Why does the superuser account need access to the password file?
Surely the only thing which needs access to that is the login program and the password-changing utility. Loads and loads of programs/daemons/whatever run as root, and none of them have a valid reason to access the password file.
Talking of which, second dumb question: why do unix systems only store the passwords of valid users in the password file? Surely it would be more useful to have many random usernames with simple passwords, where any attempt to login to one of these accounts would banish whoever had tried it?
Actually, written passwords can be better, as they're more secure against brute-force and dictionary attacks. (especially if you remember the last word and write the rest in your wallet)
Talking of which, take a peek at ThinkGeek's latest gadget for storing passwords. It fits on a keyring, stores loads of passwords, and even has a mode to delete them all if you type the wrong entry-sequence.
Try a FITALY keyboard - the Q and W keys are at opposite sides!
If you're into real pain, you can get a dual-mode keyboard which changes between QWERTY and FITALY modes at the touch of a button, and has 2 labels for each key!
Leaving aside the pain of seeing 4 layers of toolbar on a 640x480 screen (thanks for the display drivers, NVIDIA, not!) has anyone else noticed how crap it is not to have a "home" button in the main Mozilla toolbar?
There's probably a keyboard shortcut I could use, but for now it's just another reason to stick with Galeon, where you can be back to google with one mouse-click.
"Internet Explorer has had Ctrl-Enter add a "http://www." before whatever's in the address bar and a ".com" after it."
I've noticed lynx doing that on a slow connection, trying out every combination of (www.)?(\1)(.?)(com|co.uk|org|gov.uk|net|de|fr) and it takes about a minute to tell you you've mistyped the page and it doesn't exist.
That feature has never been particularly useful to those of us with uk sites anyway, because typing my website without the "www" in front will return a "come back when you know the name" error whereas adding the www makes it work. Not all of us can register x.co.uk and www.x.co.uk seperately.
4. `X` buttons on the tabs In Galeon you can click on the X to close each tab, whereas Mozilla/netscape you have to select the tab, then right-click and "Close this tab"
Tabs are great for pre-loading all the links you want to read, then visiting them one-by-one.
Blocking FLASH isn't so important for me as just being able to stop it flashing/animating or whatever.
The "never play animations" button is so fantastically useful at making the web bearable that it's a real shock to find sites now which use FLASH. Even places like The Register, you can't read any content because there's some twat of an animation at the edge jumping about to get attention like microsoft's demented paperclip.
"they may have jumped a version number to make people take a more fresh and less cynical look at the program"
So should be be watching out for versions 97 and 98, followed by 2000 before they run out of numbers (not very good at maths, these version-namers) and have to start naming the releases?
"How many TCO studies include legal costs of complying to EULA's."
I dunno. But when I install commercial software at work it always takes me 20 minutes to read and check the license agreement (and if it's Oracle software I'll refuse and get my boss to click OK and type his name) so at whatever cost per hour they charge for me, that's the cost of a microsoft license.
" It seems that the most logical move for the school district to make would be to buy Macs"
Yeah, great idea. Why buy x-powered PC for $700 when you can pay 50% more and buy a Mac with the same power?
Macs are going to go the same way as Archimedes (who also aimed at the education market, who also charged 100% profit margins, and who also (oops, I mean did...) spectacularly fail when we all bought PCs instead.
Maybe Peru can be the new nation of Humorix where we all live safe from the US laws (entrance requirements: no formal law schooling). You might even persuade Alan Cox to visit for conferences if it's not in America;-)
Okay, it doesn't make sense. Let's try again, but simpler:
Free software is about being able to run your computer without having to sign NDAs, EULAs or any other restrictive contracts each time you install a piece of software.
To this end, the FSF and the GNU project were developed, mainly by Stallman.
However, there are many people now whose views are threatening the very existance of free software, not by opposing it, but by compromising.
There are people who run linux because it's cool, rather than because it's free. There are people who use NVIDIA cards with proprietry drivers on linux. There are people who use RealPlayer and Crossover office on linux. In short, people are compromising the values of free software by using proprietry software. In doing so, they are making linux non-free, not by any malicious action, but simply by standing back and accepting the use of non-free software.
The answer to this problem, assuming that "free software" still means something to people, is not easy, but freedom never is. The answer is that instead of using proprietry software, people need to take a stand, and write their own replacement. Had Stallman not taken a stand and written GCC, we would not now be able to compile any code without signing an agreement not to share.
Similarly, we now see people offering us shiny tempting things, with the strings of an EULA or a patent attached. We can watch DVDs if we only promise not to share. We can run MsOffice if we promise not to share. We can use proprietry CVS tools to get at the linux kernel, if we promise not to share.
Thankfully, there are many people who _are_ taking a stand, and writing free replacements. OpenOffice, AbiWord, XMPS, and many other tools are being created as free software, so that we can run our computers with these new toys without compromising core beliefs. But it's not something to be taken for granted. If you want free software to continue, you have to be able to take the stand and say "I'm not going to use that until either I or someone else makes it free"
It's not about the name of an operating system, it's not about trying to belittle people who disagree with the FSF, it's simply saying that without people prepared to stand up for free software, there will be little of value left in the future, as we see our free operating system balkanised into proprietry device drivers, patented software, and licensed kernels.
"I would love it if this were completely true, but this merely means this band got 1 sale -- from 1 person"
I like your logic. So obviously the record store is failing when I go in and buy my one CD. From one person. My one CD from one person. To clarify, only one CD from only one person. The record shop is obviously failing.
Yeah right.
No, it means that MP3.com is succeeding, that Aura are succeeding, and that Faithless are shafted (who made the CDs I wanted, but which I'm not gonna buy with the current state of the record industry, and their political representatives)
Here's a hint: when you have lots of people buying one thing each, you make lots of money. Find a maths book. Revise the chapter on multiplication.
"if he's so down on Linux, then why doesn't he get the FSF in gear and finish up the HURD"
Oh that's a good idea. Since we the community have all sold out to non-free software, why not just go the whole way and ignore it completely. Go whining back to the FSF, and ask the people who write the entire GNU project to write another operating system for you, you ask? Why? Because you think linux should be non-idealogical, and you're not prepared to put in any work yourself to keep it free?
If "share and share alike" is the mantra of the free-software community, where does that leave people who take the gift of GNU and try to twist it into something proprietry for selling?
S.T.F.U. about hurd -- if you're going to use GNU tools, then share some of your own stuff by working to keep linux free. Otherwise you may as well go and use Novell or Microsoft software, and stop fooling yourself about how worthy your O/S is.
Presumably everything on the network will need to be electronically signed by whoever uploaded it anyway (for many many reasons) so it won't be hard to track down whoever put restricted material on the system.
Sounds good. Maybe they can team up with the kind of artists who are currently promoting their music on MP3.com
(I just bought a couple of CDs from a band who make all their music available for free download, so it must work!)
Would it make much difference for software apps? They're mostly mirrored anyway, and Mozilla/OpenOffice-style distribution doesn't seem to be suffering many bandwidth problems.
So this virus doesn't affect you if you use KazzaLite, right? And you also use less bandwidth. ?And you use less processor time, so everything else runs faster?
Looks like Kazza's going to get a whole lot less popular as the malware-enabled version goes..
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably a dumb question but...
Why does the superuser account need access to the password file?
Surely the only thing which needs access to that is the login program and the password-changing utility. Loads and loads of programs/daemons/whatever run as root, and none of them have a valid reason to access the password file.
Talking of which, second dumb question: why do unix systems only store the passwords of valid users in the password file? Surely it would be more useful to have many random usernames with simple passwords, where any attempt to login to one of these accounts would banish whoever had tried it?
Actually, written passwords can be better, as they're more secure against brute-force and dictionary attacks. (especially if you remember the last word and write the rest in your wallet)
Talking of which, take a peek at ThinkGeek's latest gadget for storing passwords. It fits on a keyring, stores loads of passwords, and even has a mode to delete them all if you type the wrong entry-sequence.
"Your password is the weakest link. Goodbye."
Try a FITALY keyboard - the Q and W keys are at opposite sides!
If you're into real pain, you can get a dual-mode keyboard which changes between QWERTY and FITALY modes at the touch of a button, and has 2 labels for each key!
"googlebar for mozilla"
Leaving aside the pain of seeing 4 layers of toolbar on a 640x480 screen (thanks for the display drivers, NVIDIA, not!) has anyone else noticed how crap it is not to have a "home" button in the main Mozilla toolbar?
There's probably a keyboard shortcut I could use, but for now it's just another reason to stick with Galeon, where you can be back to google with one mouse-click.
"Internet Explorer has had Ctrl-Enter add a "http://www." before whatever's in the address bar and a ".com" after it."
I've noticed lynx doing that on a slow connection, trying out every combination of (www.)?(\1)(.?)(com|co.uk|org|gov.uk|net|de|fr) and it takes about a minute to tell you you've mistyped the page and it doesn't exist.
That feature has never been particularly useful to those of us with uk sites anyway, because typing my website without the "www" in front will return a "come back when you know the name" error whereas adding the www makes it work. Not all of us can register x.co.uk and www.x.co.uk seperately.
"Shouldn't it have the Netscape icon since this is a Netscape release?"
How about a "we don't care, we're blocking all images from slashdot because of the ads" option?
4. `X` buttons on the tabs
In Galeon you can click on the X to close each tab, whereas Mozilla/netscape you have to select the tab, then right-click and "Close this tab"
Tabs are great for pre-loading all the links you want to read, then visiting them one-by-one.
Blocking FLASH isn't so important for me as just being able to stop it flashing/animating or whatever.
The "never play animations" button is so fantastically useful at making the web bearable that it's a real shock to find sites now which use FLASH. Even places like The Register, you can't read any content because there's some twat of an animation at the edge jumping about to get attention like microsoft's demented paperclip.
Really? They've taken out the popup-blocking? So why would anyone want to use this crippled version of Mozilla?
The ability to banish pop-up/under/around/in-your-face ads is one of the main reasons for people switching to `proper` browsers from IE
"they may have jumped a version number to make people take a more fresh and less cynical look at the program"
So should be be watching out for versions 97 and 98, followed by 2000 before they run out of numbers (not very good at maths, these version-namers) and have to start naming the releases?
Surely once you've got Mozilla, you don't need junkbuster? You can stop pop-ups, block image servers, and limit cookies within mozilla.
Or even Settings -> Allow popups.
What would I do without Galeon! (apart from be able to read microsoft's website, of course)
How does this announcement affect PGPi ?
"How many TCO studies include legal costs of complying to EULA's."
I dunno. But when I install commercial software at work it always takes me 20 minutes to read and check the license agreement (and if it's Oracle software I'll refuse and get my boss to click OK and type his name) so at whatever cost per hour they charge for me, that's the cost of a microsoft license.
" It seems that the most logical move for the school district to make would be to buy Macs"
Yeah, great idea. Why buy x-powered PC for $700 when you can pay 50% more and buy a Mac with the same power?
Macs are going to go the same way as Archimedes (who also aimed at the education market, who also charged 100% profit margins, and who also (oops, I mean did...) spectacularly fail when we all bought PCs instead.
Kind of like the chinese language being a trade barrier to keep the US out of software development in China, right?
Local customs and all that. Wouldn't want Johnny Foreigner having access to their data without our say-so of course.
Maybe Peru can be the new nation of Humorix where we all live safe from the US laws (entrance requirements: no formal law schooling). You might even persuade Alan Cox to visit for conferences if it's not in America ;-)
Okay, it doesn't make sense. Let's try again, but simpler:
Free software is about being able to run your computer without having to sign NDAs, EULAs or any other restrictive contracts each time you install a piece of software.
To this end, the FSF and the GNU project were developed, mainly by Stallman.
However, there are many people now whose views are threatening the very existance of free software, not by opposing it, but by compromising.
There are people who run linux because it's cool, rather than because it's free. There are people who use NVIDIA cards with proprietry drivers on linux. There are people who use RealPlayer and Crossover office on linux. In short, people are compromising the values of free software by using proprietry software. In doing so, they are making linux non-free, not by any malicious action, but simply by standing back and accepting the use of non-free software.
The answer to this problem, assuming that "free software" still means something to people, is not easy, but freedom never is. The answer is that instead of using proprietry software, people need to take a stand, and write their own replacement. Had Stallman not taken a stand and written GCC, we would not now be able to compile any code without signing an agreement not to share.
Similarly, we now see people offering us shiny tempting things, with the strings of an EULA or a patent attached. We can watch DVDs if we only promise not to share. We can run MsOffice if we promise not to share. We can use proprietry CVS tools to get at the linux kernel, if we promise not to share.
Thankfully, there are many people who _are_ taking a stand, and writing free replacements. OpenOffice, AbiWord, XMPS, and many other tools are being created as free software, so that we can run our computers with these new toys without compromising core beliefs. But it's not something to be taken for granted. If you want free software to continue, you have to be able to take the stand and say "I'm not going to use that until either I or someone else makes it free"
It's not about the name of an operating system, it's not about trying to belittle people who disagree with the FSF, it's simply saying that without people prepared to stand up for free software, there will be little of value left in the future, as we see our free operating system balkanised into proprietry device drivers, patented software, and licensed kernels.
On the other hand, 2 CD sales at MP3.com probably makes more money for a band than 4 sales at a record store.
"I would love it if this were completely true, but this merely means this band got 1 sale -- from 1 person"
I like your logic. So obviously the record store is failing when I go in and buy my one CD. From one person. My one CD from one person. To clarify, only one CD from only one person. The record shop is obviously failing.
Yeah right.
No, it means that MP3.com is succeeding, that Aura are succeeding, and that Faithless are shafted (who made the CDs I wanted, but which I'm not gonna buy with the current state of the record industry, and their political representatives)
Here's a hint: when you have lots of people buying one thing each, you make lots of money. Find a maths book. Revise the chapter on multiplication.
"if he's so down on Linux, then why doesn't he get the FSF in gear and finish up the HURD"
Oh that's a good idea. Since we the community have all sold out to non-free software, why not just go the whole way and ignore it completely.
Go whining back to the FSF, and ask the people who write the entire GNU project to write another operating system for you, you ask? Why? Because you think linux should be non-idealogical, and you're not prepared to put in any work yourself to keep it free?
If "share and share alike" is the mantra of the free-software community, where does that leave people who take the gift of GNU and try to twist it into something proprietry for selling?
S.T.F.U. about hurd -- if you're going to use GNU tools, then share some of your own stuff by working to keep linux free. Otherwise you may as well go and use Novell or Microsoft software, and stop fooling yourself about how worthy your O/S is.
Presumably everything on the network will need to be electronically signed by whoever uploaded it anyway (for many many reasons) so it won't be hard to track down whoever put restricted material on the system.
Sounds good. Maybe they can team up with the kind of artists who are currently promoting their music on MP3.com
(I just bought a couple of CDs from a band who make all their music available for free download, so it must work!)
Would it make much difference for software apps? They're mostly mirrored anyway, and Mozilla/OpenOffice-style distribution doesn't seem to be suffering many bandwidth problems.
So this virus doesn't affect you if you use KazzaLite, right? And you also use less bandwidth. ?And you use less processor time, so everything else runs faster?
Looks like Kazza's going to get a whole lot less popular as the malware-enabled version goes..