Halo was originally going to be an RTS, back when its working title was Armor, I think. Then it became a third person shooter, then MS bought Bungie and fucked everything up.
No one knows what an MP3 is. Half of the users think it's the actual player device, and the other half don't even know what a file is since iTunes has abstracted them away from actually managing anything so crass as actual files on an actual disk.
Yes, this is the same 50% of users who, after you finish reinstalling Windows, stare in blank uncomprehension when their email/music and copy of Word are missing, and you don't even bother to try explaining because why would they understand when the other 500 users this month didn't.
Right, but my point is that they do have a firewall, they just don't know it. And with IPv6 and the death of NAT this won't change--your average home user will buy a small box that 'shares' their network connection (in reality acts as a router and a firewall) just as they do now.:)
When I say NAT, I don't mean firewall, I mean Network Address Translation. True, its function is usually performed by a firewall or gateway, but I'm not talking about stateful inspection or anything like that.
Neither do I!
NAT simply replaces the source and destination addresses in IP packet headers to allow multiple private IPs to use a single public IP (keeping track of conversations and such).
True enough so far...
More importantly for security, however, NAT prevents uninitiated outside connections from reaching devices inside the private network unless specifically configured as a server
No, this is the job of a firewall.
If you have a device on your network that *only* performed NAT and routing, then it will happily pass on any packets it recieves, even if they are destined for your "private" network. Now, I can't send you such a packet, but only because my ISP, and the providers in between them and your ISP won't route the packets. But if your ISP decided to poke around the "private" network then the device wouldn't stop them.
So in practice your NAT device also provides the functionality of a firewall. And so in the IPv6 world, where there is no NAT, you are no less secure. Things will not be very different to how they are now: you will still buy a £30 black box from Scan which you hook your private network up to, and it will still act as a basic firewall, dropping any packets which you do not want to pass from the Internet to your private network, and vice-versa.
Mac loyalists are a shrinking breed. As more mundanes switch to the Mac OS and take their software with them (via Wine) they will become marginalised on their own platform.
Writing to/dev/dvd is pretty much what they all do. The difference is knowing what magical ioctls to incantate on the file descriptor after you open the device but before you send data to it.
The 221 commits (and counting) into the debburn repository says otherwise.
With the unpatched cdrecord from upstream, burning on a modern system didn't work at all, due to upstream's refusal to port cdrecord to Linux 2.6 or accept patches to do so.
The Debian version of cdrecord contained a bunch of patches that made cdrecord work in many cases. Unfortunately the result of this was a version of cdrecord that no one could distribute due to the licensing problems.
Now that cdrkit has been created, those patches, along with others that have been rolled in, have finally port cdrecord to Linux 2.6 properly. Even the annoying FUD that cdrecord prints out whenever you dare to run it on Linux 2.6 has finally been removed.:)
Not true. My user can write to my cd recorder's device file, but stock cdrecord fails to function at all, and it is entirely correct to blame the upstream author when he obstinately refuses to fix it himself, or accept patches that fix it, and instead just tells his users to "upgrade" to Solaris or Linux 2.4.
So Debian should have continued to distribute cdrtools, despite the problems that 1. they didn't have permission to do so, and 2. it didn't actually work?
Slashdot Mirror
I just checked out their front page. Their craptastic design has no text, everything is constructed from images. Idiots!
Could the blind person not gone to a competitor's web site?
Halo was originally going to be an RTS, back when its working title was Armor, I think. Then it became a third person shooter, then MS bought Bungie and fucked everything up.
No one knows what an MP3 is. Half of the users think it's the actual player device, and the other half don't even know what a file is since iTunes has abstracted them away from actually managing anything so crass as actual files on an actual disk.
Yes, this is the same 50% of users who, after you finish reinstalling Windows, stare in blank uncomprehension when their email/music and copy of Word are missing, and you don't even bother to try explaining because why would they understand when the other 500 users this month didn't.
If they have any business presence in the UK at all (likely since they are phoning you in order to sell you something) then you can sue them.
... and slept through English class when you should have been learning how to use apostrophes.
Looking at current sales rate I recon it wouldn't have...
This reminds me of Steve Gibson's predictions that the 'Raw Sockets' capability of Windows XP would bring the Internet to a standstill.
So you agree that it would be an effective additional/auxillary thing you can do to secure a machine? :)
Right, but my point is that they do have a firewall, they just don't know it. And with IPv6 and the death of NAT this won't change--your average home user will buy a small box that 'shares' their network connection (in reality acts as a router and a firewall) just as they do now. :)
You do seem to understand my point... but in your original post you implied that dropping NAT would decrease security, which is not the case.
We have to get rid of NAT as soon as possible. In some countries users are already behind as many as five levels of NAT!
Whoops. I meant, dropping NAT will not decrease security! :)
If you have a device on your network that *only* performed NAT and routing, then it will happily pass on any packets it recieves, even if they are destined for your "private" network. Now, I can't send you such a packet, but only because my ISP, and the providers in between them and your ISP won't route the packets. But if your ISP decided to poke around the "private" network then the device wouldn't stop them.
So in practice your NAT device also provides the functionality of a firewall. And so in the IPv6 world, where there is no NAT, you are no less secure. Things will not be very different to how they are now: you will still buy a £30 black box from Scan which you hook your private network up to, and it will still act as a basic firewall, dropping any packets which you do not want to pass from the Internet to your private network, and vice-versa.
When you say NAT you really mean firewall. Dropping NAT will not improve security.
Spamassassin is far more accurate at classifying spam than humans. You will lose less mail if you let Spamassassin do the job.
Mac loyalists are a shrinking breed. As more mundanes switch to the Mac OS and take their software with them (via Wine) they will become marginalised on their own platform.
"Linux" *isn't* supported by the library. Linux 2.4 with the ide-scsi module does not count.
Writing to /dev/dvd is pretty much what they all do. The difference is knowing what magical ioctls to incantate on the file descriptor after you open the device but before you send data to it.
The 221 commits (and counting) into the debburn repository says otherwise.
:)
With the unpatched cdrecord from upstream, burning on a modern system didn't work at all, due to upstream's refusal to port cdrecord to Linux 2.6 or accept patches to do so.
The Debian version of cdrecord contained a bunch of patches that made cdrecord work in many cases. Unfortunately the result of this was a version of cdrecord that no one could distribute due to the licensing problems.
Now that cdrkit has been created, those patches, along with others that have been rolled in, have finally port cdrecord to Linux 2.6 properly. Even the annoying FUD that cdrecord prints out whenever you dare to run it on Linux 2.6 has finally been removed.
Not true. My user can write to my cd recorder's device file, but stock cdrecord fails to function at all, and it is entirely correct to blame the upstream author when he obstinately refuses to fix it himself, or accept patches that fix it, and instead just tells his users to "upgrade" to Solaris or Linux 2.4.
So Debian should have continued to distribute cdrtools, despite the problems that 1. they didn't have permission to do so, and 2. it didn't actually work?
The hilarious thing is that the reason the delay must be at least two seconds is to work around bugs in Solaris' hallowed (by JS) volume manager!
It sounds like you were trying to use cdrecord on an unsupported platform. You should have tried upgrading to Solaris or Linux 2.4. ;)
Debian gaining cd/dvd recording software that actually functions is a hit? :)