There is always a risk using a computer online, and the more power the logged in user has, the greater the risk, so yes, it is a risk to be root while doing things online.
But, it is not quite as dire as you fear it might be. An open port (as in a port not blocked by a firewall) is not quite enough to do any real damage. In fact, the usual meaning of an open port is one where a service is listening and responding to connections. Even then, if a service is running, and responding to connections, a cracker trying to break into your box would still have to overcome the safeguards of the daemon running the service - and then, the cracker would only have whatever permissions that the daemon itself had, unless in overcoming the daemon's security he also overcame the OS's protections (as in certain buffer-overflow attacks), which would require there being some unpatched vulnerability on a service running on your system.
All this really has pretty much nothing to do with the fact that *you* are using an app that requires root permissions to run. The biggest risk from that that I can think of at the moment is some sort of man in the middle attack, but I would imagine that YOU connects through some sort of secure connection, or at least uses some sort of authentication to verify that it's connecting to the correct server.
I don't really have any idea what the deal would be with the odd files on your desktop, sorry.
What exactly are you asking? What should one do? For Apt-get, I generally either
su
to root or
sudo apt-get
I haven't worked with SuSE, but I imagine the process is pretty similar for Yast. I don't think anyone is saying that you shouldn't ever run as root, if that's what you're asking. If it isn't, I can't make out the meaning of your question enough to answer it.
Perhaps if you'd rephrase it, I or someone else here might be able to answer.
If you must work for it, it's not free. You're just working, for a wage of one ipod.
Personally, I'd put in my hours elsewhere and buy one (if an ipod was something I wanted that much) before working for some advertising company as their shill.
I'm not trying to argue with your casting, I just thought I'd join your thread with my own ideas (discussion, you know). I had a lot of this movie cast in my head years ago when there were rumors going around that Terry Gilliam was gonna be working on it someday (If only...). Here's a few of my selections (some a bit out of date now, but still worth mentioning):
Rorschach: Willem DeFoe
Comedian: Tom Berenger
Newsstand guy: Carroll O'Connor
Dr. Manhattan: CG with voice of Leonard Nimoy
Drunk at party calling Dr Manhattan "Goddamned Mr. Spock" (cameo): DeForest Kelly
Owl: Michael Keaton
Older generation Owl: Adam West
Veidt: Kenneth Brannagh (I do like Jude Law in the part as well - I think he's well suited to the role, at least in character, if not in build, but that can be faked: think about John Malkovich in Of Mice and Men - he's HUGE)
Moloch: Vincent Price
Susan Sarandon as the original Silk Sprectre is a good call. She could pull it off, despite the fact that her powers are fading with age;)
But sadly, you're right about the one thing I wish you were wrong about: It's gonna suck.
I don't expecially agree with your post, but the one part I think most requires correcting is the last sentence, and I do realize you were accurate in that you limited the statement with "I consider" but.... As much as I love The Watchmen, it can only be considered second best, after Cerebus.
"Better to watch Bush go down in flames, than to shackle such a legacy on some other more competent leader."
Ummm...
He doesn't go down in flames alone, and we (at least those of us in the USA and whatever other countries Bush decides to invade) don't get to watch from the sidelines. This is the world we have to live in - we need the damage controlled, and soon. Bush is not the only one who is going to face the consequences of his actions.
OK, maybe my method of choosing films isn't as common as I like to think it is. I haven't seen a single film you mentioned in your post, and I probably won't go see the others unless I hear rave reviews of them.
"Note: I see at least 100 films a year in the theater, so I'm a good example of the sort of person that the studios really ought not piss off."
At what point will you be pissed off enough to stop watching? Do you still watch TV on channels with "pop-up" commercials? Also, where will you draw the line for films?
You're not alone in this, I believe most slashdotters will probably be right there along with you avoiding the Disney sequels (unless Disney somehow actually makes good sequels). However, I don't think that matters - Disney will make more than enough money off of parents with kids who will demand to see them and idiots who don't bother to know the difference.
(That said, I'm constantly amazed at how many slashdotters still intend to give George Lucas their money despite the evidence that he will continue to make horrible films and market them as Star Wars)
But wait, aren't they (Aluria/WhenU) also putting themselves at risk of similar lawsuits for their anti-competitive practice of removing Gator/Claria Bargain Buddy and friends? Seems to me this should be a major concern to these guys. Have they got some loophole I'm not aware of?
I think your attitude is admirable in that you are educating your children and guiding their exposure to games.
It's your second paragraph that I have problems with:
- Odds aren't stacked against you when you play poker, even many video poker machines offer odds in the customer's favor if they are played perfectly.
- Addiction, gambling or otherwise, doesn't only happen to the stupid. Very intelligent people (who know the odds!) can be vulnerable to gambling addiction - and your kids will be less vulnerable to it if an awareness of this fact is part of the education about games of chance that you are providing.
"two RAID-5s mirrored with a hotspare is a very common configuration. be it a 9, 13, or 17 disk"
OK, so that's what you meant by RAID5+1. I have never heard the term used that way. I read your RAID5+1 as meaning something like this, which was the the most common meaning back when I was more aware of current terms and trends in the storage industry.
My argument was based on the belief that that was your meaning, so pretty much none of it applies to what you said.
OK just re-read your comment. I knew it had to make more sense than I originally thought. And it did.
"when talking about 5+1 in a RAID5 setting, it's often a short way of saying "5 data disks +1 parity disk" for each set."
I have seen this usage, and it does make sense, but not in the context - and it would be very sloppy to say it as RAID5+1, which is what the poster I replied to said, and which is how I misread your post earlier.
I have never seen the term RAID 5+1 used the way you describe, and in the context of the post I was responding to, it doesn't seem to make sense. I'll quote:
"8 disk RAID-5? You have a lot more guts than I do!
Maybe raid5+1 or maybe four 4-disk raid5s stuck together in an append or raid0."
Note that the poster uses the term "8 disk RAID-5" to refer to a RAID 5 setup where one out of every 8 disks worth of space is dedicated to parity; then he uses "4-disk raid5s" to refer to 4disk arrays with one drive's worth of parity - right between the two he mentions "raid5+1" as an alternative to the two. To me, it's pretty clear that the meaning you're inferring is not the one the poster intended.
I am familiar with "raid 51", it's the RAID 5+1 that I and the poster I replied to above were referring to. Go back and read PC Guide again, the author points out that it is also known as RAID 5+1. He also points out that it's too slow and expensive, and recommends RAID 10 or other, non-RAID solutions to those who may be considering it. (PC Guide is a great site, BTW - it's the one I used to recommend to new (non-technical) employees as a primer on RAID when I worked for a storage company.
RAID 5+1? You have a lot more time and money than I do!
RAID 10 I can see if you really need high redundancy/availability, but 5+1 is just way too slow and too disk-hungry for any practical use. (what company or person wants to buy 16 disks for every 7 disks worth of storage they get to actually use?) For most uses, RAID 5 or RAID 3 do the job very nicely, providing decent redundancy without trading off too much space and performance. And yes, I mean 8-disk RAID 5.
RAID 6 is like RAID 5+1, but not as bad - poor performance (compared to RAID 5 - twice the parity to calculate) decent as far as disk usage - two disks out of every 8 go to parity. But it has nearly no support in the industry - RAID 6 solutions tend to be expensive enough that most who would consider it just go all the way and get a RAID 10 setup - which is also much easier to manage.
What exactly do you do with your arrays that makes you require 5+1?
OK, I must admit your irony was lost on me. I will however plead the excuse that it's really hard to pick up tone in written discussion - you sounded like one of the fanboys you were apparently trying to mock.
"Windows, Office, and Visual Studio were all products single-handedly coded by Bill Gates himself."
Talk about bull. Single handedly coded? How many lines of code is that? What exactly do the legions of programmers working for Microsoft do, if Bill is single handedly coding their biggest projects?
I'd also like to know who's the genius that modded parent interesting?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I guess shorthand is very efficient, but who has time to learn how to use one of those weird chording keyboards that stenographers use?
I guess since we're all out juggling dates with supermodels, none of us has time for slashdot anymore.
There is always a risk using a computer online, and the more power the logged in user has, the greater the risk, so yes, it is a risk to be root while doing things online.
But, it is not quite as dire as you fear it might be. An open port (as in a port not blocked by a firewall) is not quite enough to do any real damage. In fact, the usual meaning of an open port is one where a service is listening and responding to connections. Even then, if a service is running, and responding to connections, a cracker trying to break into your box would still have to overcome the safeguards of the daemon running the service - and then, the cracker would only have whatever permissions that the daemon itself had, unless in overcoming the daemon's security he also overcame the OS's protections (as in certain buffer-overflow attacks), which would require there being some unpatched vulnerability on a service running on your system.
All this really has pretty much nothing to do with the fact that *you* are using an app that requires root permissions to run. The biggest risk from that that I can think of at the moment is some sort of man in the middle attack, but I would imagine that YOU connects through some sort of secure connection, or at least uses some sort of authentication to verify that it's connecting to the correct server.
I don't really have any idea what the deal would be with the odd files on your desktop, sorry.
Perhaps if you'd rephrase it, I or someone else here might be able to answer.
If you must work for it, it's not free. You're just working, for a wage of one ipod.
Personally, I'd put in my hours elsewhere and buy one (if an ipod was something I wanted that much) before working for some advertising company as their shill.
I'm not trying to argue with your casting, I just thought I'd join your thread with my own ideas (discussion, you know). I had a lot of this movie cast in my head years ago when there were rumors going around that Terry Gilliam was gonna be working on it someday (If only...). Here's a few of my selections (some a bit out of date now, but still worth mentioning):
;)
Rorschach: Willem DeFoe
Comedian: Tom Berenger
Newsstand guy: Carroll O'Connor
Dr. Manhattan: CG with voice of Leonard Nimoy
Drunk at party calling Dr Manhattan "Goddamned Mr. Spock" (cameo): DeForest Kelly
Owl: Michael Keaton
Older generation Owl: Adam West
Veidt: Kenneth Brannagh (I do like Jude Law in the part as well - I think he's well suited to the role, at least in character, if not in build, but that can be faked: think about John Malkovich in Of Mice and Men - he's HUGE)
Moloch: Vincent Price
Susan Sarandon as the original Silk Sprectre is a good call. She could pull it off, despite the fact that her powers are fading with age
But sadly, you're right about the one thing I wish you were wrong about: It's gonna suck.
I don't expecially agree with your post, but the one part I think most requires correcting is the last sentence, and I do realize you were accurate in that you limited the statement with "I consider" but.... As much as I love The Watchmen, it can only be considered second best, after Cerebus.
Or gesture up (gotta love gestures :)
You mean signed with one of these keys?
Maybe it's because those keys cost money, and Firefox is a free (as in beer) application.
Convenient how Microsoft's "security" makes open source Windows apps look insecure, isn't it?
"Better to watch Bush go down in flames, than to shackle such a legacy on some other more competent leader."
Ummm...
He doesn't go down in flames alone, and we (at least those of us in the USA and whatever other countries Bush decides to invade) don't get to watch from the sidelines. This is the world we have to live in - we need the damage controlled, and soon. Bush is not the only one who is going to face the consequences of his actions.
OK, maybe my method of choosing films isn't as common as I like to think it is. I haven't seen a single film you mentioned in your post, and I probably won't go see the others unless I hear rave reviews of them.
I guess that would make me a pessimist.
"Note: I see at least 100 films a year in the theater, so I'm a good example of the sort of person that the studios really ought not piss off."
At what point will you be pissed off enough to stop watching? Do you still watch TV on channels with "pop-up" commercials? Also, where will you draw the line for films?
You're not alone in this, I believe most slashdotters will probably be right there along with you avoiding the Disney sequels (unless Disney somehow actually makes good sequels). However, I don't think that matters - Disney will make more than enough money off of parents with kids who will demand to see them and idiots who don't bother to know the difference.
(That said, I'm constantly amazed at how many slashdotters still intend to give George Lucas their money despite the evidence that he will continue to make horrible films and market them as Star Wars)
But wait, aren't they (Aluria/WhenU) also putting themselves at risk of similar lawsuits for their anti-competitive practice of removing Gator/Claria Bargain Buddy and friends? Seems to me this should be a major concern to these guys. Have they got some loophole I'm not aware of?
I think your attitude is admirable in that you are educating your children and guiding their exposure to games.
It's your second paragraph that I have problems with:
- Odds aren't stacked against you when you play poker, even many video poker machines offer odds in the customer's favor if they are played perfectly.
- Addiction, gambling or otherwise, doesn't only happen to the stupid. Very intelligent people (who know the odds!) can be vulnerable to gambling addiction - and your kids will be less vulnerable to it if an awareness of this fact is part of the education about games of chance that you are providing.
"two RAID-5s mirrored with a hotspare is a very common configuration. be it a 9, 13, or 17 disk"
OK, so that's what you meant by RAID5+1. I have never heard the term used that way. I read your RAID5+1 as meaning something like this, which was the the most common meaning back when I was more aware of current terms and trends in the storage industry.
My argument was based on the belief that that was your meaning, so pretty much none of it applies to what you said.
It can mean that, but I don't think it does in this context.
To my mind, 'normally' it means RAID 5, mirrored.
Hopefully the poster I replied to will reply at some point and clarify his meaning for us.
OK just re-read your comment. I knew it had to make more sense than I originally thought. And it did.
"when talking about 5+1 in a RAID5 setting, it's often a short way of saying "5 data disks +1 parity disk" for each set."
I have seen this usage, and it does make sense, but not in the context - and it would be very sloppy to say it as RAID5+1, which is what the poster I replied to said, and which is how I misread your post earlier.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
I have never seen the term RAID 5+1 used the way you describe, and in the context of the post I was responding to, it doesn't seem to make sense. I'll quote:
"8 disk RAID-5? You have a lot more guts than I do!
Maybe raid5+1 or maybe four 4-disk raid5s stuck together in an append or raid0."
Note that the poster uses the term "8 disk RAID-5" to refer to a RAID 5 setup where one out of every 8 disks worth of space is dedicated to parity; then he uses "4-disk raid5s" to refer to 4disk arrays with one drive's worth of parity - right between the two he mentions "raid5+1" as an alternative to the two. To me, it's pretty clear that the meaning you're inferring is not the one the poster intended.
I am familiar with "raid 51", it's the RAID 5+1 that I and the poster I replied to above were referring to. Go back and read PC Guide again, the author points out that it is also known as RAID 5+1. He also points out that it's too slow and expensive, and recommends RAID 10 or other, non-RAID solutions to those who may be considering it. (PC Guide is a great site, BTW - it's the one I used to recommend to new (non-technical) employees as a primer on RAID when I worked for a storage company.
It's been awhile since I worked in storage, but when I did the name to trust in SCSI drives was Seagate.
But I must admit, I haven't exactly been keeping track lately and that's the type of thing that may have changed since I last looked.
RAID 5+1? You have a lot more time and money than I do!
RAID 10 I can see if you really need high redundancy/availability, but 5+1 is just way too slow and too disk-hungry for any practical use. (what company or person wants to buy 16 disks for every 7 disks worth of storage they get to actually use?) For most uses, RAID 5 or RAID 3 do the job very nicely, providing decent redundancy without trading off too much space and performance. And yes, I mean 8-disk RAID 5.
RAID 6 is like RAID 5+1, but not as bad - poor performance (compared to RAID 5 - twice the parity to calculate) decent as far as disk usage - two disks out of every 8 go to parity. But it has nearly no support in the industry - RAID 6 solutions tend to be expensive enough that most who would consider it just go all the way and get a RAID 10 setup - which is also much easier to manage.
What exactly do you do with your arrays that makes you require 5+1?
Of course it's too late now, you've ruined the plot for the rest of us!
OK, I must admit your irony was lost on me. I will however plead the excuse that it's really hard to pick up tone in written discussion - you sounded like one of the fanboys you were apparently trying to mock.
"Medium format film - even say 4x5" film scanned at a modest 3300 dpi gives you over a 200MP image with plenty of detail to spare."
Sorry to pick nits, but 4x5" is large format. Medium format is 2 1/4" (6cm) stuff such as Hasselblads and Mamiyas. Think 120/220 film.
That said, I don't claim to be knowledgeable enough to take a side in the 'Is digital as good as film yet' debate.
"Windows, Office, and Visual Studio were all products single-handedly coded by Bill Gates himself."
Talk about bull. Single handedly coded? How many lines of code is that? What exactly do the legions of programmers working for Microsoft do, if Bill is single handedly coding their biggest projects?
I'd also like to know who's the genius that modded parent interesting?