But i would do a coupl years in prison if I recieved a couple million dollars, as long as I got to keep it when i got out. I would just write a book while in jail, and chill out. I would also lift weights, so no one would try to make me their bitch.
Dude, you've got millions coming in from your illegal domain name scam. Leave the country. Sip espresso while watching the gorgeous parisian women walk by your cafe.
This is where it gets a little idiotic, IMHO. OSHA levels were established for workers exposed to chemicals on a daily basis. If you're a chem student and you're exposed to a miniscule amount for a few labs it's not going to kill you, and might only increase your chances of cancer by a few percent. Hell, I've been told just about everything I eat can kill me. Hasn't stopped me from eating.
As long as Linux forces you to download kernel sources and recompile your kernel for specific pieces of hardware (Nforce2 and ATI video cards, anyone?), it will never expand much beyond the realm of computer geeks or those who have geeks as close friends/family.
Because I am a Mandrake Club member I get RPMs of the nVidia kernel modules. Power pack buyers and above get a similar deal. Same thing with Java, Flash, and a number of other things.
You know if you read OSHA guidelines they're pretty stringent. Many, many, many of the "classic" experiments in chemistry can't be repeated these days because of a slight toxicity in the chemicals involved. The question becomes, how do you tell if something is bad for you? Answer, see who dies. If the exposure guidelines still result in cancer / death over a long period, lower the exposures. It's kind of sad actually, in that field all the rules are written in blood.
I was listening to a radio piece on NPR about this yesterday. Apparently one of IBMs' arguments was that they adhered to OSHA guidelines -- none of the compounds workers were exposed to were thought to be as toxic as they were, so the acceptable levels of exposure are really much lower then what was thought at the time.
Redhat wants you to give them money. Fedora is for people who want to live on the bleeding edge or who don't want to pay anything. Since Red Hat never made any claims otherwise, I really wonder why Fedora was chosen.
The assumption behind #1 seems to be wrong. If you want to configure printers using the "easy" web interface, you need xinetd; but if you need xinetd, you should be proficient enough not to need the "easy" web interface.
Well you have to understand that Mandrake offers several different levels of security -- meant for casual users to servers. Xinetd isn't enabled unless you choose the highest security settings and say that you want to run the box as a server.
As for #3, if you need a tool to set up printers, you're already all wrong. It should "just happen." You plug in the printer, the system spots it, asks it to identify itself, locates the correct driver, installs it, and pops up an unintrusive balloon saying "The printer you just attached is ready to go." Wouldn't that be so much better? If you're worried about losing flexibility, you can always make detailed configuration available - the auto-installer would just go with good defaults - but really, when was the last time you needed to make printer configuration changes in Windows or MacOS?
Sure, I agree. However, printers don't always just plug and play under Windows (not sure about Mac OS X). And once you have a printer set up under linux you're as likely to need to touch the configuration as under windows.
xinetd isn't enabled by default on the "normal" settings because it's assumed if you need it you're saavy enough to set it up and edit the config files.
Mandrake comes with webmin, so you don't need to go through the process of editing files by hand if you install the webmin RPM.
If you use the mandrake "printer drake" it is relatively straightforward to set up new printers
why are you wrong? I don't care. What you're doing is displaying, yet again, the I'm-so-cool and lusers-are-so-dumb attitude that sentences Linux to be a server OS run by savants for evermore. Denial is exactly what it is.
How? I simply stated that YMMV as far as distros go -- some distros have tools that make configuration much easier then others. Read my past posts -- they have absolutely nothing to do with your rant. Stop smoking crack, it's bad for you.
Everything depends on what system you are configuring CUPS on. I'd agree with you for Mandrake Linux, but configuring CUPS under Slackware is anything but easy. I think one of the major problems is that people come out with great tools (i.e. CUPS), but they require a certain amount of effort / sophistication to use / configure, so distros like Mandrake, Suse, and Red Hat write their own configuration tools. Only problem is that because each distro is set up slightly differently, configuration tools aren't portable across distros. Perhaps what we need is a collaborative effort by the major distros to create 1 size fits all config tools.
That's not necessarily true. Mandrake set up CUPS and just about everything else I've needed with no problems at all. It's all about what you're doing. For some programs under some distros you need to be a programmer to install and / or set them up. Under other distros, and with other programs, it can be a breeze. (Just look at how well Knoppix does!)
I wonder if Americans would be able to purchase the EU "light" version. I'm positive we'll be able to pirate it anyways though.
Assuming there's no difference in price -- which there probably won't be since they're stripping out programs that were seen as anticompetitive bundling -- why would you want a copy? Besides, with the whole push for regional encoding (i.e. DVDs), I'd reckon you're asking for trouble doing that.
The keyboard design and touch pad are irrelevant. It comes with USB ports and a VGA out so when you are at home you can plug in a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor. The idea is that it's much easier to fit that in a briefcase then to carry around a laptop and a briefcase.
You seem to have the delusion that all security holes are as a result of buffer overflows.
I am under no such delusions. However, the article was about buffer overflows, and I pointed out that a number of security holes can be covered up in C++ if you use one set of functions versus another. Where do these perceived delusions come from? I'd say you should re read the comments.
I mean, if it is inherently unsafe, why keep such a function around?
Look, if gets() were removed from C/C++ compilers legacy applications would break -- although I personally think it's about time we let them be broken. However, because it doesn't do bounds checking in the function it is very easy to create a buffer overflow -- i.e. a security vulnerability that can be exploited by a knowlegeable attacker to 0wn your box.
You must have misread my post as I clearly stated it wasn't C++ that was the problem but the way people used it. Most (every?) functions that is still around for backwards compatibility and runs the risk of buffer overflows has an alternative that can be used to prevent buffer overflows by limiting the amount of whatever it is you are doing.
I find it interesting that one of the reasons that hardware protection from buffer overflows is needed is because many programs were created using functions in languages that don't properly check array bounds. Programmers really need to learn that either they need to use functions which provide bounds checking if they insist on using a language like C or C++, or they need to program in another language.
(Note: Although many people come down on C++, it's also what functions you use. For instance, while fget() is considered "safe" because you provide a buffer boundry, gets() is considered unsafe. This drives me nuts! We knew how to program to prevent buffer overruns years ago, and they're still a problem!)
I find this article funny. Mars can be inhabited and explored by humans, and there are a lot of possibilities about what could be done there. The martian gravity is weaker then earths, so it becomes much cheaper in fuel costs to launch missions from mars. Add the proximity to the jovian asteroid belts, and we have all the resources we need to do a lot of neat stuff. Venus isn't habitable by humans. Now this doesn't mean that we shouldn't send any probes there, but first thing is first.
If you're crunching large data sets OO isn't what you want to use. To give an example, I created a program to gather statistics about a couple tables of 100k+ rows in our company database, which created about 3k +/- 1k rows in a CSV file. Opening the CSV file in OO and trying to chart wouldn't work -- the spreadsheet took over 2 hours of CPU time before I killed it. Excel took its time but was at least manageable. I reported the time it took as a bug to the OO list, turns out it's not a bug, it's a product of the way OO was created. Hopefully they'll fix it in later versions. (Of course, try charting 3k rows in Excel XP and your computer will take eons too, bubut it will at least finish)
Actually, I am pretty sure all of the add ons are on a separate CD. So it's not preinstalled, but if you want to install it you can pop the CD in your drive.
Well they'll probably get the code base dirty again with typical MS exploits. But the point is that since they borrow code from OS to OS, Longhorn may inadvertantly be strengthened.
IF this is true, the release of the source is the nail in the coffin for Microsoft.
Actually I think that, if Microsoft doesn't lose it's customer base to all the exploits found, it's going to make Microsoft stronger. Think about it, right now Microsoft is receiving the same kind of security review that makes OpenSource products so strong in the first place. Granted, it's coming at a very high cost, but their source code will have much fewer bugs when this is over.
What's more, missing a promised release date can bleed buzz, precious in an industry where many young buyers have to take the time to squirrel away $50 for a typical purchase.'"
I really wonder if this will be true 20 years from now when gamers like me who grew up playing games and have pay checks to buy what we want become a larger portion of the people who buy video games then teens. Of course, teens have much more time to play video games then people with jobs do, so perhaps this will never be true. I do hate playing MMORPGs -- not because I don't enjoy them, but because I can't compete with a 15 year old who can play the game 8 hours a day!
Slashdot Mirror
This is where it gets a little idiotic, IMHO. OSHA levels were established for workers exposed to chemicals on a daily basis. If you're a chem student and you're exposed to a miniscule amount for a few labs it's not going to kill you, and might only increase your chances of cancer by a few percent. Hell, I've been told just about everything I eat can kill me. Hasn't stopped me from eating.
Because I am a Mandrake Club member I get RPMs of the nVidia kernel modules. Power pack buyers and above get a similar deal. Same thing with Java, Flash, and a number of other things.
You know if you read OSHA guidelines they're pretty stringent. Many, many, many of the "classic" experiments in chemistry can't be repeated these days because of a slight toxicity in the chemicals involved. The question becomes, how do you tell if something is bad for you? Answer, see who dies. If the exposure guidelines still result in cancer / death over a long period, lower the exposures. It's kind of sad actually, in that field all the rules are written in blood.
I was listening to a radio piece on NPR about this yesterday. Apparently one of IBMs' arguments was that they adhered to OSHA guidelines -- none of the compounds workers were exposed to were thought to be as toxic as they were, so the acceptable levels of exposure are really much lower then what was thought at the time.
Redhat wants you to give them money. Fedora is for people who want to live on the bleeding edge or who don't want to pay anything. Since Red Hat never made any claims otherwise, I really wonder why Fedora was chosen.
Well you have to understand that Mandrake offers several different levels of security -- meant for casual users to servers. Xinetd isn't enabled unless you choose the highest security settings and say that you want to run the box as a server.
Sure, I agree. However, printers don't always just plug and play under Windows (not sure about Mac OS X). And once you have a printer set up under linux you're as likely to need to touch the configuration as under windows.
Denial is not just a river in Africa.
I'd love to hear why you think I'm wrong, but your argument is all rhetoric and no substance.
Everything depends on what system you are configuring CUPS on. I'd agree with you for Mandrake Linux, but configuring CUPS under Slackware is anything but easy. I think one of the major problems is that people come out with great tools (i.e. CUPS), but they require a certain amount of effort / sophistication to use / configure, so distros like Mandrake, Suse, and Red Hat write their own configuration tools. Only problem is that because each distro is set up slightly differently, configuration tools aren't portable across distros. Perhaps what we need is a collaborative effort by the major distros to create 1 size fits all config tools.
That's not necessarily true. Mandrake set up CUPS and just about everything else I've needed with no problems at all. It's all about what you're doing. For some programs under some distros you need to be a programmer to install and / or set them up. Under other distros, and with other programs, it can be a breeze. (Just look at how well Knoppix does!)
The keyboard design and touch pad are irrelevant. It comes with USB ports and a VGA out so when you are at home you can plug in a real keyboard, mouse, and monitor. The idea is that it's much easier to fit that in a briefcase then to carry around a laptop and a briefcase.
I am under no such delusions. However, the article was about buffer overflows, and I pointed out that a number of security holes can be covered up in C++ if you use one set of functions versus another. Where do these perceived delusions come from? I'd say you should re read the comments.
Look, if gets() were removed from C/C++ compilers legacy applications would break -- although I personally think it's about time we let them be broken. However, because it doesn't do bounds checking in the function it is very easy to create a buffer overflow -- i.e. a security vulnerability that can be exploited by a knowlegeable attacker to 0wn your box.
You must have misread my post as I clearly stated it wasn't C++ that was the problem but the way people used it. Most (every?) functions that is still around for backwards compatibility and runs the risk of buffer overflows has an alternative that can be used to prevent buffer overflows by limiting the amount of whatever it is you are doing.
I find it interesting that one of the reasons that hardware protection from buffer overflows is needed is because many programs were created using functions in languages that don't properly check array bounds. Programmers really need to learn that either they need to use functions which provide bounds checking if they insist on using a language like C or C++, or they need to program in another language.
(Note: Although many people come down on C++, it's also what functions you use. For instance, while fget() is considered "safe" because you provide a buffer boundry, gets() is considered unsafe. This drives me nuts! We knew how to program to prevent buffer overruns years ago, and they're still a problem!)
I find this article funny. Mars can be inhabited and explored by humans, and there are a lot of possibilities about what could be done there. The martian gravity is weaker then earths, so it becomes much cheaper in fuel costs to launch missions from mars. Add the proximity to the jovian asteroid belts, and we have all the resources we need to do a lot of neat stuff. Venus isn't habitable by humans. Now this doesn't mean that we shouldn't send any probes there, but first thing is first.
If you're crunching large data sets OO isn't what you want to use. To give an example, I created a program to gather statistics about a couple tables of 100k+ rows in our company database, which created about 3k +/- 1k rows in a CSV file. Opening the CSV file in OO and trying to chart wouldn't work -- the spreadsheet took over 2 hours of CPU time before I killed it. Excel took its time but was at least manageable. I reported the time it took as a bug to the OO list, turns out it's not a bug, it's a product of the way OO was created. Hopefully they'll fix it in later versions. (Of course, try charting 3k rows in Excel XP and your computer will take eons too, bubut it will at least finish)
Actually, I am pretty sure all of the add ons are on a separate CD. So it's not preinstalled, but if you want to install it you can pop the CD in your drive.
Well they'll probably get the code base dirty again with typical MS exploits. But the point is that since they borrow code from OS to OS, Longhorn may inadvertantly be strengthened.
Actually I think that, if Microsoft doesn't lose it's customer base to all the exploits found, it's going to make Microsoft stronger. Think about it, right now Microsoft is receiving the same kind of security review that makes OpenSource products so strong in the first place. Granted, it's coming at a very high cost, but their source code will have much fewer bugs when this is over.
I really wonder if this will be true 20 years from now when gamers like me who grew up playing games and have pay checks to buy what we want become a larger portion of the people who buy video games then teens. Of course, teens have much more time to play video games then people with jobs do, so perhaps this will never be true. I do hate playing MMORPGs -- not because I don't enjoy them, but because I can't compete with a 15 year old who can play the game 8 hours a day!