Agreed...and to an extent, Verizon is in essence destroying the common carrier available copper, to save a buck or two. They should be MADE to make a new install and NOT touch the copper that a 3rd party could benefit from. It's their fiber, make them pay for every last inch of it, no cutting corners.
This just in... Canadians don't want to get ass raped by a panda bear either!?
Those that heard of a proposal to let a sex-starved panda free to roam the Canadian tundra were outraged.
On a more serious note TFA:
While critics will undoubtedly note that the majority of Canadians were unaware of net neutrality, that has not stopped other groups - including copyright lobby groups and the telcos - from commissioning similar surveys and reporting them as fact.
This happens all too often here in the US as well, and needs to be more severely penalized.
I am guessing that it will require a new president who is not part of the establishment (perhaps paul or obama) who will do the right thing as opposed to what brings their party more money.
When it gets down to it, what makes you think that "the right thing" with Paul or Obama wouldn't be what brings their campaign more money?
Don't mean to flame, just curious. They have to get re-elected somehow...
Hah great post. Interesting tidbit from one Verizon tech perspective (why would we want to do more work etc.) On the other hand, I wonder how many situations arise where its just so much easier to yank the copper instead of spending time / man hours / $$$ to "fish" through the fiber.
Where do they make that decision, POE of the property or from the switchbox?
Who gets to make that call? Bob on site or Tim at dispatch that says: "Wtf do you mean it will take you 3 hours to finish up 327 Cleverdale!? You have another appointment in 45 minutes. Yank the copper, toss in the fiber and get your ass going...and btw I fucked your wife."
Here we can all see Jim's an asshat but does Bob go: "That bastard, I'll take as long as I want here... drill new holes, make sure the lights at an acceptable -dB, and hey that hot lil housewife was nice to me...
Take pictures of all the dings and what not, maybe type up a little something for your landlord to sign indicating that he was aware of this damage prior to your moving in...even if he won't sign something let him know what you are doing, put those pictures / papers in an envelope and mail it to yourself your first day of occupation...then don't open the envelope until necessary, ie until infront of a judge (small claims court), but let whoever is trying to screw you know you have it. The envelope will be signed and dated at least via the post-office, even if your slumlord won't sign something.
Not too much work for a few hundred bucks of savings...
The fact that you can measure which scheduler is better than another for a particular application supports the notion that schedulers should be pluggable modules..
Ok, agreed... but, you can provide numbers to back that up. Statistics can always lie, regardless of if they are true. It's the fact that they are there and can be seen and visualized that is important. That being the case, it doesn't matter which way you lean towards schedulers. The fact that you cannot quantify security is an argument for keeping it modular.
If we don't keep scheduling modular, an artificial limit on the performance of the system will be created. Sure, CFS is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
You are right, there always could possibly be a faster scheduler for a given system / task / embedded system.
One analogy however malformed uneducated and abysmal is:
Sure, it would be cool if you put NOS kit on a ferrari, but once you hit a wall it won't matter if you are going 150 or 225 if you aren't wearing a seatbelt or there are no airbags.
Not arguing for his reasoning of adding scheduler to kernel space, just for his viewpoint that security should remain outside it as a module. You are right, "No scheduler is optimal for all applications", but that is something we can determine. How exactly are we to determine, hey that security module is much better for application X as this one is for Y.
besides bonfire tales from the bearded ones on peyote during burning man.
So, no, security folks are not "wanking around" as some specific asshole seems to claim, they are using the best tools available to evaluate adequacy of different security solutions. Those that do not get this are not getting what security is about and what the state of the art is. These people should better stay far away from security-relevant decisions and let people that at least understand present technology in that area make the decisions.
"Wanking around" was a poor word choice at best, and I agree that people "that at least understand present technology in that area make the decisions". However, that doesn't invalidate his argument of modulization.
The best of present technology is modular to a certain extent, from a micro and macro perspective of system or network. Why implement a non-defacto standard of secure by including it in the kernel?
I've run SELinux, and I know that James Morris isn't stating he wants that exact implementation only, but he says choose one. How do we quantify that or any assertion and make an informed decision going forward knowing that there possibly is a more secure path to follow?
I think Torvalds is right on this one. Until we can quantify security as we can scheduling performance, which he argues for, why shouldn't he keep LSM modular?
If not, an artificial limit onto the integrity of the system would be created. Sure SELinux is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
...wasn't really saying it was a major security concern. Although as a feature I can see some benefit, most who would care enough about it are more than capable of easily addressing their concerns after installation.
Therefore it is the police's responsibility to know what they can't fucking arrest me for, and the cop's ass should be on the line if they get it wrong. Mine certainly is if I fail in my duty, since the result is a cop arresting me, probably knocking me around a bit in the process, and backing their authority with deadly force. That's hardly trivial, so misapplication of this kind of force should be severely punished. Fine the fuckers, and fire them then throw their asses in jail if they do it repeatedly.
Damn I wish I had mod points for the both of you. You are spot fucking on, and mistakes such as these should be dealt with not by a slap on the wrist, but something they will feel. Not something that they will forget as soon as the media goes away. Or a paid leave while the community expresses it's outrage.
ignorance might be bliss...but it sure as hell is not an excuse, nor should it be a reason to let the officer escape unscathed. By doing so, its...we'll try not to let it happen again...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Anyone know what happened to the charges he filed against the CC guy? Thought he mentioned something about them being dropped in his blog but didn't go into much details...
Lets be real here, this is a rich kid who was wronged but could have avoided it by just showing his receipt and moving on. It isn't that big a deal. This doesn't mean that next he'll let cops search him on the streets whenever they want.
Why are you so caught up on his financial status? Would it have been better for you if he was dirt poor? Are you that obsessed with money that you automatically think that because he has money, he doesn't deserve his rights? Or are you just riding the hate rich whitey wave and karma whoring to the other slash-sheep out there that see your twisted logic?
Regardless of how you feel toward his 'class', he was not wrong in any way, or for anything that he did or didn't do. There are reasons why courts are based on law and not social practices. Above all, I believe those enforcing the law should follow it to a T, and if anything, be held to a higher standard in how they do so.
the difference there is between channels you watch, and channels you pay for... as in rides you ride, and rides you spit on people at as they fling by...
I wouldn't say I totally agree with him, but I can imagine a few scenarios where selecting software to not have installed might be a 'security blessing', granted, in a linear sense.
...some randomly weird bug that occurs in a package that totally flips when it hits that nice new chipset you bought. Maybe a critical exploit that was discovered prior to the burning of the Live CD. One is not expected to have a reliable connection to the internet while installing... though it's definitely a plus to grab the updates.
That is what I ment by linear...choosing to not even bother installing something you knew you would have to go and take out. But, I don't believe one can argue to any degree, that if said installer had such an indepth knowledge of what he didn't want to install, that it is a trivial matter for him to remove it after the installation completes.
I'm just saying, an advanced option to see a listing of software installed with a little check box to the left of them would be nice. I'm not saying one shouldn't be able to proceed as it is now, if they wish to do so...
Ok, not being able to install additional packages at installation is a big deal, but calling it a "security issue" is a little silly. No ports are listening on a default Ubuntu install. It doesn't need to be "secured".
I believe what the author was getting at was the fact that not being able to select packages at installation as a security concern is that there will be apps that are not necessarily secure, or at least, ones you do not want. "Not knowing" as he stated, what is on your system is definitely a security concern. Being able to take note of installed packages or having an option to them out prior to installation would save time / work. Also this would assure nothing that perhaps a sysadmin wouldn't want on an enduser system is present. He wasn't referring to the fact that he couldn't add more...
You forgot the part where you argue that it's OK to break the law when it's convenient for you.
yeah ummm, right right! Forgot that...sorry it's so hard to remember everything posting to slashdot while speeding, talking on my cell phone, typing on the unlocked iPhone I hacked - using un-authorized Wifi of course - and smoking god knows what (gotta love those end of the month specials my dealer puts together with uppers downers and inbetweeners) and a cigarette while this kid in the backseat won't stop spilling her jack and coke. (I'd say he was my kid, but the mom's only 14, so you know that wouldn't sound good.)
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed...and to an extent, Verizon is in essence destroying the common carrier available copper, to save a buck or two. They should be MADE to make a new install and NOT touch the copper that a 3rd party could benefit from. It's their fiber, make them pay for every last inch of it, no cutting corners.
hear hear... and you can bet your ass someone at gorilladot.org just learned what Ubuntu is!
Those that heard of a proposal to let a sex-starved panda free to roam the Canadian tundra were outraged.
On a more serious note TFA:
This happens all too often here in the US as well, and needs to be more severely penalized.
When it gets down to it, what makes you think that "the right thing" with Paul or Obama wouldn't be what brings their campaign more money?
Don't mean to flame, just curious. They have to get re-elected somehow...
Where do they make that decision, POE of the property or from the switchbox?
Who gets to make that call? Bob on site or Tim at dispatch that says: "Wtf do you mean it will take you 3 hours to finish up 327 Cleverdale!? You have another appointment in 45 minutes. Yank the copper, toss in the fiber and get your ass going...and btw I fucked your wife."
Here we can all see Jim's an asshat but does Bob go: "That bastard, I'll take as long as I want here... drill new holes, make sure the lights at an acceptable -dB, and hey that hot lil housewife was nice to me...
Take pictures of all the dings and what not, maybe type up a little something for your landlord to sign indicating that he was aware of this damage prior to your moving in...even if he won't sign something let him know what you are doing, put those pictures / papers in an envelope and mail it to yourself your first day of occupation...then don't open the envelope until necessary, ie until infront of a judge (small claims court), but let whoever is trying to screw you know you have it. The envelope will be signed and dated at least via the post-office, even if your slumlord won't sign something.
Not too much work for a few hundred bucks of savings...
Oatmeals like Tor!
Did you used to blow bubbles as a kid?
...sorry, couldn't resist.
He's back in town and wants your new number!
Apples... Oranges...
Ok, agreed... but, you can provide numbers to back that up. Statistics can always lie, regardless of if they are true. It's the fact that they are there and can be seen and visualized that is important. That being the case, it doesn't matter which way you lean towards schedulers. The fact that you cannot quantify security is an argument for keeping it modular.
You are right, there always could possibly be a faster scheduler for a given system / task / embedded system.
One analogy however malformed uneducated and abysmal is:
Sure, it would be cool if you put NOS kit on a ferrari, but once you hit a wall it won't matter if you are going 150 or 225 if you aren't wearing a seatbelt or there are no airbags.
besides bonfire tales from the bearded ones on peyote during burning man.
The best of present technology is modular to a certain extent, from a micro and macro perspective of system or network. Why implement a non-defacto standard of secure by including it in the kernel?
I've run SELinux, and I know that James Morris isn't stating he wants that exact implementation only, but he says choose one. How do we quantify that or any assertion and make an informed decision going forward knowing that there possibly is a more secure path to follow?
If not, an artificial limit onto the integrity of the system would be created. Sure SELinux is a viable option, but why should we think it is the best ?
It defin-I-tely is...
Have you ever tried to get a Klingon off a Furry? Need lots of soap and hot water... specially if its been there a while.
...wasn't really saying it was a major security concern. Although as a feature I can see some benefit, most who would care enough about it are more than capable of easily addressing their concerns after installation.
You insensitive clod, I make stupid jokes all the time... doesn't make me any less of an engineer:
What did the farmer say when he lost his tractor?
Where-ahs muh tractor!
ignorance might be bliss...but it sure as hell is not an excuse, nor should it be a reason to let the officer escape unscathed. By doing so, its ...we'll try not to let it happen again...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Anyone know what happened to the charges he filed against the CC guy? Thought he mentioned something about them being dropped in his blog but didn't go into much details...
ohhhh... I gotcha! Then you know exactly where it is for next time, and can go back the next day to steal it!
Why are you so caught up on his financial status? Would it have been better for you if he was dirt poor? Are you that obsessed with money that you automatically think that because he has money, he doesn't deserve his rights? Or are you just riding the hate rich whitey wave and karma whoring to the other slash-sheep out there that see your twisted logic?
Regardless of how you feel toward his 'class', he was not wrong in any way, or for anything that he did or didn't do. There are reasons why courts are based on law and not social practices. Above all, I believe those enforcing the law should follow it to a T, and if anything, be held to a higher standard in how they do so.
the difference there is between channels you watch, and channels you pay for... as in rides you ride, and rides you spit on people at as they fling by...
...some randomly weird bug that occurs in a package that totally flips when it hits that nice new chipset you bought. Maybe a critical exploit that was discovered prior to the burning of the Live CD. One is not expected to have a reliable connection to the internet while installing... though it's definitely a plus to grab the updates.
That is what I ment by linear...choosing to not even bother installing something you knew you would have to go and take out. But, I don't believe one can argue to any degree, that if said installer had such an indepth knowledge of what he didn't want to install, that it is a trivial matter for him to remove it after the installation completes.
I'm just saying, an advanced option to see a listing of software installed with a little check box to the left of them would be nice. I'm not saying one shouldn't be able to proceed as it is now, if they wish to do so...
I believe what the author was getting at was the fact that not being able to select packages at installation as a security concern is that there will be apps that are not necessarily secure, or at least, ones you do not want. "Not knowing" as he stated, what is on your system is definitely a security concern. Being able to take note of installed packages or having an option to them out prior to installation would save time / work. Also this would assure nothing that perhaps a sysadmin wouldn't want on an enduser system is present. He wasn't referring to the fact that he couldn't add more...
yeah ummm, right right! Forgot that...sorry it's so hard to remember everything posting to slashdot while speeding, talking on my cell phone, typing on the unlocked iPhone I hacked - using un-authorized Wifi of course - and smoking god knows what (gotta love those end of the month specials my dealer puts together with uppers downers and inbetweeners) and a cigarette while this kid in the backseat won't stop spilling her jack and coke. (I'd say he was my kid, but the mom's only 14, so you know that wouldn't sound good.)