Get a decent dual-mode A/G or tri-mode A/B/G access point, and skimp a bit on the computer hardware.
I would be surprised if you couldn't bring the price down to around $300 in total.
You can set up a NAT/firewall easily enough using iptables on any 2.4 kernel'd linux, but I'm not sure how you could handle quotas and I've never ever figured out traffic-shaping in linux--and I doubt many have.
So when you run a test 5 times, and you get 5 results, the hardware is broken. When you run the same test 5 times, and it gets to the exact same point before sig11ing, you have a software flaw.
Wrong. It is perfectly reasonable for busted hardware to break software execution reproducibly... the exact same way at the exact same moment.
Your "it's either this or it's the other" approach would never work in the real world of stress testing.
There was never a "hard and fast" release date SET for Doom 3, so I don't have a problem with waiting for it, unless it doesn't actually come out next year in which case I'm going to be slightly pissed.
Half-Life 2 on the other hand... is another story.
However since we are a government agency we have certain security policies that must be in place on each machine regarding user logins, domains, file permissions and network access. Setting this up on 120 machines would be an impossible chore.
And yet, setting up all this automatically with a couple of domain controllers already in place is a breeze.
I'd agree with that except the NWN system requirements page on bioware.com says 2.0 GB. Add that to the single CD the expansion pack comes on and you get the 2.6 GB that my folder size reflects.
KOTOR PC requirements are stated as 4.0 GB of free space.
To put that into perspective, NWN plus its expansion pack, which comes on 4 CDs total, installs only to about 2.6 GB. This likely means that KOTOR will come on something like 6 CDs.
I wish somebody would have the balls to start releasing these games on DVDs.
Umm, do we sing "Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead"... or just panic?
Panic. Now there are no monopoly issues with them reimplementing SiteFinder. Less things to sue them over to get them to stop the next time they decide to fuck over the Internet "for fun and profit."
You can't dictate/predict software usage displacement when people on Linux and other *nix-style operating systems continue to use obsolete and broken software just because they've always used them. Sendmail and ISC BIND come to mind.
If I were Valve, what I should be worried about right now is not who or how the systems were compromised and the code leaked, I would be extremely worried about whether or not whoever did it managed to slip in some trojan or other malicious code among that 100 megs of source to Source.
If whoever did it backported the change to say, May 1999, through whatever passes for a version control system at Valve, Valve can't just diff code for suspicious changes.
It is the mere fact that Valve has been cracked, not the code leak, that has me extremely worried, personally. I am uninstalling Steam and any other Valve software from my computers until further notice.
Which, since we are talking about it, can indeed be considered part of that application-level firewall. The entire thrust of my post was that an application-level firewall was able to successfully protect a known-vulnerable machine from all known methods of compromise through external vulnerabilities, a diametrically-opposed point of view to the parent's post.
As part of a security test, we placed an NT4sp4 box with an unpatched install of the Option Pack--to install IIS (note that this is perhaps the most easily exploitable Windows configuration on the face of the planet)--behind an ISA sp1 firewall running on Windows 2000 sp3. We were unable to compromise or otherwise DoS either of the two NT servers with readily available exploit code for IIS or otherwise on either operating system.
Now, it may be possible to still exploit the aforementioned NT boxes, but clearly it would have taken a great deal more effort than just running a NIMDA-alike on the NT4 box.
I don't know of any really good free win32 clients. Zmud is the best, in my opinion, and I bought a license for it back in the 4.xx days. I don't even use 5.x or 6.x even though my license is fully upgradable because I detest eLicense.
I really liked mcl on *nix, by Erwin Andreasen, but he stopped maintaining it a while ago and I'm not even able to access his homepage right now. A cursory whois on the domain seems to suggest that he has abandoned his former "life".:(
And furthermore, a lot of the strides we've made in the past decade or so in productivity rely heavily on the level of integration Microsoft puts into all of their products.
I mean, we still don't have a clear and consistent way to copy and paste non-text data across applications in X. And it doesn't seem like anybody is really interested in fixing that situation in the OSS fields, especially when you consider that KDE and Gnome (the two giants in the OSS desktop field) tend to go their own ways with that sort of integration.
Microsoft has long been stressing security, including blocking executable attachments in all recent versions of Outlook and Outlook Express, installing a tight firewall that is enabled by default on XP Home installations, making IIS not a part of the default installation since at least Win2k and up, etc (indeed, the option isn't even given in the XP setup program to install IIS--you absolutely have to do it separately). Yet there are people who mistakenly believe they've got a handle on the situation and they then disable the firewall, or find a way to disable the executable blocking (or even worse, just plain don't upgrade O/OE at all) and yet continue to click on any and all attachments that come in the mail, or worse.
How do we propose to educate these users to avoid the common pitfalls of running a computer? How do you propose that alternative software can be created that are proof against the kind of abuse directed at MS products daily?
There are no easy answers, and the kind of self-serving rhetoric I see every day from so-called security experts recommending alternative software with no regard or proper consideration of the ramifications wounds my heart.
The true benefits wouldn't be realized until we move to 64-bit base OS/drivers though.
I mean, right now, I could buy a 3200+ Barton, crank it up to something like 2.4GHz, throw in a decent cooler, and have it run stable with about the same or lower power dissipation as the Athlon64, at a lower cost.
I'm seriously hoping that this isn't a paper launch. There are as yet many factors that could limit the potential for this powerful new product, and a paper launch would significantly weaken AMD's thrust.
First, we still don't have a mass market consumer OS for native x86-64, and even when Windows XP for x86-64 does come out (the word from the betas is that it's very very good and solid), we still need to wait for x86-64 compatible drivers to be developed and released by the various manufacturers, and it would be no small feat to even have a small core sampling of drivers available by say, summer 2004. Personally, I'm hoping that Nforce3 and ATI Catalyst drivers will be ready very early on.
Mad props to AMD, but they're not out of the woods yet on this release.
From The Inquirer, the The Register wanna-be no less.
The allegedly informative statement is couched in so many conditionals that they of course can once again squirm their way out of any uncomfortable spot they might get stuck in.
Plus, I don't see Microsoft supporting not one but TWO Intel-specific 64-bit platforms.
Hold on to your Athlon64 pre-orders, boys and girls.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can actually understand that mumble-jumble, you're a better nerd than I.
Get a decent dual-mode A/G or tri-mode A/B/G access point, and skimp a bit on the computer hardware.
I would be surprised if you couldn't bring the price down to around $300 in total.
You can set up a NAT/firewall easily enough using iptables on any 2.4 kernel'd linux, but I'm not sure how you could handle quotas and I've never ever figured out traffic-shaping in linux--and I doubt many have.
Wrong. It is perfectly reasonable for busted hardware to break software execution reproducibly ... the exact same way at the exact same moment.
Your "it's either this or it's the other" approach would never work in the real world of stress testing.
There was never a "hard and fast" release date SET for Doom 3, so I don't have a problem with waiting for it, unless it doesn't actually come out next year in which case I'm going to be slightly pissed.
Half-Life 2 on the other hand ... is another story.
Coolest post I've seen on Slashdot in a long long long long long time.
Kudos.
And my HD isn't infinite.
The less time spent swapping CDs during the install process, and the fewer CDs I have to keep track of, the better.
I'd agree with that except the NWN system requirements page on bioware.com says 2.0 GB. Add that to the single CD the expansion pack comes on and you get the 2.6 GB that my folder size reflects.
To put that into perspective, NWN plus its expansion pack, which comes on 4 CDs total, installs only to about 2.6 GB. This likely means that KOTOR will come on something like 6 CDs.
I wish somebody would have the balls to start releasing these games on DVDs.
You can't dictate/predict software usage displacement when people on Linux and other *nix-style operating systems continue to use obsolete and broken software just because they've always used them. Sendmail and ISC BIND come to mind.
Thanks for the link. That article may just be the sanest thing I have ever read out of this whole sorry mess.
If whoever did it backported the change to say, May 1999, through whatever passes for a version control system at Valve, Valve can't just diff code for suspicious changes.
It is the mere fact that Valve has been cracked, not the code leak, that has me extremely worried, personally. I am uninstalling Steam and any other Valve software from my computers until further notice.
What was your point?
Basically situations where nothing has been compromised and nobody got packetted--but a denial of service attack has been performed.
I'm talking about bare installs in default configurations with the only addition being forwarding HTTP from the ISA server.
As part of a security test, we placed an NT4sp4 box with an unpatched install of the Option Pack--to install IIS (note that this is perhaps the most easily exploitable Windows configuration on the face of the planet)--behind an ISA sp1 firewall running on Windows 2000 sp3. We were unable to compromise or otherwise DoS either of the two NT servers with readily available exploit code for IIS or otherwise on either operating system.
Now, it may be possible to still exploit the aforementioned NT boxes, but clearly it would have taken a great deal more effort than just running a NIMDA-alike on the NT4 box.
I really liked mcl on *nix, by Erwin Andreasen, but he stopped maintaining it a while ago and I'm not even able to access his homepage right now. A cursory whois on the domain seems to suggest that he has abandoned his former "life". :(
tintin(++) is the old standby, of course.
Perhaps someone would care to enlighten us?
I mean, we still don't have a clear and consistent way to copy and paste non-text data across applications in X. And it doesn't seem like anybody is really interested in fixing that situation in the OSS fields, especially when you consider that KDE and Gnome (the two giants in the OSS desktop field) tend to go their own ways with that sort of integration.
Microsoft has long been stressing security, including blocking executable attachments in all recent versions of Outlook and Outlook Express, installing a tight firewall that is enabled by default on XP Home installations, making IIS not a part of the default installation since at least Win2k and up, etc (indeed, the option isn't even given in the XP setup program to install IIS--you absolutely have to do it separately). Yet there are people who mistakenly believe they've got a handle on the situation and they then disable the firewall, or find a way to disable the executable blocking (or even worse, just plain don't upgrade O/OE at all) and yet continue to click on any and all attachments that come in the mail, or worse.
How do we propose to educate these users to avoid the common pitfalls of running a computer? How do you propose that alternative software can be created that are proof against the kind of abuse directed at MS products daily?
There are no easy answers, and the kind of self-serving rhetoric I see every day from so-called security experts recommending alternative software with no regard or proper consideration of the ramifications wounds my heart.
Which would necessitate the global implementation of ipv6 and the assignment of an ip6 to those same real life objects.
And that's after you figure out how to get internet connectivity on all of those objects.
And now I have completely departed the realm of the funney.
Happy now? :)
I mean, right now, I could buy a 3200+ Barton, crank it up to something like 2.4GHz, throw in a decent cooler, and have it run stable with about the same or lower power dissipation as the Athlon64, at a lower cost.
First, we still don't have a mass market consumer OS for native x86-64, and even when Windows XP for x86-64 does come out (the word from the betas is that it's very very good and solid), we still need to wait for x86-64 compatible drivers to be developed and released by the various manufacturers, and it would be no small feat to even have a small core sampling of drivers available by say, summer 2004. Personally, I'm hoping that Nforce3 and ATI Catalyst drivers will be ready very early on.
Mad props to AMD, but they're not out of the woods yet on this release.
I click a link in the German portion of the protest main page!
The allegedly informative statement is couched in so many conditionals that they of course can once again squirm their way out of any uncomfortable spot they might get stuck in.
Plus, I don't see Microsoft supporting not one but TWO Intel-specific 64-bit platforms.
Hold on to your Athlon64 pre-orders, boys and girls.