Sun's Opteron servers will fill the midrange, and even low-midrange, quite nicely.
Hmm. I have trouble believing that sun can sell opterons cheaper than traditional x86 vendors--they have terrible distribution channels and a lot of overhead. So if there are two opterons, one expensive one from sun and one cheap one from someone else (and the cheap one probably has a better warranty and cheaper support costs) why would I buy the sun version? This is why sun isn't going to be able to compete. They're currently charging premiums for being sun and because they're the only ones you can buy sun hardware from. If they become a vendor of commodity hardware the flaws of their distribution channels become even more glaringly obvious.
For instance, some have suggested that the definition should be a controlled take-off, flight path, and landing completely under the airplane's power (including no catapult assisted take-off). That definition would probably put the Wright Brothers back as "first", but it certainly wasn't the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight, it would be sometime later.
That's an important point, and a more practical point for discussion. I agree that the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight was not particularly important in itself--except that the plane that flew there is virtually the same plane that the Wrights flew later with much more impressive results. You can hardly fault them for being bad pilots in 1903. Had Pearse's first attempts led to real flights with the same plane at a later date then there'd be reason to celebrate his achievements--but he did not. The history of flight is littered with a lot of interesting dead ends and the importance of Kitty Hawk '03 is that it was the first flight of a useful working airplane (as opposed to a toy or curiosity) even if that airplane wasn't piloted to its full extent on that occasion. That said, the importance of Kitty Hawk '03 is being grossly overemphasized in the media right now, but that's to be expected given the easy press you can create by celbrating the 100th anniversary of something. 17 Dec 1903 is the best available date from which to mark time, as subsequent milestones (5 minutes in the air, ten miles on the ground, etc.) were merely extensions from the first flight of the Wright flyer in '03.
I've heard of him. I've even read the article. I'm just not that impressed by net.cranks. I know its fun to "know" that evil americans stole the invention of the airplane from some poor (french/brazilian/new zealander or even a poor scandanvian chap in connecticut) but those claims generally aren't credible in the face of serious research. Others have already posted links to Pearse's own commentary that the Wrights were first, and to criticism of the veracity of the documents which "prove" Pearse was first. The bottom line is that if you want to "know" that the story of the Wright brothers is a great conspiracy nothing can change your mind.
That was hardly a novel insight by the Wrights--balloons had been used for military operations for more than 50 years at that point. They were primarily used for observation and artillery spotting, but had also been used for bombing. This was seen as important enough a development that the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 banned the dropping of explosives from balloons. The Japanese were bombing from baloons during the Manchurian war of 1904-5--the same time as the Wright quote in the parent--so Wilbur's comments were hardly being made in a vacuum.
Well, one of your mistakes is assuming that the non-journalling fs will be faster. XFS will wipe the floor with ext2 on certain workloads. The other is assuming that it takes a number of crashes to make fscking a problem. A single fsck on a large filesystem could take upwards of an hour.
that whenever I bought a new motherboard + CPU, and then after 6 months decided to upgrade I would ALWAYS have to by a new motherboard + CPU.
Why wouldn't you? It doesn't make much sense to cripple the next-generation processor by putting it on a motherboard with an old/slow memory bus, does it? In fact, you'd probably get more gain out of increasing the memory speed and staying with a slower processor than by simply upgrading the processor.
Re:Not the source, really
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
Any "security professional" who weakens security at the behest of "management" is no more a "professional" than a burger flipper is. Real professionals get paid to do things right, not just apply random garbage because some pointy-haired boss needs to feel like he's doing something.
Then who would you define as a professional? I'm struggling to come up with a profession where you can buck your boss and win.
To be fair, people @suse and @redhat provided great assistence during the investigation of the debian incident. I would like to see the incident held up as a model of cooperation between the various parts (commercial and noncommercial) of the linux community.
Now this is a good suggestion. The problem is that it's not really easy to implement. The commercially available stuff (e.g., securid) is prohibitively expensive and, IMO, leads to a single-point-of-failure security infrastructure. The free stuff (e.g., s/key) is a real bear to manage and can lead to even bigger security problems if implemented poorly.
Which, of course, is a file, located on a disk or similar medium somewhere - you can't just guess it or sniff a network for it. Furthermore, even when you have the key, you still need the passphrase.
Ah, perhaps you were under the mistaken impression that "sniffing" is something that only happens on the network. It's more common these days to compromise a password at an endpoint (e.g., your user's desktop system) with a tty sniffer or keystroke logger--the password is not typically sniffed from an ssh session on the network, but is easily retrieved from the endpoint. A key stored on the user's disk is going to be just as vulnerable as a password the user types on his keyboard. The passphrase is retrieved in exactly the same way as the password, via a tty or keyboard logger.
Well, you could always have an entry in root's crontab to delete a user's ssh keys every so often, forcing them to generate new ones.
Well, there's a terrible idea. You don't need to delete the *key*, you need to delete the authorized_keys. And you don't want to delete all of them, just the one that expires today. And you don't want to really delete it, you just want the user to change it. And you really don't want to accidently wipe out whatever configuration was attached to the key (restricted commands, etc.)
Of course, they wouldn't be able to login (via ssh) until they did so, so it's not exactly the same.
It really isn't, is it.
The key-killing script could generate a new key-pair, PGP-encrypt a copy and mail them to a known email address. That way you'd have to compromise the user's email *and* PGP keys to get their ssh keys, which is starting to look like a lot of work.
hahahaha. Now you've added additional levels of security that the user is responsible for, something that user's don't usually do well. (Integrity of the email store, integrity of the gpg key, transmission of the key from wherever they read email to wherever they want the key.)
Don't forget that security is all about making doing something more effort than it's worth
Watch where you're sticking your misguided yet arrogant platitudes. And don't forget that simple little technical fixes like "just use keys" often turn out to be less simple once someone looks at them more critically.
Gentoo's machines are being upgraded over the next hour. However, Gentoo forbids password logins for ssh (pk only), so they're less vulnerable to password stealing anyway.
Right. So instead of stealing the password the intruder has to take the extraordinary step of stealing the key. And you've got an even worse problem in the general case when dealing with keys, because you have a hard time enforcing things like password expiration (just how long can someone use that stolen key to get into your system?)
There certainly is from the shell scripters point of view though. Ever tried porting a script that some one wrote on Linux making full use of the GNU tools featuritis to, say, stock Solaris.
Well, that's a pretty good troll. You haven't apparantly tried to port shell scripts from one 100% certified authentic UNIX to another--portability issues aren't something invented with GNU. The trick is to use the subset of stuff defined in POSIX if you're trying to be portable. It isn't particularly harder to do this in linux than in solaris--both require some self-discipline.
Ashcroft is a man, not a party. Many conservative republicans are worried about the civil-liberties issues surrounding the patriot act. Many democrats support Ashcroft & the patriot act.
Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*
They may disagree with the content of the web sites, but they should defend the rights of those with whom they disagree to have their say--especially when this sort of stupid blocking software is mandated by the government for use in schools and libraries.
In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Bull. It's been about power, who has it, and who wants it. Left/right wing has meant pretty much nothing in terms of who votes for what bill that infringes civil rights, except that the right wing will tend to fight for freedoms in certain areas that the left wing won't and vice versa. Neither will stand up for something like free speech if that gets in the way of some other agenda.
Now compare with the US. GDP~5 trillions, debt~6,5 trillions (ie. 130%GDP), deficit between 300 and 500 billions (ie. 6% to 10% GDP). US public debt and deficit are twice as big as the worst European countries.
Ah, I see your problem--your numbers are off for US GDP. That ~$5 trillion GDP should be ~$10+ trillion.
Surely this is the sort of thing/. would like to see more of?...I imagine the note about web usage is so that if some neo-Nazi twerp uses their wartime images for a site they'll have pretty solid grounds to have it pulled.
Why would we want to see more of companies arbitrarily shutting down web sites they don't like?
I think it's nice to see a large media company actually doing something like this and not being stuffy legalistic arses about it.
Having a formal policy is a good thing, because then you know exactly what is and is not allowed. A fuzzy license effectively prevents you from using the content freely, because you open yourself up to future liability.
Another apple benchmark that shows intel machines running strangely slower then everybody else's benchmarks, with even fewer details then the last time we read this story. Wake me up when there's a real independent review of the state-of-the art on both systems. I wouldn't mind seeing an opteron in the mix also.
"I've never met someone who has been laid and simultaneously preferred using Linux as his/her desktop OS."
Ok, I think I know what's going on. See, if you're trying to get laid you shouldn't be thinking about your desktop OS. Instead, you should think about the person you are standing/lying near. Hope that clears things up.:)
Slashdot Mirror
> They could probally make some lather and cover
> the station in soap while spacewalking
You've been watching Enterprise again, haven't you?
Hmm. I have trouble believing that sun can sell opterons cheaper than traditional x86 vendors--they have terrible distribution channels and a lot of overhead. So if there are two opterons, one expensive one from sun and one cheap one from someone else (and the cheap one probably has a better warranty and cheaper support costs) why would I buy the sun version? This is why sun isn't going to be able to compete. They're currently charging premiums for being sun and because they're the only ones you can buy sun hardware from. If they become a vendor of commodity hardware the flaws of their distribution channels become even more glaringly obvious.
That's an important point, and a more practical point for discussion. I agree that the 1903 Kitty Hawk flight was not particularly important in itself--except that the plane that flew there is virtually the same plane that the Wrights flew later with much more impressive results. You can hardly fault them for being bad pilots in 1903. Had Pearse's first attempts led to real flights with the same plane at a later date then there'd be reason to celebrate his achievements--but he did not. The history of flight is littered with a lot of interesting dead ends and the importance of Kitty Hawk '03 is that it was the first flight of a useful working airplane (as opposed to a toy or curiosity) even if that airplane wasn't piloted to its full extent on that occasion. That said, the importance of Kitty Hawk '03 is being grossly overemphasized in the media right now, but that's to be expected given the easy press you can create by celbrating the 100th anniversary of something. 17 Dec 1903 is the best available date from which to mark time, as subsequent milestones (5 minutes in the air, ten miles on the ground, etc.) were merely extensions from the first flight of the Wright flyer in '03.
I've heard of him. I've even read the article. I'm just not that impressed by net.cranks. I know its fun to "know" that evil americans stole the invention of the airplane from some poor (french/brazilian/new zealander or even a poor scandanvian chap in connecticut) but those claims generally aren't credible in the face of serious research. Others have already posted links to Pearse's own commentary that the Wrights were first, and to criticism of the veracity of the documents which "prove" Pearse was first. The bottom line is that if you want to "know" that the story of the Wright brothers is a great conspiracy nothing can change your mind.
Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Why on earth do you consider "the opinion of Bill Sherwood" to be canonical?
That was hardly a novel insight by the Wrights--balloons had been used for military operations for more than 50 years at that point. They were primarily used for observation and artillery spotting, but had also been used for bombing. This was seen as important enough a development that the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 banned the dropping of explosives from balloons. The Japanese were bombing from baloons during the Manchurian war of 1904-5--the same time as the Wright quote in the parent--so Wilbur's comments were hardly being made in a vacuum.
I often find AC's posting about a purportedly definitive benchmark without providing any link to be highly credible. Not this time, though.
Well, one of your mistakes is assuming that the non-journalling fs will be faster. XFS will wipe the floor with ext2 on certain workloads. The other is assuming that it takes a number of crashes to make fscking a problem. A single fsck on a large filesystem could take upwards of an hour.
Why wouldn't you? It doesn't make much sense to cripple the next-generation processor by putting it on a motherboard with an old/slow memory bus, does it? In fact, you'd probably get more gain out of increasing the memory speed and staying with a slower processor than by simply upgrading the processor.
Then who would you define as a professional? I'm struggling to come up with a profession where you can buck your boss and win.
To be fair, people @suse and @redhat provided great assistence during the investigation of the debian incident. I would like to see the incident held up as a model of cooperation between the various parts (commercial and noncommercial) of the linux community.
Now this is a good suggestion. The problem is that it's not really easy to implement. The commercially available stuff (e.g., securid) is prohibitively expensive and, IMO, leads to a single-point-of-failure security infrastructure. The free stuff (e.g., s/key) is a real bear to manage and can lead to even bigger security problems if implemented poorly.
Ah, perhaps you were under the mistaken impression that "sniffing" is something that only happens on the network. It's more common these days to compromise a password at an endpoint (e.g., your user's desktop system) with a tty sniffer or keystroke logger--the password is not typically sniffed from an ssh session on the network, but is easily retrieved from the endpoint. A key stored on the user's disk is going to be just as vulnerable as a password the user types on his keyboard. The passphrase is retrieved in exactly the same way as the password, via a tty or keyboard logger.
Well, there's a terrible idea. You don't need to delete the *key*, you need to delete the authorized_keys. And you don't want to delete all of them, just the one that expires today. And you don't want to really delete it, you just want the user to change it. And you really don't want to accidently wipe out whatever configuration was attached to the key (restricted commands, etc.)
It really isn't, is it.
hahahaha. Now you've added additional levels of security that the user is responsible for, something that user's don't usually do well. (Integrity of the email store, integrity of the gpg key, transmission of the key from wherever they read email to wherever they want the key.)
Watch where you're sticking your misguided yet arrogant platitudes. And don't forget that simple little technical fixes like "just use keys" often turn out to be less simple once someone looks at them more critically.
Right. So instead of stealing the password the intruder has to take the extraordinary step of stealing the key. And you've got an even worse problem in the general case when dealing with keys, because you have a hard time enforcing things like password expiration (just how long can someone use that stolen key to get into your system?)
Well, that's a pretty good troll. You haven't apparantly tried to port shell scripts from one 100% certified authentic UNIX to another--portability issues aren't something invented with GNU. The trick is to use the subset of stuff defined in POSIX if you're trying to be portable. It isn't particularly harder to do this in linux than in solaris--both require some self-discipline.
Ashcroft is a man, not a party. Many conservative republicans are worried about the civil-liberties issues surrounding the patriot act. Many democrats support Ashcroft & the patriot act.
They may disagree with the content of the web sites, but they should defend the rights of those with whom they disagree to have their say--especially when this sort of stupid blocking software is mandated by the government for use in schools and libraries.
Bull. It's been about power, who has it, and who wants it. Left/right wing has meant pretty much nothing in terms of who votes for what bill that infringes civil rights, except that the right wing will tend to fight for freedoms in certain areas that the left wing won't and vice versa. Neither will stand up for something like free speech if that gets in the way of some other agenda.
Ah, I see your problem--your numbers are off for US GDP. That ~$5 trillion GDP should be ~$10+ trillion.
Why would we want to see more of companies arbitrarily shutting down web sites they don't like?
Having a formal policy is a good thing, because then you know exactly what is and is not allowed. A fuzzy license effectively prevents you from using the content freely, because you open yourself up to future liability.
Sheesh, the moderators rated this troll informative?
More importantly, the problem only affects OpenSSH 3.7p and 3.7.1p, so adding "UsePam no" to a 3.5p installation is unnecessary.
No, a benchmark sponsored by a vendor isn't particularly independent.
Another apple benchmark that shows intel machines running strangely slower then everybody else's benchmarks, with even fewer details then the last time we read this story. Wake me up when there's a real independent review of the state-of-the art on both systems. I wouldn't mind seeing an opteron in the mix also.
Ok, I think I know what's going on. See, if you're trying to get laid you shouldn't be thinking about your desktop OS. Instead, you should think about the person you are standing/lying near. Hope that clears things up.