Who are you? Do you actually believe these things?
If you don't understand your basic rights and how they relate to the government, public locales, and private organizations, then a posting on Slashdot is not going to do anything to help you.
THEY WERE WEARING SHIRTS.
It's as private as a sporting event or a concert. Just like in those instances, you have to play by the rules of the organizers and the facility owners if you want to be welcome.
I repeat: THEY WERE WEARING SHIRTS.
A TV station might do a live report from a concert, maybe even show a few clips of the performance. This, in no way, give you, a non-ticket holder any right to enter the private establishment, nor does it relinquish the right of the venue owner to throw somebody out.
THEY DID HAVE TICKETS.
Troll away.
Parson me while I look for my mod points to make you a troll.
Has anyone else's presidential limousine been egged during their inauguration?
Sorry, I can't remember any others. And I can't remember that many protesters for clinton, though I imagine there should have been, seeing as we bombed so many countries while he was president.
So, feel free to cite examples of mass arrests at other presidential events.
1.) How do they implicitly argue that the president was/is curtailing civil liberties? Depending on how you interpret it, they could have been supporting Bush, because he's defending our civil liberties.
Okay, now laugh.
2.) The article said they had tickets. How is that not an invitation?
"Were not talking about Bary Goldwater or Walter Monindale, this is a fifty-fifty election if a hundred and 35 million people disagree with you, it's pretty sad if the only conclusion you can come to is that they are totally irrational."
I agree. It is pretty sad. I wish I understood what they were/are seeing that I am not. I'm beginning to think one side is crazy. I'm just not sure which. Is it the religion angle that I'm not getting, or do people really not mind us invading another country under (it turns out, according to the article) bogus circumstances?
I do not think it terribly biased that I asked for examples. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and helps you reinforce your argument, and educate me. You say it's biased, but then go on to give an example. That helps me more than just saying "why are they focusing on the bad?" This is not just about technology. This was posted in politics, and it's definitely pertinent to politics.
I think the reason why it's being reported here is the scope of the issue. The articles that I've seen regarding Samarra seem to be about military strategy, about taking a city and comparing it to the progress in the country. I agree it's good news, that it's good to be making progress in all this mess, but it's one city. That's pretty small potatoes compared to the idea of an administration invading another country on false pretenses.
What's to stop them from making the same (possibly false) claims about Iran and invading them too? That's what I imagine to be the reasoning behind posting this article.
Your argument would have been stronger if you pointed out the "good" things that republicans have done, or "bad" things the democrats have done. Frankly, I don't see much positive news in regards to republicans.
Would you give some examples?
I hate to sound biased, but I probably am. I just don't see how a rational person can look at the republicans and not see the ugliness.
So yes, you're right. There is a lot of news reporting negative things about Bush & Co. I mean, heck... even the onion has an article that is against bush.
This is one reason why I liked tiny personal firewall (the older, simpler version), which allowed/allows you to specify what was allowed to get out of your box, per application. It kept hashes of the exe's, so you would know when the exe was modified, and could react appropriately depending on whether you'd recently upgraded or not.
I would imagine it depends on how you want to do the job, and/or how secure you want to be. I don't trust windows boxes much, or rather, I don't trust users much, and managing outgoing traffic allows better control of what users are doing with machines.
I have to respond. The parent was correct. It's amazing seeing what people do to run windows, and what I've had to do in the past.
You say you seriously doubt anyone has done a fresh install of distro-of-choice and not spent time tweaking things to get the system fully usable. Then you go on to say you're hoping to build your first linux box.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, depending on what distro you choose. Someone below mentioned OpenBSD, and that's a good recommendation. I think you'll find that a fair amount of the unix-y environments start you off at a solid base, and allow you to build up. This is in contrast to whenever I have the (in my opinion, of course) displeasure of dealing with a windows install, where I have to tear down and build up.
No, not all distro's are the same. Sometimes they have annoying services listening on all interfaces, like cups or lprd. That's one of the reasons why OpenBSD is nice. It starts you off with a good base from which to build up. I have recently switched to the excellent ubuntu distrobution from debian sarge. I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that very few services are listening by default, so there's really not all that much to do to "secure" the box (at least from a basic point of view). In fact, when I installed ubuntu over debian, I kept my old home directory, so there was no tweaking to get my desktop how I want it. I guess you could do the same with windows, but it's a pain to mess around with the registry to point to a different location/drive for user's home folders. All I have to do is mount the old volume as/home and it works fine.
Not only that, but the installation of new software is tremendously easier for the unix-y domain, at least debian, where apt-get is very good at solving your problems. No cds to look for, no keys to look for, makes it all very easy. So I think you're making a kind of incorrect blanket statement based on your experience with windows (it seems).
That said, I prefer the old tiny personal firewall, but only the old version (2 or 3?) as the new one doesn't have as nice an interface. It seems to barf a fair amount when installed on XP, so I'm actually shying away from that these days. You didn't say which version of windows you're using. I've been using the virus scanner from etrust, free to valid microsoft users: ezarmor. It seems to work okay, and it's free. It also includes a firewall of sorts, but I don't recall being very impressed, so I installed tpf again. AV gets rather expensive, rather quickly. I purchased the symantec AV/Firewall suite for something like $50. As always, there's a linux NAT box protecting it all, allowing easy port forwarding. I've also used the linksyswrt54g and it seems to work okay. It's available pretty cheaply now, and allowed me to reduce the number of crud that clutters up the gf's apartment.
Anyway, I wish you luck with your new linux box, and I think (once you get used to it) you'll find it pleasantly surprising.
Last I heard, cyrus was just for IMAP. Did you mean qmail?
Toys you may say, but source is to be had. I don't think it's an issue, personally. It seems that yahoo does pretty well with qmail. Things can be tuned, and different designs can be used.
Perhaps postfix/exim/qmail wouldn't run as well on 30 cpu systems (wouldn't know), but that doesn't mean they aren't viable as enterprise servers. As far as messaging goes, 8-way boxes are about as big as I've used (and they've been very adequate), and they've been to handle millions of users.
Odds are good that RH is going to open-source this product (eventually) and should strengthen the open source platform quite nicely. It could potentially benefit just as Apache and Linux have.
True, but we already have excellent open-source MTAs out there, so I think it's smart that RH didn't buy iMS. I did like the web interface, though. Very pleasant. It's good to hear Shaw is still using iMS.
I think you're kind of missing the point. There are very good open-source alternatives for the other solutions that iPlanet had (with the exception of Calendaring, I think) such as Postfix, qmail (my favorite), exim, and sendmail (if that's your bag) among others as an MTA. Courier (again, my favorite) and Cyrus (again, among others) work great for IMAP/POP. Why waste money buying yet another mail server with so many excellent options?
What was lacking (no offense to openldap, again, it's great) was an enterprise Directory server with enterprise features (multi-master, fast replication, ease of maintenance, protocol support, not to mention multi-platform support fo r everything under the sun) to tie all the stuff together.
Netscape's Directory server might not be "fun and interesting" to you, but it's quick, easy to manage, and overall very good. I think it makes perfect sense. I think they're trying to build a viable platform for just about anything.
How is it not elegant? The only interface you need to the directory to manage it and use it is via LDAP, and changes take place very quickly, with no down time.
The filters make a LOT of sense, he put some simple ones in there, but you get the hang of it:
If the target attribute is not "userPassword", (then a version number, and a description) then allow read, search, or compare, and then an ldap uri that says "anyone". Basically, anyone can read, search, or compare, so long as it's not ther userPassword attribute.
The ldap uri could be a specific user, or a group. What is so complex about that? If you would like a click-box interface for it, there is one, too. Personally, this interface is very nice (I think) as it's simple to write clients for it, and automate changes when needed. It's the same idea that mysql uses (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) where permimssions and users are stored in the db too.
Right, 4.x was netscape's directory server. The fork I was specifically referring to was the fork of DS 5, which was drastically different from the 4.x code that was originally netscape's. As far as I know/knew, the 5.x version was an iPlanet effort.
Well, the iPlanet/Netscape/Sun Directory server can already integrate itself into AD networks, so that may very well be a possibility.
What would be interesting is combining this with Samba (which I believe speaks LDAP), and creating a free, open-source implementation of Microsoft's network management system, front and back.
iPlanet was a join Sun/Netscape venture. AOL bought Netscape, thus Netscape's Directory server. When the iPlanet venture was dissolved, AOL had the directory server, which was one of the things Netscape brought to the iPlanet experiment. I don't recall the details, but I think they forked the code when iPlanet was absorbed into Sun.
Amen. I have nothing against openldap, and have used it in the past, but the sheer ease of managing iPlanet/Netscape/Sun's DS is wonderful. Dynamic schema updates, dynamic aci updates, dynamic anything. All server configuration can be managed through LDAP. Great stuff.
ACL's in iPlanet/Netscape/Sun's DS are wonderful. ACL's can be held in any entry, and take effect immediately. All you have to do is request the aci attribute (assuming you have priveledges) to see the rules. Acl's go so far as to be dynamic, too, taking into account the binding user's DN, being able to create masks, etc.. There are some wonderful features that I hope make it into openLDAP, or heck, if they just open the source of Netscape DS, that'd be incredible.
For me, the Directory Server product is very very interesting. If they could offer up some of the multi-master replication to openLDAP, or the Active Directory integration, big headway could be made in enterprise environments in the Directory Server space.
That's the only thing of interest to me, personally. I think apache's web server eclipsed them a while ago.
1. Netscape DS compares very favorably. It has multi-master replication, and its performance is far above that of openLDAP. OpenLDAP is opensource, though, and very flexible. Netscape has to be paid for, and it's (if I recall) per-seat licensing. Sun's DS is per-entry licensing. Sun's DS and Netscape's DS are very similar, being forks of iPlanet's DS.
2. Yes, sort of. Some forms of replication can work, and both are standard ldap servers. As far as I know (I haven't used openldap for a bit) openldap cannot understand Netscape/iPlanet/Sun Directory server's new replication.
Using clamAV in combination with qmail (using qmail-scanner and the qmail-queue patch) on a debian box. It's caught a bunch of viruses (most recently all of these stupid doom variants), though I don't know how quickly the definitions are updated. I would imagine that is where the concern would be. I also wouldn't know if viruses made it through, as I run linux on my workstations/laptop. I only installed clamAV to help protect others using my mail server. I haven't heard any complaints so far, though.
This seems a bit odd, as the madwifi project is up on sourceforge, and they have the same limitation of having a binary-only portion of their distribution. Perhaps there's something else going on, but it seems like that project is proof that you can use sf.net's services, even with binary-only portions.
They do not prohibit non-IBM mini-PCI card use, but (I am told) the bios will disable/not allow cards other than the Centrino Intel wireless, the IBM a/b (or a/b/g) wireless, and the Cisco Wifi.
Seeing as they used bios goofyness to hide the rescue partition at the end of the hard drive, this would not surpise me.
I bought a P2110 a year or so ago, and it was the best laptop I have ever owned (albeit a little slow.) Their laptops tend to use magnesium over cheap, flimsy plastic (dell, the 8100 -- piece of junk) and are well put together, all at a reasonable price. I recently purchased a P5010D, which is almost as good quality as the P2110.
If you want to spend money, and not on two fujitsu laptops, go with IBM. They use decent plastic and good designs. They are some of the more intelligently designed laptops out there, and have been hardy tools for me in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Who are you? Do you actually believe these things?
If you don't understand your basic rights and how they relate to the government, public locales, and private organizations, then a posting on Slashdot is not going to do anything to help you.
THEY WERE WEARING SHIRTS.
It's as private as a sporting event or a concert. Just like in those instances, you have to play by the rules of the organizers and the facility owners if you want to be welcome.
I repeat: THEY WERE WEARING SHIRTS.
A TV station might do a live report from a concert, maybe even show a few clips of the performance. This, in no way, give you, a non-ticket holder any right to enter the private establishment, nor does it relinquish the right of the venue owner to throw somebody out.
THEY DID HAVE TICKETS.
Troll away.
Parson me while I look for my mod points to make you a troll.
Has anyone else's presidential limousine been egged during their inauguration?
Sorry, I can't remember any others. And I can't remember that many protesters for clinton, though I imagine there should have been, seeing as we bombed so many countries while he was president.
So, feel free to cite examples of mass arrests at other presidential events.
1.) How do they implicitly argue that the president was/is curtailing civil liberties? Depending on how you interpret it, they could have been supporting Bush, because he's defending our civil liberties.
Okay, now laugh.
2.) The article said they had tickets. How is that not an invitation?
"Were not talking about Bary Goldwater or Walter Monindale, this is a fifty-fifty election if a hundred and 35 million people disagree with you, it's pretty sad if the only conclusion you can come to is that they are totally irrational."
I agree. It is pretty sad. I wish I understood what they were/are seeing that I am not. I'm beginning to think one side is crazy. I'm just not sure which. Is it the religion angle that I'm not getting, or do people really not mind us invading another country under (it turns out, according to the article) bogus circumstances?
I do not think it terribly biased that I asked for examples. I think it is perfectly reasonable, and helps you reinforce your argument, and educate me. You say it's biased, but then go on to give an example. That helps me more than just saying "why are they focusing on the bad?" This is not just about technology. This was posted in politics, and it's definitely pertinent to politics.
I think the reason why it's being reported here is the scope of the issue. The articles that I've seen regarding Samarra seem to be about military strategy, about taking a city and comparing it to the progress in the country. I agree it's good news, that it's good to be making progress in all this mess, but it's one city. That's pretty small potatoes compared to the idea of an administration invading another country on false pretenses.
What's to stop them from making the same (possibly false) claims about Iran and invading them too? That's what I imagine to be the reasoning behind posting this article.
Your argument would have been stronger if you pointed out the "good" things that republicans have done, or "bad" things the democrats have done. Frankly, I don't see much positive news in regards to republicans.
Would you give some examples?
I hate to sound biased, but I probably am. I just don't see how a rational person can look at the republicans and not see the ugliness.
So yes, you're right. There is a lot of news reporting negative things about Bush & Co. I mean, heck... even the onion has an article that is against bush.
This is one reason why I liked tiny personal firewall (the older, simpler version), which allowed/allows you to specify what was allowed to get out of your box, per application. It kept hashes of the exe's, so you would know when the exe was modified, and could react appropriately depending on whether you'd recently upgraded or not.
I would imagine it depends on how you want to do the job, and/or how secure you want to be. I don't trust windows boxes much, or rather, I don't trust users much, and managing outgoing traffic allows better control of what users are doing with machines.
I have to respond. The parent was correct. It's amazing seeing what people do to run windows, and what I've had to do in the past.
/home and it works fine.
You say you seriously doubt anyone has done a fresh install of distro-of-choice and not spent time tweaking things to get the system fully usable. Then you go on to say you're hoping to build your first linux box.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, depending on what distro you choose. Someone below mentioned OpenBSD, and that's a good recommendation. I think you'll find that a fair amount of the unix-y environments start you off at a solid base, and allow you to build up. This is in contrast to whenever I have the (in my opinion, of course) displeasure of dealing with a windows install, where I have to tear down and build up.
No, not all distro's are the same. Sometimes they have annoying services listening on all interfaces, like cups or lprd. That's one of the reasons why OpenBSD is nice. It starts you off with a good base from which to build up. I have recently switched to the excellent ubuntu distrobution from debian sarge. I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that very few services are listening by default, so there's really not all that much to do to "secure" the box (at least from a basic point of view). In fact, when I installed ubuntu over debian, I kept my old home directory, so there was no tweaking to get my desktop how I want it. I guess you could do the same with windows, but it's a pain to mess around with the registry to point to a different location/drive for user's home folders. All I have to do is mount the old volume as
Not only that, but the installation of new software is tremendously easier for the unix-y domain, at least debian, where apt-get is very good at solving your problems. No cds to look for, no keys to look for, makes it all very easy. So I think you're making a kind of incorrect blanket statement based on your experience with windows (it seems).
That said, I prefer the old tiny personal firewall, but only the old version (2 or 3?) as the new one doesn't have as nice an interface. It seems to barf a fair amount when installed on XP, so I'm actually shying away from that these days. You didn't say which version of windows you're using. I've been using the virus scanner from etrust, free to valid microsoft users: ezarmor. It seems to work okay, and it's free. It also includes a firewall of sorts, but I don't recall being very impressed, so I installed tpf again. AV gets rather expensive, rather quickly. I purchased the symantec AV/Firewall suite for something like $50. As always, there's a linux NAT box protecting it all, allowing easy port forwarding. I've also used the linksys wrt54g and it seems to work okay. It's available pretty cheaply now, and allowed me to reduce the number of crud that clutters up the gf's apartment.
Anyway, I wish you luck with your new linux box, and I think (once you get used to it) you'll find it pleasantly surprising.
Last I heard, cyrus was just for IMAP. Did you mean qmail?
Toys you may say, but source is to be had. I don't think it's an issue, personally. It seems that yahoo does pretty well with qmail. Things can be tuned, and different designs can be used.
Perhaps postfix/exim/qmail wouldn't run as well on 30 cpu systems (wouldn't know), but that doesn't mean they aren't viable as enterprise servers. As far as messaging goes, 8-way boxes are about as big as I've used (and they've been very adequate), and they've been to handle millions of users.
I think you're missing the point.
Odds are good that RH is going to open-source this product (eventually) and should strengthen the open source platform quite nicely. It could potentially benefit just as Apache and Linux have.
True, but we already have excellent open-source MTAs out there, so I think it's smart that RH didn't buy iMS. I did like the web interface, though. Very pleasant. It's good to hear Shaw is still using iMS.
I think you're kind of missing the point. There are very good open-source alternatives for the other solutions that iPlanet had (with the exception of Calendaring, I think) such as Postfix, qmail (my favorite), exim, and sendmail (if that's your bag) among others as an MTA. Courier (again, my favorite) and Cyrus (again, among others) work great for IMAP/POP. Why waste money buying yet another mail server with so many excellent options?
What was lacking (no offense to openldap, again, it's great) was an enterprise Directory server with enterprise features (multi-master, fast replication, ease of maintenance, protocol support, not to mention multi-platform support fo r everything under the sun) to tie all the stuff together.
Netscape's Directory server might not be "fun and interesting" to you, but it's quick, easy to manage, and overall very good. I think it makes perfect sense. I think they're trying to build a viable platform for just about anything.
The filters make a LOT of sense, he put some simple ones in there, but you get the hang of it:
If the target attribute is not "userPassword", (then a version number, and a description) then allow read, search, or compare, and then an ldap uri that says "anyone". Basically, anyone can read, search, or compare, so long as it's not ther userPassword attribute.
The ldap uri could be a specific user, or a group. What is so complex about that? If you would like a click-box interface for it, there is one, too. Personally, this interface is very nice (I think) as it's simple to write clients for it, and automate changes when needed. It's the same idea that mysql uses (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) where permimssions and users are stored in the db too.
Do you mean like opengroupware.org?
But mainly I was referring to the network management portion.
Right, 4.x was netscape's directory server. The fork I was specifically referring to was the fork of DS 5, which was drastically different from the 4.x code that was originally netscape's. As far as I know/knew, the 5.x version was an iPlanet effort.
Well, the iPlanet/Netscape/Sun Directory server can already integrate itself into AD networks, so that may very well be a possibility.
What would be interesting is combining this with Samba (which I believe speaks LDAP), and creating a free, open-source implementation of Microsoft's network management system, front and back.
iPlanet was a join Sun/Netscape venture. AOL bought Netscape, thus Netscape's Directory server. When the iPlanet venture was dissolved, AOL had the directory server, which was one of the things Netscape brought to the iPlanet experiment. I don't recall the details, but I think they forked the code when iPlanet was absorbed into Sun.
Amen. I have nothing against openldap, and have used it in the past, but the sheer ease of managing iPlanet/Netscape/Sun's DS is wonderful. Dynamic schema updates, dynamic aci updates, dynamic anything. All server configuration can be managed through LDAP. Great stuff.
ACL's in iPlanet/Netscape/Sun's DS are wonderful. ACL's can be held in any entry, and take effect immediately. All you have to do is request the aci attribute (assuming you have priveledges) to see the rules. Acl's go so far as to be dynamic, too, taking into account the binding user's DN, being able to create masks, etc.. There are some wonderful features that I hope make it into openLDAP, or heck, if they just open the source of Netscape DS, that'd be incredible.
For me, the Directory Server product is very very interesting. If they could offer up some of the multi-master replication to openLDAP, or the Active Directory integration, big headway could be made in enterprise environments in the Directory Server space.
That's the only thing of interest to me, personally. I think apache's web server eclipsed them a while ago.
1. Netscape DS compares very favorably. It has multi-master replication, and its performance is far above that of openLDAP. OpenLDAP is opensource, though, and very flexible. Netscape has to be paid for, and it's (if I recall) per-seat licensing. Sun's DS is per-entry licensing. Sun's DS and Netscape's DS are very similar, being forks of iPlanet's DS.
2. Yes, sort of. Some forms of replication can work, and both are standard ldap servers. As far as I know (I haven't used openldap for a bit) openldap cannot understand Netscape/iPlanet/Sun Directory server's new replication.
Netscape Directory Server 6 was basically a fork of the iplanet DS 5 product, where Sun carried on the 5.x versioning.
Very very similar products, both good.
Using clamAV in combination with qmail (using qmail-scanner and the qmail-queue patch) on a debian box. It's caught a bunch of viruses (most recently all of these stupid doom variants), though I don't know how quickly the definitions are updated. I would imagine that is where the concern would be. I also wouldn't know if viruses made it through, as I run linux on my workstations/laptop. I only installed clamAV to help protect others using my mail server. I haven't heard any complaints so far, though.
This seems a bit odd, as the madwifi project is up on sourceforge, and they have the same limitation of having a binary-only portion of their distribution. Perhaps there's something else going on, but it seems like that project is proof that you can use sf.net's services, even with binary-only portions.
Further nitpick:
They do not prohibit non-IBM mini-PCI card use, but (I am told) the bios will disable/not allow cards other than the Centrino Intel wireless, the IBM a/b (or a/b/g) wireless, and the Cisco Wifi.
Seeing as they used bios goofyness to hide the rescue partition at the end of the hard drive, this would not surpise me.
See URL:
kernel archive email
So long as you use one of those cards, You should be fine.
I bought a P2110 a year or so ago, and it was the best laptop I have ever owned (albeit a little slow.) Their laptops tend to use magnesium over cheap, flimsy plastic (dell, the 8100 -- piece of junk) and are well put together, all at a reasonable price. I recently purchased a P5010D, which is almost as good quality as the P2110.
If you want to spend money, and not on two fujitsu laptops, go with IBM. They use decent plastic and good designs. They are some of the more intelligently designed laptops out there, and have been hardy tools for me in the past.