If you want to make the distinction between an OpenSSH bug and a Linux bug, then you must also make the distinction between an IIS bug and a Windows bug
Not quite true, because OpenSSH can be run on more platforms than only Linux. E.g. on my FreeBSD servers, it's half way the same problem like it's reported for Linux machines.
With a IIS piece of software, you will have a small problem in finding a different platform.
And don't hand me some ridiculous fucked up shit about how Windows is "all in one" and Linux isn't. Linux distros come bundled with shitloads of apps, many of which sooner or later reveal bugs and exploits, just like bundled Windows apps.
If you want to fix something, it's an easy thing with Windows. You simply take the source, and fix the bug, right?
Or: You report the bug and go praying to church for your bug may be qualified important enough to be fixed.
If you want stability you run 2.4, which is the stable kernel.
It seems, most users nowadays have long years Windows experience and expect their machine crash every couple of hours. If it doesn't, they patch it till it does.
It's a satisfying feeling to see your machine crash with the highest performance possible.
What happened if BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures), keeper of the SI (the international metric standards) found out that their funding be too low and started to collect money for their standards?
That's what's ISO is doing all the time! E.g. the standards for the C programming language are not available to the public for free, there are only old drafts.
Can a modern (I mean democratic) world live with such a kind of "standards bureaucrats"?
Is there still an important reason to program in Fortran?
You can easily link modules of different languages. Why do you still work with a language which was long time obsolete when punch cards went out of fashion?
I mean, of course you can bloat the language with structures it originally didn't dream of, but you can't expect every compiler author implement the newest expansion, for free. Just because he wrote parts of an existing compiler years ago.
I'd say, like the old saying, if you don't find a software suiting your desires, why not writing it yourself?
It can form remote connections, and generate random keys, and... and... uh, well, that's about it, actually.
I'm thinking of tunneling, SSH1 support, dozens of authentication methods, keyring management including key life cycle management, several different and optional security layers, token management, context-sensitive interpretation of incoming requests, packet dispatching via a plug-in like technology, X11 forwarding layer, etc.
For the main task of the program (system administration), you don't need all of that.
More importantly, services like ssh should be implemented in Java or some other language in which errors in "buffer management" don't happen so often.
Since ssh is a system administrator's tool, nobody would like to install a big bloaty jre (with its own bugs and its own desire to be updated in a regular way) before a system can be administered.
I mean, if you have a program which is too complicated to be debugged, it's not a good idea to add another program which is much too complicated to debugged, in the hope that both together will fix each other's bugs...
OpenSSH has grown fat over the years, while more and more functionality was integrated, but existing features were kept - for compatibility reasons, and for convenience.
Now we have a big and fat tool that can do nearly everything, but you can go out for bug hunting; there are probably many of them in there.
It would have been a better idea to do a small diet and dis-integrate functions into different tools - like the classic *nix philosophy would suggest.
C++ requires templates because its early linking schema. It's impossible to make e.g. a simple list base class which all other list classes inherit from.
Joan Witte, Communications Manager for Ford Motor Information Technology, had this statement to make late this afternoon when I called her at her Detroit office about a story being reported that Ford was moving to Linux.
Witte said "Like any other company, Ford Motor is looking at Linux, primarily in the application space. We presently have an enterprise-wide agreement with Microsoft to handle our collaborative solutions. We aren't contemplating using Linux in this area, and don't contemplate doing that in the foreseeable future."
Regarding the source of the rumor, Witte said "I'm not sure where they got the info from, but I'd like to know."
I think the INS is right : there should be a barrier to entry in the US that's high enough to winnow out slackers and let worthy people in only.
Big mistake: You think yourself are worthy. That's wrong in the eyes of the US government. Worthy are the creative people from Romania and New Europe, who are standing in one line with the US in the fight against terrorism. (See DV visa lottery statistics.)
You can use the ULE sched in Linux if you like...
It's been ported. see kerneltrap.
You can use anything with everything, I have no doubt. What counts is primarily the main branch. (Linux lacks of many of the mechanisms FreeBSD supports, and it would take A LOT of time to port them all, even if it's underway for years in several cases.)
There are very few reasons, from a technical perspective, to use proprietary operating systems instead of GNU. Especially with the new Linux 2.6 kernel
You might want to have a look at this paper, especially the part with the pathological test cases for the Linux scheduler.
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
Talk about out of context! The assertion that the code is owned by SCO is made only by Mr. McBride, who neglected to mention that it has already been found and removed.
Bruce Perens is in the focus of the media for years now, and he himself thinks he's such an important and experienced person. He should have known that he shouldn't say a single word that could, cut-out and turned-around, be used to damage the idea of Free and Open Software.
My god, he was doing like a little child blabbering out everything what comes to his mind...
after which you can insert your favorite OS install CD and nuke the EULA partition into oblivion without ever even booting it.
That means, you can circumvent the obligatory agreement to the EULA? Microsoft complained about a method to do that in a different context, but, is it legal to circumvent such electronic "agreements"?
That would mean, after all, it is possibly legal to install and boot different operating systems even on Dell computers? Without booting the EULA before?
Slashdot Mirror
It is a very bad habit in the Windows world that everybody wants to install their own piece of crap somewhere on the user's harddisk.
E.g. on my FreeBSD servers, it's half way the same problem like it's reported for Linux machines.
With a IIS piece of software, you will have a small problem in finding a different platform.
If you want to fix something, it's an easy thing with Windows. You simply take the source, and fix the bug, right?Or: You report the bug and go praying to church for your bug may be qualified important enough to be fixed.
This is no Linux bug.
It's a bug of OpenSSH.
OpenSSH is neither Linux itself nor part of it.
Possibly, it is part of a Linux distribution that you might have obtained. Even there, it should be optional.
That's the big difference, compared to Microsoft "everything-in-one" products.
OpenSSH has grown a little too big to be maintained properly.
Okay, mod me down again...
I guesss they Symantec people themselves expect not to be subject of their new law?
It's a satisfying feeling to see your machine crash with the highest performance possible.
That's what's ISO is doing all the time! E.g. the standards for the C programming language are not available to the public for free, there are only old drafts.
Can a modern (I mean democratic) world live with such a kind of "standards bureaucrats"?
- 1 k = 1e3
- 1 M = 1e6
- 1 G = 1e9
- 1 T = 1e12
But:- 1 KiB = 1024
- 1 MiB = 1024^2
- 1 GiB = 1024^3
- 1 TiB = 1024^4
This was standardized years ago and is valid for all people*, not only engineers on one side or computer geeks on the other.* = all people does not include citizens of the United States, because the U.S. have not yet introduced the internationally standardized metric system
You can easily link modules of different languages. Why do you still work with a language which was long time obsolete when punch cards went out of fashion?
I mean, of course you can bloat the language with structures it originally didn't dream of, but you can't expect every compiler author implement the newest expansion, for free. Just because he wrote parts of an existing compiler years ago.
I'd say, like the old saying, if you don't find a software suiting your desires, why not writing it yourself?
For the main task of the program (system administration), you don't need all of that.
I mean, if you have a program which is too complicated to be debugged, it's not a good idea to add another program which is much too complicated to debugged, in the hope that both together will fix each other's bugs...
OpenSSH has grown fat over the years, while more and more functionality was integrated, but existing features were kept - for compatibility reasons, and for convenience.
Now we have a big and fat tool that can do nearly everything, but you can go out for bug hunting; there are probably many of them in there.
It would have been a better idea to do a small diet and dis-integrate functions into different tools - like the classic *nix philosophy would suggest.
C++ requires templates because its early linking schema. It's impossible to make e.g. a simple list base class which all other list classes inherit from.
Joan Witte, Communications Manager for Ford Motor Information Technology, had this statement to make late this afternoon when I called her at her Detroit office about a story being reported that Ford was moving to Linux.
Witte said "Like any other company, Ford Motor is looking at Linux, primarily in the application space. We presently have an enterprise-wide agreement with Microsoft to handle our collaborative solutions. We aren't contemplating using Linux in this area, and don't contemplate doing that in the foreseeable future."
Regarding the source of the rumor, Witte said "I'm not sure where they got the info from, but I'd like to know."
Big mistake: You think yourself are worthy. That's wrong in the eyes of the US government.
Worthy are the creative people from Romania and New Europe, who are standing in one line with the US in the fight against terrorism. (See DV visa lottery statistics.)
Hm, how much would it be to make Versisign redirect typos of volkswagen.com on my porn site?
(Linux lacks of many of the mechanisms FreeBSD supports, and it would take A LOT of time to port them all, even if it's underway for years in several cases.)
that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed
Can anyone tell for what Bruce Perens' comment was good in this case? What more can SCO hope for?
Bruce Perens is in the focus of the media for years now, and he himself thinks he's such an important and experienced person.
He should have known that he shouldn't say a single word that could, cut-out and turned-around, be used to damage the idea of Free and Open Software.
My god, he was doing like a little child blabbering out everything what comes to his mind...
That means, you can circumvent the obligatory agreement to the EULA? Microsoft complained about a method to do that in a different context, but, is it legal to circumvent such electronic "agreements"?
That would mean, after all, it is possibly legal to install and boot different operating systems even on Dell computers? Without booting the EULA before?
If that's the case, I dare to ask what happened to the "old" BSD copyright which once was sticking to that part of code.
I mean, the BSD license is no permission of theft, neither by a Linux submitter, Silicon Graphics, nor SCO.
They're freeing their capacities for the adoption of a new, brilliant concept, which they have bought from the company formerly known as "SCO":
Unix
It will provide the users with more stability and security.