Well, yes, there were some good points, and you have made some good points as well.:)
But - saying something like "it's too hard to remember secure passwords, so we stored them on a laptop, and if it had been cracked the whole network would have been vulnerable..."
I mean, come on. That doesn't make them sound terribly professional.
In the discussion that followed the successful crack, there was mention of AutoRPM as one solution for staying up to date. So PCWeek jumps in and says "AutoRPM is the only solution." Um.... ok. Or you could just subscribe to the Red Hat mailing list...?
They complain about how hard it is to remember "secure" passwords such as "[Athl!g" and how they had to keep a list (in cleartext I suppose) on a laptop. Try something like "TcIoOtLtWeD" which is nice and easy to remember.*
And of course, as everyone has mentioned, first they say that Red Hat had 21 security updates available, and turn around and lament that there's no place to go to see which security updates are available... durr....
Overall, they just sound clueless and/or heavily influenced.
*"This contest Is one Of the Lamest things We've ever Done."
Places like DejaNews, while great resources, also have some privacy implications. Who is this person? What else is he interested in? How long has he been on the 'net? What sorts of things does he buy and sell? What software packages does he use? Is he involved in pornography? Etc... Many of these questions can be answered in part by using the archive search features on DejaNews. Sure, when you post to Usenet, you are giving up a lot of privacy. But when you consider that the archive goes back for *years* the implications are bigger than you might think at first glace.
It's only a matter of time until a presidential candidate bows out of the race when someone dregs up a past Usenet post that makes him/her look bad...
... I think he is right to criticize them for saying one thing, but doing another, in an effort to get some free publicity and/or damage a competitor.
I too am a firm believer that the author of a piece of work has the right to distribute it under any license they choose.
However, announcing to the world that you're going to open up your source - when the world is just finally learning what that means - but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.
Hrm, I don't necessarily agree. For one, um - why'd you skip the dial-up step for standalone?:)
But anyway, I've actually been thinking about doing something like this. I'd like to make a gradebook application for Linux, and I've been thinking about how to implement it. I've considered using a web front-end, that way folks on macs, linux, windows, or palm pilots can access it. If it's on a LAN, it'd work well. I don't plan to put banner ads in my app.:)
Actually, the cheapest version is $29.99 - I think that's a pretty interesting move.
I imagine that a lot of people who bought 6.0 from cheapbytes for $4 instead of from Red Hat for $80 may actually consider buying 6.1 from Red Hat. $30 is quite reasonable, considering you even get some support.
Gnome 1.0.50 (which is a major-effort coordinated release) is *almost* ready to go - so I'm surprised that they didn't wait a week or so for that. Ah well. Easy enough to upgrade. Or maybe it's already in there?
If you've actually used Red Hat, or Linux for that matter, I wouldn't expect you to make comments like "suckers who got 6.0 training need 6.1 training" - that's just not the way it works. If you know how to use Red Hat 5.1, you can probably do just fine with 6.1. Linux changes every day. Red Hat rolls up those changes every 6 months or so, with their new features as well.
And of course, anyone trained on 6.0 who thinks 6.1 will be confusing (!) well - they can just keep running 6.0.:-)
You're right - you can't pass wildcards to rpm when you're doing an FTP install. Is there a way this could be done? I was disappointed to find that it's not currently possible.
If the install has the net set up and working, then yes, I'd love to see "The following updates are currently available. Would you like to install them.?"
Also, perhaps a daily crontab that checks for new updates and mails root. Assuming that a root that doesn't look for updates would ever check mail.:)
I think PCWeek had the responsibility to apply all the updates that were on the RH site before they put this box online... I mean, what if the NT box had not had any service packs updated on it? Microsoft would be crying bloody murder...
Geez, I coulda won the box. I never thought to try to exploit the KNOWN, FIXED, UPDATED bugs.:/ (Well... maybe... )
However, pointing all this out makes the Linux crowd look like whiners. Ah well, water under the bridge. Do it again in 6 months.
OpenSales will be open sourcing its
code for the Open Merchant commerce server to the developer commnunity very soon. It is a Linux based next-generation e-commerce technology that is feature-rich enabling developers to build a full commerce solution. (snip) For access to the source code, leave us your email address below.
So... maybe. Or is this just another "call it open and sucker people into working on your project" scam?:)
Well, hell, it's probably way to late for anyone to actually read this comment, but does anyone remember the Lothar Project? It's a hardware autodetection package that Mandrake is working on. It was mentioned on Slashdot a while ago. The hope was that geeks would read about it, and help.
Ok, moderator types... the top-ranked comment on just about every story I've read today has been pumped up on "funny." And most of it's not that funny.
Let's exercise those "insightful" and "informative" buttons once in a while, eh?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, there were some good points, and you have made some good points as well. :)
But - saying something like "it's too hard to remember secure passwords, so we stored them on a laptop, and if it had been cracked the whole network would have been vulnerable..."
I mean, come on. That doesn't make them sound terribly professional.
In the discussion that followed the successful crack, there was mention of AutoRPM as one solution for staying up to date. So PCWeek jumps in and says "AutoRPM is the only solution." Um.... ok. Or you could just subscribe to the Red Hat mailing list...?
They complain about how hard it is to remember "secure" passwords such as "[Athl!g" and how they had to keep a list (in cleartext I suppose) on a laptop. Try something like "TcIoOtLtWeD" which is nice and easy to remember.*
And of course, as everyone has mentioned, first they say that Red Hat had 21 security updates available, and turn around and lament that there's no place to go to see which security updates are available... durr....
Overall, they just sound clueless and/or heavily influenced.
*"This contest Is one Of the Lamest things We've ever Done."
This is annoying... why can't I select and copy any of the text in that article...?
I've seen it a lot lately.
/me fires up "view source"
Ok, so I forgot to read one line of the previous post. :) Here's some info on Amex's "Wallet"
Is this sort of like what American Express has done with "Blue?"
Places like DejaNews, while great resources, also have some privacy implications. Who is this person? What else is he interested in? How long has he been on the 'net? What sorts of things does he buy and sell? What software packages does he use? Is he involved in pornography? Etc... Many of these questions can be answered in part by using the archive search features on DejaNews. Sure, when you post to Usenet, you are giving up a lot of privacy. But when you consider that the archive goes back for *years* the implications are bigger than you might think at first glace.
It's only a matter of time until a presidential candidate bows out of the race when someone dregs up a past Usenet post that makes him/her look bad...
... I think he is right to criticize them for saying one thing, but doing another, in an effort to get some free publicity and/or damage a competitor.
I too am a firm believer that the author of a piece of work has the right to distribute it under any license they choose.
However, announcing to the world that you're going to open up your source - when the world is just finally learning what that means - but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.
A simple "more evil" works, as well.
'nuf said
Hrm, I don't necessarily agree. For one, um - why'd you skip the dial-up step for standalone? :)
:)
But anyway, I've actually been thinking about doing something like this. I'd like to make a gradebook application for Linux, and I've been thinking about how to implement it. I've considered using a web front-end, that way folks on macs, linux, windows, or palm pilots can access it. If it's on a LAN, it'd work well. I don't plan to put banner ads in my app.
Here you go.
Actually, the cheapest version is $29.99 - I think that's a pretty interesting move.
I imagine that a lot of people who bought 6.0 from cheapbytes for $4 instead of from Red Hat for $80 may actually consider buying 6.1 from Red Hat. $30 is quite reasonable, considering you even get some support.
Should have waited for 2.6, I hear it'll be even better. :/
This is chock full of updated packages. At some point you just have to ship it. They'll get 2.4 "when it's ready."
I tried to get an early beta to run, but the PCMCIA install was hosed back then, so I never got it going...
Perhaps asking for screenshots is a little lame, but I'd really like to see what the graphical installer looks like. Anyone got 'em?
Gnome 1.0.50 (which is a major-effort coordinated release) is *almost* ready to go - so I'm surprised that they didn't wait a week or so for that. Ah well. Easy enough to upgrade. Or maybe it's already in there?
If you've actually used Red Hat, or Linux for that matter, I wouldn't expect you to make comments like "suckers who got 6.0 training need 6.1 training" - that's just not the way it works. If you know how to use Red Hat 5.1, you can probably do just fine with 6.1. Linux changes every day. Red Hat rolls up those changes every 6 months or so, with their new features as well.
:-)
And of course, anyone trained on 6.0 who thinks 6.1 will be confusing (!) well - they can just keep running 6.0.
Where are my moderator rights when I need them?!
You're right - you can't pass wildcards to rpm when you're doing an FTP install. Is there a way this could be done? I was disappointed to find that it's not currently possible.
If the install has the net set up and working, then yes, I'd love to see "The following updates are currently available. Would you like to install them.?"
:)
Also, perhaps a daily crontab that checks for new updates and mails root. Assuming that a root that doesn't look for updates would ever check mail.
"We didn't apply the 21 service patches for Red hat.... we did however install SP5 because it was easier."
/pub/updates/6.0/i386/*.rpm (or wherever)
ftp updates.redhat.com
prompt off
mget
rpm -Fvh *.rpm
*done*
So much for "too hard!" Maybe Red Hat should ball up all of the current updates into one smart installer to make it even EASIER...?
I think PCWeek had the responsibility to apply all the updates that were on the RH site before they put this box online... I mean, what if the NT box had not had any service packs updated on it? Microsoft would be crying bloody murder...
:/ (Well... maybe... )
Geez, I coulda won the box. I never thought to try to exploit the KNOWN, FIXED, UPDATED bugs.
However, pointing all this out makes the Linux crowd look like whiners. Ah well, water under the bridge. Do it again in 6 months.
So... maybe. Or is this just another "call it open and sucker people into working on your project" scam?
Maybe you should do that now?
Ok, moderator types... the top-ranked comment on just about every story I've read today has been pumped up on "funny." And most of it's not that funny.
:)
Let's exercise those "insightful" and "informative" buttons once in a while, eh?
How can you block it on cable, when you have a pipe running essentially directly from your house to your neighbor's? Am I missing something?