With OpenBSD, you NEVER need to buy the CDs. Once you learn that OpenBSD can be installed over the Internet for FREE then the "need" for iso's goes away.
You can download the install iso or floppy images from ftp.openbsd.org or a mirror and boot it. Then you select the ftp server you want to use for the install and it installs very quickly. I recently ordered the 3.5 CD set and it took a looonnnggg time to arrive. Since I was in a hurry, I just installed from the Internet and had no problems at all.
Personally I always order the latest CDs, but then I want to support the project. I use OpenBSD in production environments, and I really don't give a damn about all the "personality issues". I just like an robust and secure OS that gives me reliability and managability without fuss or fanfare.
Here's a question: What about security? And not just for this "ZigBee" system, but for wireless networking and Bluetooth as well. Don't you think that with these PAN networks, security is going to be important?
Since I saw a Bluetooth keyboard the other day, I laughed and realised that keystroke loggers are obsolete. Why should a cracker go to the trouble of futzing around trying to get a user to install a trojan or leave a port open, when they can just point a hi-gain antenna at his desktop and read what the user's typing on the keyboard.
Hasn't anyone noticed all the hassle and screaming and yelling about the crappy security WEP provides? See http://www.starkrealities.com/wireless003.html The reason that happened is that people found out that when wireless networking is used, CRACKERS BREAK IN THROUGH THE CRAPPY SECURITY. Then they mess with your systems, steal your data and zombify your servers!
In the case of 802.11?? the crackers had to be withing a few yards to break in. With a PAN, they have to be within a few feet. Maybe you live in a lead-lined cavern all alone, but most people who use tech are walking around and sitting down next to people all the time. So if you just go and sit in a waiting room while using Bluetooth or some other PAN, the person sitting behind you pretending to play games on his PDA is breaking into your systems and slurping all your passwords and credit card numbers while you sit there none the wiser.
This looks like a security nightmare. Who wants that?
IIRC, none of these private ventures that are trying to go into space are also trying to go into orbit. They are trying to do "sub-orbital" flights like the first couple of Mercury flights.
So, none of the "waste" that they may leave behind is going to remain up there: It will all come falling back down into the atmosphere where it will not pose any danger to any other spacecraft.
"The trick will be to fit all the necessary components into the available space between my son's nose and the front of the turret!"
I hope he REALLY gets that breech to be solid. If the projectile gets jammed and the breech breaks, the child is going to get a heck of a punch in the nose!
As a creaky old Fortran programmer, I vividly remember taking code and rewriting it to run efficiently on other systems. If you didn't know how the compiler "unrolled" multi-dimensional arrays in memory, you couldn't write an efficient routine that walked that array. Sometimes you could reduce execution time by over 95%, just by rearranging the order of the indices in nested loops. So even in Ancient Tymes it was critical for the programmer in the "high-level" language to understand what the "lower-level" components (in this case the compiler and the platform hardware) were doing.
Think of what a "black box" is: For a specified input it must generate specific output. However we can't seem to create ANYTHING without bugs or "special case" conditions where the system returns unexpected results. So, just as the Olde Pharte Fortran programmer had to know what the lower-level components are doing to write efficient code, anyone who uses any kind of "black box" mustn't think of that system as a "black box" at all: They MUST be aware of the low-level behaviour of all the systems they interact with and how to deal with that behaviour. JS
Slashdot Mirror
You can download the install iso or floppy images from ftp.openbsd.org or a mirror and boot it. Then you select the ftp server you want to use for the install and it installs very quickly. I recently ordered the 3.5 CD set and it took a looonnnggg time to arrive. Since I was in a hurry, I just installed from the Internet and had no problems at all.
Personally I always order the latest CDs, but then I want to support the project. I use OpenBSD in production environments, and I really don't give a damn about all the "personality issues". I just like an robust and secure OS that gives me reliability and managability without fuss or fanfare.
Just my .02
If you're hiring, I'd like to know more. You should be able to see my email address to reply. I look forward to hearing from you. JohnnyS
That's all? No death penalty? They got off easy.
Here's a question: What about security? And not just for this "ZigBee" system, but for wireless networking and Bluetooth as well. Don't you think that with these PAN networks, security is going to be important?
Since I saw a Bluetooth keyboard the other day, I laughed and realised that keystroke loggers are obsolete. Why should a cracker go to the trouble of futzing around trying to get a user to install a trojan or leave a port open, when they can just point a hi-gain antenna at his desktop and read what the user's typing on the keyboard.
Hasn't anyone noticed all the hassle and screaming and yelling about the crappy security WEP provides? See http://www.starkrealities.com/wireless003.html The reason that happened is that people found out that when wireless networking is used, CRACKERS BREAK IN THROUGH THE CRAPPY SECURITY. Then they mess with your systems, steal your data and zombify your servers!
In the case of 802.11?? the crackers had to be withing a few yards to break in. With a PAN, they have to be within a few feet. Maybe you live in a lead-lined cavern all alone, but most people who use tech are walking around and sitting down next to people all the time. So if you just go and sit in a waiting room while using Bluetooth or some other PAN, the person sitting behind you pretending to play games on his PDA is breaking into your systems and slurping all your passwords and credit card numbers while you sit there none the wiser.
This looks like a security nightmare. Who wants that?
IIRC, none of these private ventures that are trying to go into space are also trying to go into orbit. They are trying to do "sub-orbital" flights like the first couple of Mercury flights.
So, none of the "waste" that they may leave behind is going to remain up there: It will all come falling back down into the atmosphere where it will not pose any danger to any other spacecraft.
"The trick will be to fit all the necessary components into the available space between my son's nose and the front of the turret!" I hope he REALLY gets that breech to be solid. If the projectile gets jammed and the breech breaks, the child is going to get a heck of a punch in the nose!
As a creaky old Fortran programmer, I vividly remember taking code and rewriting it to run efficiently on other systems. If you didn't know how the compiler "unrolled" multi-dimensional arrays in memory, you couldn't write an efficient routine that walked that array. Sometimes you could reduce execution time by over 95%, just by rearranging the order of the indices in nested loops. So even in Ancient Tymes it was critical for the programmer in the "high-level" language to understand what the "lower-level" components (in this case the compiler and the platform hardware) were doing. Think of what a "black box" is: For a specified input it must generate specific output. However we can't seem to create ANYTHING without bugs or "special case" conditions where the system returns unexpected results. So, just as the Olde Pharte Fortran programmer had to know what the lower-level components are doing to write efficient code, anyone who uses any kind of "black box" mustn't think of that system as a "black box" at all: They MUST be aware of the low-level behaviour of all the systems they interact with and how to deal with that behaviour. JS