=NP just means that some polynomial-time algorithm exists to solve any problem that can be verified by a polynomial-time algorithm. It doesn't necessarily tell you how to find such an algorithm,
We'll know that P != NP if it takes us less time to verify the proof as it took him to generate it.
It can be management's fault that bad engineering occurs. I'm not assigning blame, I'm saying it's shoddy workmanship, whatever the reason.
I'm just saying this attitude of "Only tech people can possibly understand," is extremely arrogant.
It's also bad engineering. If the system is so fragile that you're the only one who can work on it, then you're doing a bad job. What if you get hit by a bus? What if you decide to quit so you can accept your dream job? Whatever you build should be (at least mostly) maintainable by any other average practitioner with similar credentials.
/me ducks
Ah. That explains it. I only started using it since 10.5, and 10.6 isn't much better.
And if the past and future already exist, what the hell does energy even mean? No, I say, fuck all that.
I'm pretty sure that quantum mechanics experiments have taught us that the universe doesn't care what you fuck.
I think that was the case in the U.K., but not in the U.S.
That way, one could run a el-cheapo at home, using the same software and hardware as the official IBM, with whatever support agreement the workplace had with IBM and so on, at work.
That sounds like how Linux too off, too.
What parts of it do you actually use? I've had no luck with it at all.
I manage a couple of OS X Servers for two different offices of about 4-8 workstations each (nothing fancy), and I can't recommend it to anybody, ever. It just spontaneously breaks for no reason if we don't reboot it on a regular basis, and there are many documented features (PPTP VPN, mailing lists, and email virtual domains, to name a few) that just don't work out of the box.
If something does work out of the box, OS X updates break it. The wiki server just stopped authenticating some users after the 10.6.4 upgrade. Solution? Dig around on the Apple forums, where on the second or third page of a long discussion, somebody mentions that you have to shut down the wiki server, delete some index file, and start it up again. WTF?
In other words, I end up having to mess with command line stuff that's much more obscure and poorly documented than anything on a decent Linux distro. Also, it makes me look like an incompetent buffoon, because everyone "knows" that Apple stuff doesn't break.
And it's not the hardware. I've observed the same behaviour across different hardware, with different installation media, on different networks, across both 10.5 and 10.6.
Or toss OS X server on it and use it as a home server
Just curious: Have you actually used OS X Server?
No text
Okay, I used to use BitTorrent for downloading Linux and a bunch of other things, rather than downloading directly from mirrors. Do you know why I don't know? Because Bell Canada throttles BitTorrent traffic, but not plain HTTP and FTP traffic.
Those bastards broke legitimate uses of BitTorrent, and now they complain that only pirates use it.
If your bug is so big that you can't fix it in 60 days, then you need to drop the secrecy anyway so that the rest of the world can help you fix it (or work around the fact that you can't).
Remember that these bugs are things that shouldn't exist in the first place.
I'm sure a lot of people here will lament that 60 days is way too long to release a fix for most vulnerabilities, and I think that's true. On the other hand, it's probably a "reasonable upper bound" for very complex problems like the TLS session re-negotiation vulnerability, which required coordination between multiple vendors and the IETF in order to fix.
In other words, if you think you should get a 60-day head start to fix a security bug, your bug had better be at least as complex as CVE-2009-3555.
I think I misread what you wrote. I understood it to be saying that HTTP POST wouldn't work for some reason.
Sorry for the stupid knee-jerk reaction.
The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work.
It works fine as long as you don't obtusely ignore past history, like people do again and again with Microsoft.
And China, apparently.
Most HTTP servers and related software treat GET and POST variables in exactly the same way unless explicitly told not to.
Name three.
The only thing I can think of that still does this is PHP, and only if you use the $_REQUEST variable.
Treating GET and POST the same is broken. For one thing, GET is required to be idempotent, POST is not.
How many Debian mirrors or Tor exit nodes is it?
...say, a low Slashdot UID.
Thing is: You can only be expert in ONE of them. Period.
Hundreds of cryptologists prove you wrong.
IPv4 has almost 256^4 or around 4 billion IP's that's almost one IP per person on the planet and plenty to last a *LONG* time.
Now all we need to do is to replace all the routers on the Internet with ones that can manage 4 billion routing table entries. Wanna bet that IPv6 will be cheaper?
stallman says so
{{citation needed}}
Aunt Myrtle is irrelevant here. She's just going to drop a black box in between her computer and the Internet. That box will be designed by people with enough know-how to build a stateful firewall.
Seriously, NAT is effectively a huge tax on developing new Internet applications. Instead of just opening a connection to whatever node you want to talk to on the network, you have to implement complex protocols that provide no benefit other than their ability to work around NAT. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.
Heh. There's an article about cryptography, and suddenly everyone on Slashdot is an expert.
I must be new here.