This 802.11 discovery application detection is clearly a victory for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and associated subsidies such as AOL/Time-Warner and Microsoft. As all MP3 goonies know, illict data is often served from hacked sites. Wireless at 11Mbps is elusive to the warez community, and by detecting this it may be possible for anti-warez busters to detect warez d00ds on the spot, decloaking their IP-based anonymity due to 802.11's cellular IP range.
I'm noticing a downward trend here. The web is becoming increasingly overloaded. Once critical mass is reached, the entire Internet user database will be beseached. As I'm sure all music stealers are familiar with, peer-to-peer is becoming increasingly more practical. I see Tangle as a great step towards a peer-to-peer HTTP, but its only a step. One small step for HTTP. One giant leep for P2P. Fact is, not everyone is going to run Tangle. Could it be possible to shoehorn on P2P possibly using multiple DNS A RR's, or in such a way as to bring P2P to a more broad pool of users?
I suspect he was referring to security vulnerabilities--find one buffer overflow in./busybox, and by calling the program with argv[0] set to appropriate subprogram, one could cause any symlinked bin utility to give it up....subconscious thoughts:...kinda like the opposite sex...
I'm convinced. Separation of essential system routine maintence functions is necessary to ensure world class performance, as my boss would say.
So if it is, then why can't the separate-but-equal approach be applied to BusyBox, why haven't the developers chosen a less monolithic solution? Seriously, I fail to realize how one large file can be effectively different than dozens of small, efficiently-optimized binutils. Heck, if I wasn't so busy cybering I'd put in some #defines in the GNU binutils and fileutils packages to allow a less-saturated-fat version to be compiled, all directly from the same source.
On a similiar note, has anyone taken up the project of transcoding BusyBox into Unix or Linuxassembly language? GCC can do a damn good job of optimizing out loops, but you can't beat hand-coded assembly in terms of space.
I can see your point, but is there any reason why BusyBox cannot be as full-featured as the stand-alone utilities? If certain informations take excessive amounts of code to calculate, #define's could be used in case the BusyBoxer desires a more lean and mean box. If used on a high-end server, the symbol could be defined and the wanted features would be fully enabled.
I just don't see how it is feasible to leave dozens of tiny utilities littered all over the root filesystem. BusyBox, in my opinion, would be a much more elegant solution to replacing the shell's non-built-in utility functions. Are there solid technical reasons why this has not been done?
I find this 386 minimum requirement quite interesting. For all intents and purposes, the IA-32 architecture has only slightly changed from generation-to-generation with extensions such as machine status registers (MSRs), or MMX and SSE support. However, the 386 is different from previous iterations in that it supported 32-bit protected mode, which all operating systems utilize today to their fullest capacity, though some ignore features such as code seperation via segmentation and paging (ironically, Palladium claims to provide these features but it is actually the 386 platform which does, right now.)
Anyone remember Windows for Workgroups 3.11? It could run in "enhanced" mode which was 32-bit pmode, or "standard" mode--you guessed it, 16-bit pmode. Since I assume 32- and 16-bit protected mode are similar in intent but varying in widths, does this mean FreeBSD can be slightly modified to run on a 16-bit 80286? What about Linux? (No, I don't want to run Minix.)
Wait a minute...you say "no need for even a hard drive" and then "it's possible [...] to run a working mail-server on an old 386 with them". Where would you store your mail queue, on a RAM drive or NFS partition?
IBM actually has a quadruple DNS A resource record for maximum load balancing and parallelism in a Class B network spread across none less than 4/16 subnets. I kid you not:
I'm curious as to which light version of Linux you are running on your IPaq, my friend has a Palm Pilot and I'm interested in what could be run on it. Was it by any chance ucLinux or one of its variants such as Linux-Lite or Barenaked/Linux (BNL)?
Why can't Busybox be used for regular, 24/7 server use? It seems to provide all the necessary building block utilities one would expect in any Unix distribution; I'm up for it replacing/bin/* completely.
I like this idea. So we can emulate.Mac servers, BNETD servers, advertising servers, Cydoor servers, and even:CueCat servers. Setting up independent servers has the obvious advantage of being independent from an ultimate authority, decentralizing the service and making it more useful to the Internet community. So I ask Slashdot, what commericial or otherwise propertiary server will be reverse-engineered and cloned next? My vote is in for an Oscar/TOC server so one could use AOL-IM to communicate with one's LAN.
Does anyone even consider Digital TV relevant anymore? In this Internet-backed digital age, TV piracy runs rampant. Personally, as long as MIT keeps serving in #tv-rips and #anime-domain I'm not going to DDoS any Dolby servers.
...but there's nothing on. And my high-speed connection's monitored daily by the Pentagon.
-- Bad Religion, The Defense
Bad Religion knew it all along. Listen to Bad Religion, and you'll be able to predict Slashdot's next article. Good luck, and may the force be with you.
This reminds me of a recent El Reg feature "This MS Antitrust story was created by a computer program". They noticed Google News was created by a computer program, and pondered the end result of the stories where also created from a non-human entity. The results are quite interesting, if I do say so myself; and the hoax scans as if it was legitimate. Its only a matter of time until more physics journals are conned into publishing computer-generated hoaxes, to save money from humans generating the hoaxes.
Slashdot Mirror
This 802.11 discovery application detection is clearly a victory for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and associated subsidies such as AOL/Time-Warner and Microsoft. As all MP3 goonies know, illict data is often served from hacked sites. Wireless at 11Mbps is elusive to the warez community, and by detecting this it may be possible for anti-warez busters to detect warez d00ds on the spot, decloaking their IP-based anonymity due to 802.11's cellular IP range.
Micrsoft?
hitmachine.netfirms.com.
I'm noticing a downward trend here. The web is becoming increasingly overloaded. Once critical mass is reached, the entire Internet user database will be beseached. As I'm sure all music stealers are familiar with, peer-to-peer is becoming increasingly more practical. I see Tangle as a great step towards a peer-to-peer HTTP, but its only a step. One small step for HTTP. One giant leep for P2P. Fact is, not everyone is going to run Tangle. Could it be possible to shoehorn on P2P possibly using multiple DNS A RR's, or in such a way as to bring P2P to a more broad pool of users?
I suspect he was referring to security vulnerabilities--find one buffer overflow in ./busybox, and by calling the program with argv[0] set to appropriate subprogram, one could cause any symlinked bin utility to give it up. ...subconscious thoughts: ...kinda like the opposite sex...
So if it is, then why can't the separate-but-equal approach be applied to BusyBox, why haven't the developers chosen a less monolithic solution? Seriously, I fail to realize how one large file can be effectively different than dozens of small, efficiently-optimized binutils. Heck, if I wasn't so busy cybering I'd put in some #defines in the GNU binutils and fileutils packages to allow a less-saturated-fat version to be compiled, all directly from the same source.
On a similiar note, has anyone taken up the project of transcoding BusyBox into Unix or Linux assembly language? GCC can do a damn good job of optimizing out loops, but you can't beat hand-coded assembly in terms of space.
Thanks for your reply. Pretty much what I expected; I guess AWT had reasons for writing the 16-bit Minix OS from scratch.
You're lucky you don't get dropped into a BASIC shell.
I just don't see how it is feasible to leave dozens of tiny utilities littered all over the root filesystem. BusyBox, in my opinion, would be a much more elegant solution to replacing the shell's non-built-in utility functions. Are there solid technical reasons why this has not been done?
Anyone remember Windows for Workgroups 3.11? It could run in "enhanced" mode which was 32-bit pmode, or "standard" mode--you guessed it, 16-bit pmode. Since I assume 32- and 16-bit protected mode are similar in intent but varying in widths, does this mean FreeBSD can be slightly modified to run on a 16-bit 80286? What about Linux? (No, I don't want to run Minix.)
Wait a minute...you say "no need for even a hard drive" and then "it's possible [...] to run a working mail-server on an old 386 with them". Where would you store your mail queue, on a RAM drive or NFS partition?
I'm curious as to which light version of Linux you are running on your IPaq, my friend has a Palm Pilot and I'm interested in what could be run on it. Was it by any chance ucLinux or one of its variants such as Linux-Lite or Barenaked/Linux (BNL)?
Why can't Busybox be used for regular, 24/7 server use? It seems to provide all the necessary building block utilities one would expect in any Unix distribution; I'm up for it replacing /bin/* completely.
Going once...
Tell that to my 100+ AOL girlfriends.
I like this idea. So we can emulate .Mac servers, BNETD servers, advertising servers, Cydoor servers, and even :CueCat servers. Setting up independent servers has the obvious advantage of being independent from an ultimate authority, decentralizing the service and making it more useful to the Internet community. So I ask Slashdot, what commericial or otherwise propertiary server will be reverse-engineered and cloned next? My vote is in for an Oscar/TOC server so one could use AOL-IM to communicate with one's LAN.
Does anyone even consider Digital TV relevant anymore? In this Internet-backed digital age, TV piracy runs rampant. Personally, as long as MIT keeps serving in #tv-rips and #anime-domain I'm not going to DDoS any Dolby servers.
Does it?
Is like whoring for karma. Its a victimless crime!
Bad Religion knew it all along. Listen to Bad Religion, and you'll be able to predict Slashdot's next article. Good luck, and may the force be with you.
This reminds me of a recent El Reg feature "This MS Antitrust story was created by a computer program". They noticed Google News was created by a computer program, and pondered the end result of the stories where also created from a non-human entity. The results are quite interesting, if I do say so myself; and the hoax scans as if it was legitimate. Its only a matter of time until more physics journals are conned into publishing computer-generated hoaxes, to save money from humans generating the hoaxes.