Why do you guys always make such simple-sounding statements before getting your act together ?
'stable' for Debian means 'stable'; and this is what we users love about it. Therefore, when FireBuddy 1.0.5 is installed, and someone finds a vulnerability, Mozilla will tell the world to upgrade to 1.0.6; the latest and greatest. Eventually, not quite that stable and proven over time.
While Debian will provide the trusted Buddy 1.0.5, including the patch for that vulnerability. Which is clearly my preference. But how could Debian do that if it followed your suggestion ?
Here I can only take a guess: Because 'the main browser' (I hear the Opera-fans yelling at me) should not really be 'hidden' in a repository that many users despise; users who prefer Debian for its stand on Free Software.
And Opera is less free (if this construction is valid).
It wasn't ditched. When Apache changed its license for some reason while moving to 2.X, OpenBSD deplored the change and kept using 1.3.29 - the 'open' one - and has been improving it ever since.
Agreed, one day or another this gets them into a dead end road, when users want and need some 2.X-features only.
But that's quite a different story. Until then, most are happy with the improved 1.3.29.
What a mistake ! - Sarge as of today isn't 1.5 years old. It will be, when and if Etch comes out in December, though. You probably don't understand the naming convention of Debian.
Hé, nothing went wrong ! (or: Slashdot is getting worse)
I bought an AM2 MB and am happy with it. Contrary to some posters here, where I live, AM2 processors are cheaper than the same CPUs as 754 or 939. DDR-2 was cheaper than DDR, again, where I live. There is a Gigabyte LAN, a great fan, no problems at all. Plus, I should be prepared for the future; socket-wise.
And I still adore the CPU running cooler than the MB; with the fan stopping in between.
Haven't downloaded anything from MS for years. Now I thought to try the forbidden fruit. And what I get is 0K.......... 0% 883.15 B/s 50K.......... 0% 711.69 B/s 100K.......... 0% 615.87 B/s on a 8Mbit/s pipe.
Where's the mirror ??
Or is this the cautious handling by my OpenBSD server to which I download ?
The non-genuine part enters as forgery when the registration is removed or added. Whatever modification done, the hash will differ. One can't possibly call such a.iso "genuine".
I don't agree with your last sentence, though: When you install from one and only one CD to two identical boxes, both are genuine installs. Sequence doesn't matter. You can even register the second install with Microsoft. If you never touch the first one, thereafter, don't boot ever, is the first one not genuine ? And if you registered the first and not the second one, does registration of one box turn the installation of the other machine from genuine to not genuine ? I doubt so. It might be fraudulent or against the EULA. But that is quite another item and not covering 'genuine'.
Think about this: How can registration of box A, located in San Francisco, turn another box, B, in New York, not running, not connected to power nor network, from genuine install into a non-genuine one ?
The authorized "copies" are still genuine and the unauthorized copies are still not.
Couldn't agree less. [Though any comparison limps along the way sooner or later]
If I break into the mint and produce my own bills overnight, these bills are very genuine. Unique serial numbers and everything else identical. There is nothing not genuine about those bills. They are not authorised, though.
I would hate to call those bills 'forgery'.
Finally, it all boils down to a non-material aspect of it.
In this case, e.g. at what time of the day the bills were fabricated. Or if the supervisor was present. Materially there is no difference between bills produced when the process was overseen by a government agent or not.
Are those bills produced when he visited the restroom yesterday not legal tender ?
You see, how immaterial the whole thing can grow.
Same with Windows XP. The genuine CDs are not even pressed at Redmond. Are they not genuine, then ?
The only thing that distinguishes a CD pressed at the contractor at daytime and one pressed at nighttime (if we stick to the example) is some immaterial authority (or the lack thereof) behind both.
And to those who constantly resort to comparing the matter to paper documents and forgery thereof: That is off track. Nobody forges a paper document to look 100% as the original (not talking about artists' work here). Forgery usually includes changing names, numbers, dates here. Not point for a forger to forge my scroll 100%. It would still be my scroll, on my name with my credentials.
The forger might want to put her name instead...
The whole article doesn't sound all too sound IMHO.
Except - maybe - the level that spammers take to test the MTA for RFC compliance. But then, after all, is that worth an article and a mention on/. ?
Here we still get plenty of spam from webmail and stuff. Here I couldn't confirm the 90% 'all open relay' thingy. As long as 'open relay' indicates a proper box, meant and setup as SMTPd and relaying. Personally, I don't call an owned clickety-click box an open relay. Call Redmond.
Ooops, how can this be Insightful ?? And then even to an AC; I wonder...
Here it looks like another fallacy:
If they were (supporting XP), and Vista needs another extra (and this is what MS says) 50.000 people, you can make a good prediction on the quality that Micosoft expects from her own product. Vista.
No good reason to talk about 50.000 jobs lost except Vista needs less support. Which still I fail to believe.
Exactly. Though there is no clearcut answer to this behalf.
It depends largely on the character of the exploit, I'd suggest.
If you can stop it at the parameter firewall, at a non-standard port, tell the sysadmins to close that bloody port for security reasons.
If it can DoS your DNS by sending a specially crafted request, I'd suggest to leave it unpublished for a reasonable time. Not to invite the kids to find out what it is and DoS half of the DNSes for contempt.
Somehow it seems to boil down to the question if the user can actually do something reasonable about it (other than closing down the boxen), or not.
If there was a vulnerability in Apache self (not in some module), I'd personally prefer no immediate disclosure. Reasonably, almost nobody will simply be able to 'httpd stop' for several days, until the patch is available, tested and proven.
If you want really stable you could always use Windows 3.11 for Workgroups but that would suck wouldn't it?
Why do you mods call this a Troll ??
This is a person who has never ever used WfW 3.11. Otherwise he'd shiver while typing 'stable'.
So far to the second paragraph.
The first one surely is no Troll; and the third one kind of truelly; maybe.
If I had mod points, I'd give it a 'slightly funny'. Not even a Windoze zealot could call WfW 3.11 'stable', seriously.
What a p*** !!! I just wrote a long explanation in their forum and when clicking 'submit' I was kicked out.:(:(
A funny company. Has someone tried google-earth about the address ?? Anyone around in that area; from Dublin ?
I tried a whois, and they don't have a registered www.steorn.net. Only steorn.net. Probably a wildcard thingy. Makes it even more suspicious. They also have no e-mail address(es) under their domain
dig steorn.net MX
; > DiG 9.2.4 > steorn.net MX;; QUESTION SECTION:;steorn.net. IN MX;; AUTHORITY SECTION: steorn.net. 7200 IN SOA NS59.WORLDNIC.COM. namehost.WORLDNIC.COM. 2006081400 10800 3600 604800 7200
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:37 EDT Registrant: McCarthy, Sean
Steorn Limited
Docklands Innovation Park
East Wall Road
Dublin3, Co.Dublin D3
IE
Domain Name: STEORN.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
McCarthy, Sean seanmcc@eircom.net
Steorn Limited
Docklands Innovation Park
East Wall Road
Dublin3, Co.Dublin D3
IE
+353-1-664-1744 fax: +353-1-664-1809
Record expires on 16-Jul-2007.
Record created on 16-Jul-2004.
Database last updated on 22-Aug-2006 03:49:55 EDT.
Mod this one up. That's the only blob I have and need: Twinview on NVIDIA.
I'd like to add to the arguments on graphics cards: Though an AMD user throughout, my next purchases might be Intel. For the open source graphics driver. And I'm not the only one. AMD, do you get the message ? [And now with ATI being a part of AMD there is no problem of listening and implementing The Good Thing.]
Read up a bit on threads, and you'll find out. But this has been beaten to death.
It has nothing to do whatsoever with Microsoft. If you are sitting with a linear program that is executed instruction after instruction, the second core has nothing to do. Because the first core is executing that instruction and the next one comes only when the first core is ready.
This is the closest on the first page of Slashdot for this topic: Sure, you can make and keep kernie run almost forever. But would you really want to do so when your webserver is owned, your device driver screwed, your MTA sending SPAM everywhere ? Therefore, alas, the whole matter is a dead fish. If you want to stick with the ocean-liner: You sit on a boat with bird flu, pox, a broken compartment, no food, but the engine keeps running, guaranteed. I have no clue why you would want this, by the way ? What is the great advancement ? Okay, you have compartments; you can bet on an item or another to work forever. Does this bring you to New York Harbour ?
To me the alternative of off-loading device drivers looks much more promising. There is ever more hardware, and isolating crappy drivers (frequently they are) is a possible way to clean the kernel code. An extra layer between hardware and kernel is another goodie. Because you can run your stuff unmodified on that kernel; contrary to the Minix solution.
Sure Andrew T. is a great chap; very knowledgable AFAICS; though Minix is but an obsession for him. What a pity. Sure, monolithic kernies are ugly. Sure, microkernels are pure beauty, but don't do optimal daily work.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you guys always make such simple-sounding statements before getting your act together ?
'stable' for Debian means 'stable'; and this is what we users love about it. Therefore, when FireBuddy 1.0.5 is installed, and someone finds a vulnerability, Mozilla will tell the world to upgrade to 1.0.6; the latest and greatest. Eventually, not quite that stable and proven over time.
While Debian will provide the trusted Buddy 1.0.5, including the patch for that vulnerability. Which is clearly my preference. But how could Debian do that if it followed your suggestion ?
Here I can only take a guess: Because 'the main browser' (I hear the Opera-fans yelling at me) should not really be 'hidden' in a repository that many users despise; users who prefer Debian for its stand on Free Software.
And Opera is less free (if this construction is valid).
It wasn't ditched. When Apache changed its license for some reason while moving to 2.X, OpenBSD deplored the change and kept using 1.3.29 - the 'open' one - and has been improving it ever since.
Agreed, one day or another this gets them into a dead end road, when users want and need some 2.X-features only.
But that's quite a different story. Until then, most are happy with the improved 1.3.29.
Read The Fine Post.
You obviously don't run production servers; and nobody blames you for that fact.
Try Debian Testing or Sid if you want to be closer to the edge.
What a mistake ! - Sarge as of today isn't 1.5 years old. It will be, when and if Etch comes out in December, though.
You probably don't understand the naming convention of Debian.
Hé, nothing went wrong !
(or: Slashdot is getting worse)
I bought an AM2 MB and am happy with it.
Contrary to some posters here, where I live, AM2 processors are cheaper than the same CPUs as 754 or 939. DDR-2 was cheaper than DDR, again, where I live.
There is a Gigabyte LAN, a great fan, no problems at all.
Plus, I should be prepared for the future; socket-wise.
And I still adore the CPU running cooler than the MB; with the fan stopping in between.
... I know. Still, I can't resist.
I'll apply with BT for that job. Not because I believe any of that stuff I'm reading, but I believe in the stuff that is up for a smoke in BT.
Enlightened.
I repent.
And abort.
5.5 MB in 90 minutes; that's a really long Longhorn.
with the Windows-only Akamai-client, I guess. ... ;)
I doubt this runs on OpenBSD
Haven't downloaded anything from MS for years. Now I thought to try the forbidden fruit. And what I get is .......... 0% 883.15 B/s .......... 0% 711.69 B/s .......... 0% 615.87 B/s
0K
50K
100K
on a 8Mbit/s pipe.
Where's the mirror ??
Or is this the cautious handling by my OpenBSD server to which I download ?
Why a comment in German; and furthermore in incomprehensibly bad German ?
But why would I answer to an AC, anyway !
In case you don't know, there's a Preview Button and 'Plain Old Text' if you don't happen to know HTML.
The non-genuine part enters as forgery when the registration is removed or added. Whatever modification done, the hash will differ. One can't possibly call such a .iso "genuine".
I don't agree with your last sentence, though: When you install from one and only one CD to two identical boxes, both are genuine installs. Sequence doesn't matter. You can even register the second install with Microsoft. If you never touch the first one, thereafter, don't boot ever, is the first one not genuine ? And if you registered the first and not the second one, does registration of one box turn the installation of the other machine from genuine to not genuine ? I doubt so. It might be fraudulent or against the EULA. But that is quite another item and not covering 'genuine'.
Think about this: How can registration of box A, located in San Francisco, turn another box, B, in New York, not running, not connected to power nor network, from genuine install into a non-genuine one ?
Couldn't agree less. [Though any comparison limps along the way sooner or later]
If I break into the mint and produce my own bills overnight, these bills are very genuine. Unique serial numbers and everything else identical. There is nothing not genuine about those bills. They are not authorised, though.
I would hate to call those bills 'forgery'.
Finally, it all boils down to a non-material aspect of it.
In this case, e.g. at what time of the day the bills were fabricated. Or if the supervisor was present. Materially there is no difference between bills produced when the process was overseen by a government agent or not.
Are those bills produced when he visited the restroom yesterday not legal tender ?
You see, how immaterial the whole thing can grow.
Same with Windows XP. The genuine CDs are not even pressed at Redmond. Are they not genuine, then ?
The only thing that distinguishes a CD pressed at the contractor at daytime and one pressed at nighttime (if we stick to the example) is some immaterial authority (or the lack thereof) behind both.
And to those who constantly resort to comparing the matter to paper documents and forgery thereof: That is off track. Nobody forges a paper document to look 100% as the original (not talking about artists' work here). Forgery usually includes changing names, numbers, dates here. Not point for a forger to forge my scroll 100%. It would still be my scroll, on my name with my credentials. The forger might want to put her name instead ...
Except - maybe - the level that spammers take to test the MTA for RFC compliance. But then, after all, is that worth an article and a mention on /. ?
Here we still get plenty of spam from webmail and stuff. Here I couldn't confirm the 90% 'all open relay' thingy. As long as 'open relay' indicates a proper box, meant and setup as SMTPd and relaying. Personally, I don't call an owned clickety-click box an open relay. Call Redmond.
Here it looks like another fallacy:
If they were (supporting XP), and Vista needs another extra (and this is what MS says) 50.000 people, you can make a good prediction on the quality that Micosoft expects from her own product. Vista.
No good reason to talk about 50.000 jobs lost except Vista needs less support. Which still I fail to believe.
Exactly. Though there is no clearcut answer to this behalf.
It depends largely on the character of the exploit, I'd suggest. If you can stop it at the parameter firewall, at a non-standard port, tell the sysadmins to close that bloody port for security reasons.
If it can DoS your DNS by sending a specially crafted request, I'd suggest to leave it unpublished for a reasonable time. Not to invite the kids to find out what it is and DoS half of the DNSes for contempt.
Somehow it seems to boil down to the question if the user can actually do something reasonable about it (other than closing down the boxen), or not.
If there was a vulnerability in Apache self (not in some module), I'd personally prefer no immediate disclosure. Reasonably, almost nobody will simply be able to 'httpd stop' for several days, until the patch is available, tested and proven.
There's also a reason why Linus sticks with a huge great monolithic kernel
Is this so ?
Why do you mods call this a Troll ?? This is a person who has never ever used WfW 3.11. Otherwise he'd shiver while typing 'stable'. So far to the second paragraph. The first one surely is no Troll; and the third one kind of truelly; maybe. If I had mod points, I'd give it a 'slightly funny'. Not even a Windoze zealot could call WfW 3.11 'stable', seriously.
What a p*** !!! :( :(
;; QUESTION SECTION: ;steorn.net. IN MX ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
I just wrote a long explanation in their forum and when clicking 'submit' I was kicked out.
A funny company. Has someone tried google-earth about the address ?? Anyone around in that area; from Dublin ?
I tried a whois, and they don't have a registered www.steorn.net. Only steorn.net. Probably a wildcard thingy. Makes it even more suspicious.
They also have no e-mail address(es) under their domain
dig steorn.net MX
; > DiG 9.2.4 > steorn.net MX
steorn.net. 7200 IN SOA NS59.WORLDNIC.COM. namehost.WORLDNIC.COM. 2006081400 10800 3600 604800 7200
But the address seems to prevail:
$ whois steorn.net
Domain Name: STEORN.NET
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/
Name Server: NS59.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server: NS60.WORLDNIC.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 03-Aug-2006
Creation Date: 16-Jul-2004
Expiration Date: 16-Jul-2007
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:49:37 EDT
Registrant:
McCarthy, Sean
Steorn Limited
Docklands Innovation Park
East Wall Road
Dublin3, Co.Dublin D3
IE
Domain Name: STEORN.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
McCarthy, Sean seanmcc@eircom.net
Steorn Limited
Docklands Innovation Park
East Wall Road
Dublin3, Co.Dublin D3
IE
+353-1-664-1744 fax: +353-1-664-1809
Record expires on 16-Jul-2007.
Record created on 16-Jul-2004.
Database last updated on 22-Aug-2006 03:49:55 EDT.
Version: 1.0-8762
Operating System: Linux IA32
Release Date: May 22, 2006
Runs my GeForce2 just fine.
Are you sure ?
Mod this one up.
That's the only blob I have and need: Twinview on NVIDIA.
I'd like to add to the arguments on graphics cards: Though an AMD user throughout, my next purchases might be Intel. For the open source graphics driver. And I'm not the only one. AMD, do you get the message ? [And now with ATI being a part of AMD there is no problem of listening and implementing The Good Thing.]
Read up a bit on threads, and you'll find out.
But this has been beaten to death.
It has nothing to do whatsoever with Microsoft. If you are sitting with a linear program that is executed instruction after instruction, the second core has nothing to do. Because the first core is executing that instruction and the next one comes only when the first core is ready.
Life is hard.
Someone mod parent up, please !
This is the closest on the first page of Slashdot for this topic:
Sure, you can make and keep kernie run almost forever. But would you really want to do so when your webserver is owned, your device driver screwed, your MTA sending SPAM everywhere ? Therefore, alas, the whole matter is a dead fish.
If you want to stick with the ocean-liner: You sit on a boat with bird flu, pox, a broken compartment, no food, but the engine keeps running, guaranteed. I have no clue why you would want this, by the way ? What is the great advancement ? Okay, you have compartments; you can bet on an item or another to work forever. Does this bring you to New York Harbour ?
To me the alternative of off-loading device drivers looks much more promising. There is ever more hardware, and isolating crappy drivers (frequently they are) is a possible way to clean the kernel code.
An extra layer between hardware and kernel is another goodie. Because you can run your stuff unmodified on that kernel; contrary to the Minix solution.
Sure Andrew T. is a great chap; very knowledgable AFAICS; though Minix is but an obsession for him. What a pity. Sure, monolithic kernies are ugly. Sure, microkernels are pure beauty, but don't do optimal daily work.
Hmm. Looks like I wanted to start a flame, but I fail to have experienced the 'prime time' you talk about; and I have tried and tried.
Could you be a bit more specific what you mean ? Maybe we have different ideas about the meaning of the expression ?