on that note, they could use the speed as their sales pitch. "Formats Windows partitions 6 times faster!!!" *ducks*
I know it's just a joke, and I'm going maybe a bit off topic here, but have you ever formatted a Windows partition in Linux? Seriously, this is the way to fly...even if you don't use Linux much, it's worth your time to go download Knoppix or something and learn the few commands used to partition and format. You can format a 300GB drive as either FAT32 or NTFS in less than 10 seconds.
1)fdisk/dev/hda (/dev/hda == primary master...hdb==pri/slave, hdc==sec/mast, etc.)
2)Use self-explanitory one-letter commands to navigate fdisk and create either an NTFS (type 7) or FAT32 (type b) partition.
3)mkntfs -Q/dev/hda1 -or- mkfs.vfat -F 32/dev/hda1 (choose the partition number you created in step #1.)
There are two great parts about this. First is the speed....It takes several hours to do this in Windows, but this takes seconds and works great with Windows afterward. But just as nice is the ability to create really big FAT32 drives. The format allows for huge (16TB or something?) volumes, but for some stupid reason the format utility provided in Windows restricts you to 32GB.
That brings up an incredibly frustrating story, about the last time I tried to format a drive in Windows. It was a USB drive, so I wanted to use FAT for portability. I tried to format it, and in about 5 seconds the program told me the size of the drive and had me hit enter to confirm that I wanted it all as one big FAT32 volume. Then it verified the drive integrity for 7 and a half hours at the end of which it said "Volume is too large for FAT32."
YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! YOU KNEW HOW BIG IT WAS WHEN YOU FUCKING STARTED!!!!
Anyway, that's how I came to realize how much better it is to use Linux to format all your Windows drives. I won't be going back until MS forces a new filesystem on us.
Uh, why wouldn't it? To the system it's just a SATA drive. I've got a gentoo system that's taking up 1.8GB and doing useful stuff. It's not very performance intensive right now, as I've only got 5 phones attached to it (it's an asterisk PBX), but should I go and attach another 100 or so, I can see how this would be pretty cool. I could store the voicemail off on some big disk, and the rest of everything would be perfectly happy on this drive.
Of course, I do wonder whether the reliability would be good. The battery in particular bothers me. On the other hand, while TFA says there's no disk-backup system, I disagree....seems like dd should work ok, right?
Hey man, chill out. Mostly I was just making a point; you can bitch about any OS, and it'll sound just as silly to the people who actually use it.
However, I do want to mention just a couple of things:
you right click on the dock and select dock preferences and turn off "dock magnification" oh look this was so complicated. Guess what the dock will now stay the same size. Whew! that was hard
First, your attempt at sarcasm is truly awful...really makes you sound like a dick. But more importantly, your attempt at a solution fails utterly. The icon all the way to the left will still be in a completely different place than it was 5 minutes ago if I've opened any new windows. And you can't configure that away. See my other post above for a full description of why the dock sucks.
So really you're just full of shit and trying to get mod points by sounding smart and profound and calling FUD on others while resorting to FUD yourself. Shame on you buddy.
No, you're a jackass who has no perspective and no sense of humor. And my karma has been above 50 for a few years now, so there's not a lot of incentive for me to go around whoring. Not to mention that the only mods I got for that post were "funny" (makes sense to me) which don't affect karma.
Generally I agree; see other post where I explain that I was making points about the GP's argument through the way I responded.
But I do disagree about the dock. It still sucks. It's configured badly by default, and even discounting that I have three requirements that I don't think I can configure away:
1)It needs to stay the same size. And I'm not talking about the zooming; the important part is that it grows and shrinks depending on how much stuff is in it. This means that each icon moves around the bottom of the screen depending on how many windows are running. That's bad.
2)It should be attached to the corners. Corners are the most valuable screen real estate...you can get to them without even looking, and you can get to them faster than any other place. Yet the dock wastes half of your allotment of them. I want either something that takes up the whole side (whichever you've chosen) and thus incorporates two corners, or something that starts in a corner and extends. And I'd prefer to have 2 or more of those if we're doing the latter, so I can have one in each corner.
3)It shouldn't stay above everything else. Either make windows conform to its size (like in Windows/KDE/Gnome, where you can't size a window past the bar) or make them go over it (and have a way to get it back). This is one of the things that makes people autohide the dock so often (the other is that it's so big by default) which is the worst thing in the world to do given that you can't predict where icons are going to be because of #1.
Basically my problem with the dock is this: while it looks great in a storefront, it always seems to get in the way when I'm actually using the machine. It's huge by default, and at the bottom of the screen. Particularly on widescreen Macs, this results in a ton of screen area that is wasted. It gets on top of applications, making me do weird gyrations to get them out of its way. It bounces up and down and does other odd things, which seem cool at first but lose luster over time. It makes me hunt for stuff. It's generally just very pretty, and very annoying. Some of this can be fixed; you can attach it to the side instead of the bottom, shrink it, and turn off the bouncing and magnification. But other stuff can't be fixed. The dock is poor UI, and that's that.
That's funny...the one button mouse argument that hasn't been an issue for years now...Hopefully you said that simply in jest at the grandparent making up claims out of thin air.
Yes. That was half of the idea here....my claims about the Mac were roughly identically arbitrary and matters of taste, some of which could be changed and/or dealt with anyway. The other half was to point out that I really do feel more comfortable on the Linux desktops than in OSX...but note the contrast of my claim ("I'm more comfortable with X than Y.") to the parent's claim ("You can't tell me you're more comfortable with X than Y!"). I was saying what makes me feel that OSX is a pain. He was telling us all that no one can feel that OSX is a pain. That's just downright silly.
And in defense of me calling it a pain (although as I said I was to some degree being purposefully difficult and indefensible about it), let me say this: I don't have these options most of the times I'm dealing with Macs. I don't own one....if I'm using the interface, it's because I'm on someone else's machine. Probably a laptop. So, maybe half the time another mouse is around, and maybe half of those times I feel like plugging it into the laptop. And I'm certainly not going to go changing all their settings around.
And one other thing. My complaint about the dock does not require the magnification feature to be on. The complaint is that icons on the dock are not always in the same place. The dock centers itself in the bottom of the screen, and resizes to accomodate the number of icons you have on it plus the running windows. This means that with few icons the leftmost icon will be near the center of the screen, and if you add more icons or start more running windows, it will be closer to the edge. The other failing of the dock is that it wastes two of the corners, which are by far the most accessible parts of the screen.
That's why those built-in Dell wireless network cards work so well. Or maybe those great Linksys ones so many people already have that "just work" with Windows.
That's why that sangoma DS3 card works so well in Windows. Or maybe those Alpha motherboards that "just work" with Linux.
Seriously, quit your bitching. OS's don't support the same hardware as each other. That's that. I can name hardware that won't work with any OS you can name. And if you want to run it by the numbers, Linux 2.6 runs on way more hardware than any version ever of either OSX or Windows.
A *lot* of stuff doesn't work, looks crappy (love those Linux fonts -- what? steal the MS ones?)
There are plenty of perfectly fine fonts available for Linux these days that aren't from MS. This problem hasn't been around for years. You're just making shit up.
how come firefox doesn't match the theme I just installed. Oh wait, neither do any of the gnome apps!
How come Firefox doesn't match the theme I just installed on Windows? Oh wait, neither does quicktime, EasyCDCreator, Realplayer, WinDVD, and on and on.
I love Linux for servers, but if you can't admit Mac OS X "just works", you aren't being honest. If price is a factor, then its a factor, but don't BS everyone about it being a PITA.
I'm far, far more comfortable in either KDE or Gnome than I'm likely to ever be dealing with a flakey 1-button mouse and a dock that won't stay the same size or keep frequently used icons in the same spot. And I'm a lot more comfortable doing a lot of tasks from the CLI than from any desktop. And I'm sure as hell not happy with all the parts of the filesystem that OSX hides and the UNIX commands that I'm locked out of and all the other eccentricities of the system. And I could do without the damned genie crap and the other icandy too. Now you can like OSX all you want, but don't tell me I can't call it a pain in my ass. That's for my ass to tell me.
GNU/Linux is a "Unix Clone" in that it acts like Unix but has absolutely no code in common with any variant of Unix, nor is it POSIX compliant, thus making it not Unix.
If you're going to nitpick, make sure you don't leave yourself open to nitpicking.
Nope...you really shouldn't have included that last line. Sorry, but Linux most certainly does share code with UNIX, in particular BSD. Remember the slides that SCO showed those people, which Perens and others showed weren't copyright issues? Well, they did all come to the Linux tree from UNIX one way or another...just not in any improper way. One of them was malloc(), which was a direct copy of some really ancient UNIX code, which IIRC was first published in a compsci textbook in the early 70's...hence my sig. That code isn't in there in recent Linux releases, but there are other examples, including another chunk of those slides which came from Irix. I'll bet the UFS driver has a bunch of BSD code. Early versions of Linux used a firewall pulled directly out of BSD.
No doubt about it, Linux does share code with BSD and other Unices. It probably has less now than it once did, but it's still there. Of course, Windows is widely reported to have a bunch of BSD code in it as well, so maybe that's not a good yardstick for, well, anything. But still, UNIX has pollinated an awful lot of the computing landscape.
Go by stats if you'd like but it doesn't deny the obvious truth of picking up the phone and not even getting a dial tone where as you're Internet is still going.
Paraphrased:
Go by statistical data if you like, but it doesn't deny my anecdotal evidence.
That's downright laughable. You are totally clueless.
Anyway, I'm not so much claiming that the network is more reliable than the phone as that I'm pointing out that the phone isn't any more reliable than the network. As you said they often use the same transmission medium.
Man, you've got trouble with logic. The "same medium" argument works my way, but not yours, for one simple reason: the Internet requires telco infrastructure, but the telco infrastructure does not require the Internet. The Internet connection is working telco plus a bunch of other added services. Thus the reliability of it will be lower by definition. The isolated anecdotes about having no dialtone while your Internet connection is up are just that: isolated anecdotes. Something happened to go wrong with one wire and not another. But the probability that each of the two wires would fail was identical.
Oh, and I didn't say they "often" use the same infrastructure. I said Internet service requires telco infrastructure, period. Not often, not some of the time, but always. Your cable company is connected to the Internet on services provided by a telco. So is your wireless provider.
Not Linux, BSD (actually, a variant). BSD is actually Unix, whereas Linux is "Unix-like." Mind you, this distinction is only important to lawyers and zealots.
And kernel hackers.
And as for the legal distinction, OSX isn't "UNIX" either. None of the set {Linux, FreeBSD, OSX} have a legal right to call themselves "UNIX." You'll note that Apple's literature says "based on UNIX" in lots of places, but never "OSX is UNIX" or anything else that would explicitly mean the same. Similarly, freebsd.org says freebsd was "derived" from BSD UNIX.
Sorry guy, but I call bullshit. Phone service in any location in America is more reliable than Internet service in the same place. Your claim that "I've lived all over and phone service sucks" sounds ridiculous on its face, completely disagrees with the available statistical data and all the rest of us here's experience, doesn't logically follow (given that all Internet services are one way or another dependant on the telco systems you claim are less reliable) and is just plain wrong.
That's nearly the same thing I thought when I read that post. Except my thought was more along the lines of "Gee, this guy obviously knows dick about networking protocols, but wants to sound cool on/. by complaining about how the ignorant masses latched onto one that's no good. Isn't he supposed to be off someplace bitching about X?"
Or perhaps you'd prefer visitors to stick to the content that you're serving, instead of the content they might have the technical prowess to access.
Right. Precisely. That's what I've been saying all along; it's not ok to break into things...using someone's weak password, cracking wep, or even probably assigning yourself a static IP on their wifi. But it is ok to make normal requests for network access using standard protocols, and if their server answers in the affirmative, it's ok to use the resources they have authorized you to use.
Look, if your parked in front of some strangers house, and he's asking you to leave, it's *not hard* to determine his intentions.
That's true. And as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion, if Dinon had asked Smith to leave or to stop using the network, these charges would be valid. But Dinon didn't do that, at least according to TFA. He walked near Smith's vehicle, and looked at him...but he never spoke to him. There was no notice given that he was unwelcome; the only notice one way or the other was the SSID broadcast followed by the DHCP lease.
Actually, the blurb mis-cites the affected versions. 1.3.x is affected as well.
However, this is hardly a problem for anyone. It only affects users of mod_proxy, and then it only allows another request to the backend, which is to say your backend would need to have some other vulnerability in it to do anything useful.
*I shamelessly stole this analysis from chipig on #gentoo-apache, who's an apache herd member.
Is your redhat 8 box on the internet? If it's not intentionally connected to a public network, but instead connected to a private network that I'm not invited on to, then yes it's a problem if I attempt access.
If it's on a public network, then you give pretty clear permission for me to access it...
Yes. The redhat box is on the public Internet. Just exactly 100% like the AP in this situation was attached to the public Internet. That's pretty much exactly my point; thanks for making it for me. Installing an AP is installing a network device that provides services. If you do that on the public Internet, it is granting access to said services according to the policies configured in the device. If those policies allow public access, you are authorizing public access.
Uh, so is your point that your level of flamewarfare is so much higher than ours that you can preseperate all our wars for us? Into two categories: "you're stupid if you're arguing over this" and "you're stupid if you're on side X of this argument."
Also humorous:
1)You don't know what PHP is.
2)Your ideas about the GPL read like you're quoting Ballmer.
3)You should let Google, Pixar, ILM, and all the financial companies know that they're using a toy OS.
4)Could you give me the URLs to some cool C++ applets on the web?
5)How do you call vi/emacs "just 2 ways of doing the same thing" and then start shouting about latex over word?
6)When was the last time you used word, anyway? Was it on DOS? Because this choking problem I've not seen, and my documents are frequently a lot bigger than 6 pages.
Really. I mean, what a hell of a display of crazy views, and so presumptuously just thrown out there all at once. I mean, man, that's talent.
You are being intentionally stupid. Is your unchained bicycle sitting there with a sign on it that says "this bicycle was left here as a public service, feel free to ride it."?
If the only invitation that matters is that of a person, then we have to stop using the Internet. The Internet (and all computer networks) is entirely based on the idea that we can configure devices to control access for us automatically. If we just take that away and allow people to simply say "that's not how I meant to have my access controlled" then we can't use the Internet any more. We would have to first evaluate the wishes of every owner of every network resource.
Seriously. Say I put up a redhat 8 box, which default installs with apache. And then you go to my server on port 80. Is that unauthorized access?
If you want to override the access controls you have put in place, you need to do so explicitly. In this case, that means approaching the car and saying "stop using my wifi network." Because otherwise, you have authorized access to the network by providing a listening service.
No, no, and no. I'm not suggesting we ever assume anything. My position has been consistent. We're not "assuming" that we can use the network resource because it's unsecured. We are asking to use the resource, and the controlling entity for the resource is granting permission.
This is really simple. The routing device is the authority for the network, and it's telling you it's ok to use the network. There is no assumption in this situation.
It's not the responsibility of the networks owner to explicitly grant permission, and making the exceedingly weak argument that leaving an AP open is implying permission just puts you inches from a jail cell.
Uh, do what? You just said they don't need to explicitly grant permission. Ok, then it's implicitly granted.
However, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference, because in this case permission is being explicitly granted. That's the point you won't stop flying right over. Quit saying "leaving an AP open." This is not leaving anything open...it is setting a routing policy that explicitly and actively grants public network access. It is equivalent to turning on anonymous FTP and then trying to have someone arrested for downloading what's there.
The big issue here is that you people are trying to make the standard for authorized access the network owner's intent. That is a completely unreasonable standard, because it places an undue burden on anyone wanting to access anything; there's simply no way to know what the owner of a device intends...you can only know what policies they actually set. As long as you obey those policies, you're within your rights.
I _understand_ nerd logic (and your web server analogy and obliviousness to my point make for a perfect example thereof)
Look, I'm not oblivious to your point. You're just wrong. Both your assertion that juries can't or won't listen to expert testimony in a trial setting and your assertion that nerd logic somehow isn't correct in a discussion about networking are wrongheaded.
The nerds built the Internet, and if the rest of the world wants to go and try to administer it while disregarding the logic of the nerds, they just won't have an Internet left. And that's that.
But in any case, the logic doesn't have to be this nerdy; we're discussing it at a somewhat higher than layman's level because we can do that here. In court, I think the more direct way to put this issue is this: If this was "unauthorized access to a computer network," then at what point did the owner of the computer network notify the person accessing the network that his activity required authorization? Then you note that people go to websites all the time, and only need to quit doing what they are doing when they are told it's not ok. And wrap it up by noting that there isn't any difference between this AP and the one at Starbucks. At that point, I don't think you've confused your jury, and I think they can see that this type of access is not unauthorized.
Of course, I wasn't trying to make this point to a jury. I was trying to make it to/., which is why the discussion was technical.
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
You've already screwed up. This is not possible to determine in many cases, and thus is an unreasonable basis for judgement.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it.
Oh yeah? I've got an unsecured access point. I know how to secure it. But I also log traffic and MACs going through it, just in case someone starts uploading kiddie porn (why do we all use that example?). And if somebody were to really start hammering my connection (which has never happened) I'd just ban their MAC.
My point is that you have no reason to assume anything about an unsecured access point, except that it is a network resource which is there and publicly available.
Now, on to your absolutely ridiculous analogies. Sure, maybe the thread is full of self-serving analogies (are there any other kind?), and that's ok. What's not ok is when your analogies are completely unlike the situation at hand. Like both of yours:
Its just like "if he didn't want me to read his email, he would have used a stonger password" or "if he didn't want his car stolen he would have used a *real* security system". It's a feeble rationalization that because someone didn't take steps to secure access, he's issuing an invitation.
These are among the worst I've seen so far. In both your analogies, the person being "hacked" is taking steps to deny access (using a password, or a security system), and the person "hacking" is circumventing them. I simply can't think of anything that's farther away from that than a situation in which you anonymously request access using a standard protocol and a system grants it. And there is no rationalization that "not securing == issuing an invitation"....the invitation is real and concrete. It's called an SSID broadcast. The authorization is similarly real...it's called a DHCP lease. This is not a "failure to secure" this is "actively granting access."
The problem here is that you want us all to judge whether we can get access to a system based on what the owner of the system intends. This is innapropriate and impossible in networking situations, because you don't talk to the person...you talk to the network equipment. Thus the policies put into that equipment control access; that's their job. If you set your machine up to grant people access, then they can reasonably be expected to use that access. Any other method completely destroys the whole model by which the Internet is controlled. Your arguments, followed to their conclusion, ultimately require that we all get prior permission from the owner of any network device before using it. Which is to say I can't click on hyperlinks anymore. Logic like this would destroy the Internet if left unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
on that note, they could use the speed as their sales pitch. "Formats Windows partitions 6 times faster!!!" *ducks*
I know it's just a joke, and I'm going maybe a bit off topic here, but have you ever formatted a Windows partition in Linux? Seriously, this is the way to fly...even if you don't use Linux much, it's worth your time to go download Knoppix or something and learn the few commands used to partition and format. You can format a 300GB drive as either FAT32 or NTFS in less than 10 seconds.
1)fdisk /dev/hda (/dev/hda == primary master...hdb==pri/slave, hdc==sec/mast, etc.) /dev/hda1 -or- mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/hda1 (choose the partition number you created in step #1.)
2)Use self-explanitory one-letter commands to navigate fdisk and create either an NTFS (type 7) or FAT32 (type b) partition.
3)mkntfs -Q
There are two great parts about this. First is the speed....It takes several hours to do this in Windows, but this takes seconds and works great with Windows afterward. But just as nice is the ability to create really big FAT32 drives. The format allows for huge (16TB or something?) volumes, but for some stupid reason the format utility provided in Windows restricts you to 32GB.
That brings up an incredibly frustrating story, about the last time I tried to format a drive in Windows. It was a USB drive, so I wanted to use FAT for portability. I tried to format it, and in about 5 seconds the program told me the size of the drive and had me hit enter to confirm that I wanted it all as one big FAT32 volume. Then it verified the drive integrity for 7 and a half hours at the end of which it said "Volume is too large for FAT32."
YOU MOTHERFUCKERS! YOU KNEW HOW BIG IT WAS WHEN YOU FUCKING STARTED!!!!
Anyway, that's how I came to realize how much better it is to use Linux to format all your Windows drives. I won't be going back until MS forces a new filesystem on us.
I use Gentoo; how does this affect me?
Uh, why wouldn't it? To the system it's just a SATA drive. I've got a gentoo system that's taking up 1.8GB and doing useful stuff. It's not very performance intensive right now, as I've only got 5 phones attached to it (it's an asterisk PBX), but should I go and attach another 100 or so, I can see how this would be pretty cool. I could store the voicemail off on some big disk, and the rest of everything would be perfectly happy on this drive.
Of course, I do wonder whether the reliability would be good. The battery in particular bothers me. On the other hand, while TFA says there's no disk-backup system, I disagree....seems like dd should work ok, right?
Hey man, chill out. Mostly I was just making a point; you can bitch about any OS, and it'll sound just as silly to the people who actually use it.
However, I do want to mention just a couple of things:
you right click on the dock and select dock preferences and turn off "dock magnification" oh look this was so complicated. Guess what the dock will now stay the same size. Whew! that was hard
First, your attempt at sarcasm is truly awful...really makes you sound like a dick. But more importantly, your attempt at a solution fails utterly. The icon all the way to the left will still be in a completely different place than it was 5 minutes ago if I've opened any new windows. And you can't configure that away. See my other post above for a full description of why the dock sucks.
So really you're just full of shit and trying to get mod points by sounding smart and profound and calling FUD on others while resorting to FUD yourself. Shame on you buddy.
No, you're a jackass who has no perspective and no sense of humor. And my karma has been above 50 for a few years now, so there's not a lot of incentive for me to go around whoring. Not to mention that the only mods I got for that post were "funny" (makes sense to me) which don't affect karma.
Generally I agree; see other post where I explain that I was making points about the GP's argument through the way I responded.
But I do disagree about the dock. It still sucks. It's configured badly by default, and even discounting that I have three requirements that I don't think I can configure away:
1)It needs to stay the same size. And I'm not talking about the zooming; the important part is that it grows and shrinks depending on how much stuff is in it. This means that each icon moves around the bottom of the screen depending on how many windows are running. That's bad.
2)It should be attached to the corners. Corners are the most valuable screen real estate...you can get to them without even looking, and you can get to them faster than any other place. Yet the dock wastes half of your allotment of them. I want either something that takes up the whole side (whichever you've chosen) and thus incorporates two corners, or something that starts in a corner and extends. And I'd prefer to have 2 or more of those if we're doing the latter, so I can have one in each corner.
3)It shouldn't stay above everything else. Either make windows conform to its size (like in Windows/KDE/Gnome, where you can't size a window past the bar) or make them go over it (and have a way to get it back). This is one of the things that makes people autohide the dock so often (the other is that it's so big by default) which is the worst thing in the world to do given that you can't predict where icons are going to be because of #1.
Basically my problem with the dock is this: while it looks great in a storefront, it always seems to get in the way when I'm actually using the machine. It's huge by default, and at the bottom of the screen. Particularly on widescreen Macs, this results in a ton of screen area that is wasted. It gets on top of applications, making me do weird gyrations to get them out of its way. It bounces up and down and does other odd things, which seem cool at first but lose luster over time. It makes me hunt for stuff. It's generally just very pretty, and very annoying. Some of this can be fixed; you can attach it to the side instead of the bottom, shrink it, and turn off the bouncing and magnification. But other stuff can't be fixed. The dock is poor UI, and that's that.
That's funny...the one button mouse argument that hasn't been an issue for years now...Hopefully you said that simply in jest at the grandparent making up claims out of thin air.
Yes. That was half of the idea here....my claims about the Mac were roughly identically arbitrary and matters of taste, some of which could be changed and/or dealt with anyway. The other half was to point out that I really do feel more comfortable on the Linux desktops than in OSX...but note the contrast of my claim ("I'm more comfortable with X than Y.") to the parent's claim ("You can't tell me you're more comfortable with X than Y!"). I was saying what makes me feel that OSX is a pain. He was telling us all that no one can feel that OSX is a pain. That's just downright silly.
And in defense of me calling it a pain (although as I said I was to some degree being purposefully difficult and indefensible about it), let me say this: I don't have these options most of the times I'm dealing with Macs. I don't own one....if I'm using the interface, it's because I'm on someone else's machine. Probably a laptop. So, maybe half the time another mouse is around, and maybe half of those times I feel like plugging it into the laptop. And I'm certainly not going to go changing all their settings around.
And one other thing. My complaint about the dock does not require the magnification feature to be on. The complaint is that icons on the dock are not always in the same place. The dock centers itself in the bottom of the screen, and resizes to accomodate the number of icons you have on it plus the running windows. This means that with few icons the leftmost icon will be near the center of the screen, and if you add more icons or start more running windows, it will be closer to the edge. The other failing of the dock is that it wastes two of the corners, which are by far the most accessible parts of the screen.
I just can't help but think back to the 40 or 50 times before I've read "_________ to replace PC BIOS."
Somehow, after a while it just starts to feel like it's not really going to happen. Like Duke Nukem Forever press releases, sort of...
That's why those built-in Dell wireless network cards work so well. Or maybe those great Linksys ones so many people already have that "just work" with Windows.
That's why that sangoma DS3 card works so well in Windows. Or maybe those Alpha motherboards that "just work" with Linux.
Seriously, quit your bitching. OS's don't support the same hardware as each other. That's that. I can name hardware that won't work with any OS you can name. And if you want to run it by the numbers, Linux 2.6 runs on way more hardware than any version ever of either OSX or Windows.
A *lot* of stuff doesn't work, looks crappy (love those Linux fonts -- what? steal the MS ones?)
There are plenty of perfectly fine fonts available for Linux these days that aren't from MS. This problem hasn't been around for years. You're just making shit up.
how come firefox doesn't match the theme I just installed. Oh wait, neither do any of the gnome apps!
How come Firefox doesn't match the theme I just installed on Windows? Oh wait, neither does quicktime, EasyCDCreator, Realplayer, WinDVD, and on and on.
I love Linux for servers, but if you can't admit Mac OS X "just works", you aren't being honest. If price is a factor, then its a factor, but don't BS everyone about it being a PITA.
I'm far, far more comfortable in either KDE or Gnome than I'm likely to ever be dealing with a flakey 1-button mouse and a dock that won't stay the same size or keep frequently used icons in the same spot. And I'm a lot more comfortable doing a lot of tasks from the CLI than from any desktop. And I'm sure as hell not happy with all the parts of the filesystem that OSX hides and the UNIX commands that I'm locked out of and all the other eccentricities of the system. And I could do without the damned genie crap and the other icandy too. Now you can like OSX all you want, but don't tell me I can't call it a pain in my ass. That's for my ass to tell me.
GNU/Linux is a "Unix Clone" in that it acts like Unix but has absolutely no code in common with any variant of Unix, nor is it POSIX compliant, thus making it not Unix.
If you're going to nitpick, make sure you don't leave yourself open to nitpicking.
Nope...you really shouldn't have included that last line. Sorry, but Linux most certainly does share code with UNIX, in particular BSD. Remember the slides that SCO showed those people, which Perens and others showed weren't copyright issues? Well, they did all come to the Linux tree from UNIX one way or another...just not in any improper way. One of them was malloc(), which was a direct copy of some really ancient UNIX code, which IIRC was first published in a compsci textbook in the early 70's...hence my sig. That code isn't in there in recent Linux releases, but there are other examples, including another chunk of those slides which came from Irix. I'll bet the UFS driver has a bunch of BSD code. Early versions of Linux used a firewall pulled directly out of BSD.
No doubt about it, Linux does share code with BSD and other Unices. It probably has less now than it once did, but it's still there. Of course, Windows is widely reported to have a bunch of BSD code in it as well, so maybe that's not a good yardstick for, well, anything. But still, UNIX has pollinated an awful lot of the computing landscape.
Go by stats if you'd like but it doesn't deny the obvious truth of picking up the phone and not even getting a dial tone where as you're Internet is still going.
Paraphrased:
Go by statistical data if you like, but it doesn't deny my anecdotal evidence.
That's downright laughable. You are totally clueless.
Anyway, I'm not so much claiming that the network is more reliable than the phone as that I'm pointing out that the phone isn't any more reliable than the network. As you said they often use the same transmission medium.
Man, you've got trouble with logic. The "same medium" argument works my way, but not yours, for one simple reason: the Internet requires telco infrastructure, but the telco infrastructure does not require the Internet. The Internet connection is working telco plus a bunch of other added services. Thus the reliability of it will be lower by definition. The isolated anecdotes about having no dialtone while your Internet connection is up are just that: isolated anecdotes. Something happened to go wrong with one wire and not another. But the probability that each of the two wires would fail was identical.
Oh, and I didn't say they "often" use the same infrastructure. I said Internet service requires telco infrastructure, period. Not often, not some of the time, but always. Your cable company is connected to the Internet on services provided by a telco. So is your wireless provider.
Not Linux, BSD (actually, a variant). BSD is actually Unix, whereas Linux is "Unix-like." Mind you, this distinction is only important to lawyers and zealots.
And kernel hackers.
And as for the legal distinction, OSX isn't "UNIX" either. None of the set {Linux, FreeBSD, OSX} have a legal right to call themselves "UNIX." You'll note that Apple's literature says "based on UNIX" in lots of places, but never "OSX is UNIX" or anything else that would explicitly mean the same. Similarly, freebsd.org says freebsd was "derived" from BSD UNIX.
Sorry guy, but I call bullshit. Phone service in any location in America is more reliable than Internet service in the same place. Your claim that "I've lived all over and phone service sucks" sounds ridiculous on its face, completely disagrees with the available statistical data and all the rest of us here's experience, doesn't logically follow (given that all Internet services are one way or another dependant on the telco systems you claim are less reliable) and is just plain wrong.
That's nearly the same thing I thought when I read that post. Except my thought was more along the lines of "Gee, this guy obviously knows dick about networking protocols, but wants to sound cool on /. by complaining about how the ignorant masses latched onto one that's no good. Isn't he supposed to be off someplace bitching about X?"
...but now that you mention it.........
Hehe. And this just hours after "Bill Gates Swears Vow Against 'Son of iPod'"
Too little too late? I thought you said it was a good size!
-Brodie and Gates.
An hour? Damn, man...you must have a slow screwdriver...or a lot of CD drives.
Or perhaps you'd prefer visitors to stick to the content that you're serving, instead of the content they might have the technical prowess to access.
Right. Precisely. That's what I've been saying all along; it's not ok to break into things...using someone's weak password, cracking wep, or even probably assigning yourself a static IP on their wifi. But it is ok to make normal requests for network access using standard protocols, and if their server answers in the affirmative, it's ok to use the resources they have authorized you to use.
Look, if your parked in front of some strangers house, and he's asking you to leave, it's *not hard* to determine his intentions.
That's true. And as I've already said elsewhere in this discussion, if Dinon had asked Smith to leave or to stop using the network, these charges would be valid. But Dinon didn't do that, at least according to TFA. He walked near Smith's vehicle, and looked at him...but he never spoke to him. There was no notice given that he was unwelcome; the only notice one way or the other was the SSID broadcast followed by the DHCP lease.
And I thought it was called "Longinthetooth" these days. Or maybe "Microsoft Windows Forever."
Actually, the blurb mis-cites the affected versions. 1.3.x is affected as well.
However, this is hardly a problem for anyone. It only affects users of mod_proxy, and then it only allows another request to the backend, which is to say your backend would need to have some other vulnerability in it to do anything useful.
*I shamelessly stole this analysis from chipig on #gentoo-apache, who's an apache herd member.
Is your redhat 8 box on the internet? If it's not intentionally connected to a public network, but instead connected to a private network that I'm not invited on to, then yes it's a problem if I attempt access.
If it's on a public network, then you give pretty clear permission for me to access it...
Yes. The redhat box is on the public Internet. Just exactly 100% like the AP in this situation was attached to the public Internet. That's pretty much exactly my point; thanks for making it for me. Installing an AP is installing a network device that provides services. If you do that on the public Internet, it is granting access to said services according to the policies configured in the device. If those policies allow public access, you are authorizing public access.
Uh, so is your point that your level of flamewarfare is so much higher than ours that you can preseperate all our wars for us? Into two categories: "you're stupid if you're arguing over this" and "you're stupid if you're on side X of this argument."
Also humorous:
1)You don't know what PHP is.
2)Your ideas about the GPL read like you're quoting Ballmer.
3)You should let Google, Pixar, ILM, and all the financial companies know that they're using a toy OS.
4)Could you give me the URLs to some cool C++ applets on the web?
5)How do you call vi/emacs "just 2 ways of doing the same thing" and then start shouting about latex over word?
6)When was the last time you used word, anyway? Was it on DOS? Because this choking problem I've not seen, and my documents are frequently a lot bigger than 6 pages.
Really. I mean, what a hell of a display of crazy views, and so presumptuously just thrown out there all at once. I mean, man, that's talent.
You are being intentionally stupid. Is your unchained bicycle sitting there with a sign on it that says "this bicycle was left here as a public service, feel free to ride it."?
If the only invitation that matters is that of a person, then we have to stop using the Internet. The Internet (and all computer networks) is entirely based on the idea that we can configure devices to control access for us automatically. If we just take that away and allow people to simply say "that's not how I meant to have my access controlled" then we can't use the Internet any more. We would have to first evaluate the wishes of every owner of every network resource.
Seriously. Say I put up a redhat 8 box, which default installs with apache. And then you go to my server on port 80. Is that unauthorized access?
If you want to override the access controls you have put in place, you need to do so explicitly. In this case, that means approaching the car and saying "stop using my wifi network." Because otherwise, you have authorized access to the network by providing a listening service.
No, no, and no. I'm not suggesting we ever assume anything. My position has been consistent. We're not "assuming" that we can use the network resource because it's unsecured. We are asking to use the resource, and the controlling entity for the resource is granting permission.
This is really simple. The routing device is the authority for the network, and it's telling you it's ok to use the network. There is no assumption in this situation.
It's not the responsibility of the networks owner to explicitly grant permission, and making the exceedingly weak argument that leaving an AP open is implying permission just puts you inches from a jail cell.
Uh, do what? You just said they don't need to explicitly grant permission. Ok, then it's implicitly granted.
However, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference, because in this case permission is being explicitly granted. That's the point you won't stop flying right over. Quit saying "leaving an AP open." This is not leaving anything open...it is setting a routing policy that explicitly and actively grants public network access. It is equivalent to turning on anonymous FTP and then trying to have someone arrested for downloading what's there.
The big issue here is that you people are trying to make the standard for authorized access the network owner's intent. That is a completely unreasonable standard, because it places an undue burden on anyone wanting to access anything; there's simply no way to know what the owner of a device intends...you can only know what policies they actually set. As long as you obey those policies, you're within your rights.
I _understand_ nerd logic (and your web server analogy and obliviousness to my point make for a perfect example thereof)
Look, I'm not oblivious to your point. You're just wrong. Both your assertion that juries can't or won't listen to expert testimony in a trial setting and your assertion that nerd logic somehow isn't correct in a discussion about networking are wrongheaded.
The nerds built the Internet, and if the rest of the world wants to go and try to administer it while disregarding the logic of the nerds, they just won't have an Internet left. And that's that.
But in any case, the logic doesn't have to be this nerdy; we're discussing it at a somewhat higher than layman's level because we can do that here. In court, I think the more direct way to put this issue is this: If this was "unauthorized access to a computer network," then at what point did the owner of the computer network notify the person accessing the network that his activity required authorization? Then you note that people go to websites all the time, and only need to quit doing what they are doing when they are told it's not ok. And wrap it up by noting that there isn't any difference between this AP and the one at Starbucks. At that point, I don't think you've confused your jury, and I think they can see that this type of access is not unauthorized.
Of course, I wasn't trying to make this point to a jury. I was trying to make it to /., which is why the discussion was technical.
I'm only considering the case here where the WAP is clearly not being offered as a service to the community by an apartment complex or business or some such.
You've already screwed up. This is not possible to determine in many cases, and thus is an unreasonable basis for judgement.
In the case of stealing your neighbor's bandwidth, you know full well the owner of the unsecured WAP had no intention of letting random strangers use his network, he was simply incompetent in securing it.
Oh yeah? I've got an unsecured access point. I know how to secure it. But I also log traffic and MACs going through it, just in case someone starts uploading kiddie porn (why do we all use that example?). And if somebody were to really start hammering my connection (which has never happened) I'd just ban their MAC.
My point is that you have no reason to assume anything about an unsecured access point, except that it is a network resource which is there and publicly available.
Now, on to your absolutely ridiculous analogies. Sure, maybe the thread is full of self-serving analogies (are there any other kind?), and that's ok. What's not ok is when your analogies are completely unlike the situation at hand. Like both of yours:
Its just like "if he didn't want me to read his email, he would have used a stonger password" or "if he didn't want his car stolen he would have used a *real* security system". It's a feeble rationalization that because someone didn't take steps to secure access, he's issuing an invitation.
These are among the worst I've seen so far. In both your analogies, the person being "hacked" is taking steps to deny access (using a password, or a security system), and the person "hacking" is circumventing them. I simply can't think of anything that's farther away from that than a situation in which you anonymously request access using a standard protocol and a system grants it. And there is no rationalization that "not securing == issuing an invitation" ....the invitation is real and concrete. It's called an SSID broadcast. The authorization is similarly real...it's called a DHCP lease. This is not a "failure to secure" this is "actively granting access."
The problem here is that you want us all to judge whether we can get access to a system based on what the owner of the system intends. This is innapropriate and impossible in networking situations, because you don't talk to the person...you talk to the network equipment. Thus the policies put into that equipment control access; that's their job. If you set your machine up to grant people access, then they can reasonably be expected to use that access. Any other method completely destroys the whole model by which the Internet is controlled. Your arguments, followed to their conclusion, ultimately require that we all get prior permission from the owner of any network device before using it. Which is to say I can't click on hyperlinks anymore. Logic like this would destroy the Internet if left unchecked.