Seriously, what's stopping users from sticking with an LTS?
Because if you ever upgrade from an LTS you're then stuck with whatever Ubuntu sends you for the next two years? At least I was able to stay on 10.10 until 11.04 became vaguely usable.
Voodoo 2 SLI is as good as advertised. Twice the FPS, higher resolution support, and it "just works".
That's because the Voodoo-2 was a cut-down piece of crap even in its heyday. You literally couldn't do anything with it that would make SLI difficult.
Most people I knew in graphics and gaming at the time hated 3dfx for crippling the industry with its refusal to add any features that weren't required to render Quake fast.
1. Wastes 6GB of disk space on my laptop which often has 2GB or less free. 2. Who wants to keep running Windows for months accumulating Windows Crud? 3. My old Windows laptop would lose its wireless LAN every once in a while and had to be rebooted to recover.
Yeah, having written multi-GPU drivers I'm amazed any of this stuff ever works, let alone actually improves performance. Back in our day there were a ton of things that game developers could do that would cut the performance to a tenth or less of what a single card would achieve due to triggering massive amounts of inter-card communication.
Riiight. Because having Windows boot faster is *clearly* the only thing SSDs have going for them.
For the average user, that is the only benefit they'll see. Particularly because they'll only be able to fit the OS on the SSD and their applications and data will have to live on a hard drive.
When the productive people complain that taxes and regulations are killing them, the left say 'if you don't like it, then leave, vile capitalist pig'.
When the producitve people leave, the left say 'the evil capitalist pigs are leaving, but they have a duty to stay and be our slaves! No-one will leave without permission!'.
You probably believe the Berlin Wall was built to stop the EVIL CAPITALIST PIGS infiltrating the GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S UTOPIA rather than to stop people fleeing a communist hellhole, right?
That's what the left always say until the productive people take their advice and leave. Then the left realise they're about to lose all their taxes and start demanding exit visas and ranting about how the evil productive people have a duty to stay and work as slaves for the unproductive.
Unless the notaries' public keys (or certificates that verify them) are already on the client's computer somehow.
But what if those are fake?
Again, you're replacing a broken but kind of works most of the time system with a hand-waving belief that if you trust more people it will all work out OK.
Er, Self-Signed certs work, so long as you KNOW you want to trust them. Any attempt to use a different self-signed cert will throw an error, since the cert thumbprints wont match the "trusted" ones.
And, uh, how do you know to trust the key?
You've solved the problem of untrustworthy keys by... ignoring it away.
I didn't realise being a mobster was a crime. I thought you actually had to commit a crime while in the mob to be charged; hence nailing Capone on tax evasion.
That was back in the bad old days when the government actually had to get a constitutional amendment to ban things, before they discovered that the interstate commerce clause allowed them to make any law they wanted.
You already have offline contact with the bank via mail or even walking into a branch, so they could use this to send you their certs and you won't have to trust anyone else.
I would totally, TOTALLY, trust a self-signed cert for my bank that turned up on a CD in my mailbox over one that was signed by a CA.
Now, CAs earned their trusts by passing a real audit, as in people from a company you know IRL goes to that company to check stuff IRL. Not that it helped much to that Dutch company, but it guarantees a minimum of security.
The big problem with the CA system is that it limits your security to the level of the least secure CA. You can get your certs from supersecureCA.com, but anyone who hacks into CAinmygarage.ng can produce a certificate that will be trusted just as much as the real one.
Insert simpsons voice "ha ha". The whole point is that is just not so.
As I said, that trust may be misplaced. But just because some CAs aren't trustworthy, that's no reason to accept self-signed certitificates which are guaranteed not to be trustworthy.
The bad CAs get removed from the browser. No browser developer is going to want to have to track millions of bad self-signed certs, nor could they when anyone can create new ones.
A man in the middle attack can just wipe out ssl.. unless you always check to make sure you are genuinely on the https page then you are just as vulnerable to this attack.
And, guess what, my web browser does warn me if I go to my bank and it's not encrypted. But most people don't have those options enabled because they're too painful, warning numerous times about sites where I don't care whether the connection is encrypted.
But its ok that none warnings are issued just because mybank.com spent a lot of money to buy a signed certificate from douchebags-ca.com?
Untrusted CAs aren't included in the web browser, so there will be a warning unless the browser flags that CA as trusted. That trust may be misplaced, but that's a different issue.
The big flaw with current browsers is that it doesn't tell you when it sees a new certificate where the old one was from bignameCA.com, but the new one is from CAIveneverheardof.ng.
The CA concept is fundamentally broken, but so long as the CAs are legitimately trusted it's vastly more secure than accepting any old crap without warning.
I agree that self signed certs should be treated like clear text from a security perspective rather than setting off alarm bells
Yeah, because I totally want my web browser not to set off alarm bells when I go to www.mybank.com and it receives a self-signed certificate from that site.
Please mount for critiques of capitalism in terms that don't also apply to personal liberty.
Uh, that's because communists hate both. You're free to set up a communist community in a capitalist society, but you'll be sent to the Gulag if you try to set up a capitalist community in a communist society.
I'm still amazed that anyone outside academia could take communism seriously after a century of Marxists demonstrating what a disaster it is.
You put the pins on the motherboard and you shift the liability and cost to the motherboard manufacturer. And since Intel designs the socket, that's what they did.
Bending pins on a CPU is easy. Bending pins on the motherboard is hard if you even remotely follow the instructions.
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens when the algorithms start demanding a billion dollar bonus before they'll turn up to work?
Seriously, what's stopping users from sticking with an LTS?
Because if you ever upgrade from an LTS you're then stuck with whatever Ubuntu sends you for the next two years? At least I was able to stay on 10.10 until 11.04 became vaguely usable.
The changelog says they've added a new feature nobody cares about!
And removed six 'confusing' features that everyone cares about.
Yeah, I forgot the 'Sorry, I don't feel like getting up today' bug.
Voodoo 2 SLI is as good as advertised. Twice the FPS, higher resolution support, and it "just works".
That's because the Voodoo-2 was a cut-down piece of crap even in its heyday. You literally couldn't do anything with it that would make SLI difficult.
Most people I knew in graphics and gaming at the time hated 3dfx for crippling the industry with its refusal to add any features that weren't required to render Quake fast.
1. Wastes 6GB of disk space on my laptop which often has 2GB or less free.
2. Who wants to keep running Windows for months accumulating Windows Crud?
3. My old Windows laptop would lose its wireless LAN every once in a while and had to be rebooted to recover.
Back when RAM was very expensive, it was usually worth it to have a second HDD just to hold the swap file.
Back when RAM was very expensive, people would buy external RAM drives just to hold the swap file.
In 1990, 128MB of RAM for a VAX was a staggering amount of money, whereas 128MB in a box with a SCSI interface was about $50k.
Yeah, having written multi-GPU drivers I'm amazed any of this stuff ever works, let alone actually improves performance. Back in our day there were a ton of things that game developers could do that would cut the performance to a tenth or less of what a single card would achieve due to triggering massive amounts of inter-card communication.
Riiight. Because having Windows boot faster is *clearly* the only thing SSDs have going for them.
For the average user, that is the only benefit they'll see. Particularly because they'll only be able to fit the OS on the SSD and their applications and data will have to live on a hard drive.
Before the Fed, the US economy would fluctuate between booms and panics.
Whereas now it fluctuates between booms and decade-long depressions and economic collapse.
Oh, and they've decreased the dollar's value by 99% in the meantime too.
Are you fucking kidding?
Uh, no.
When the productive people complain that taxes and regulations are killing them, the left say 'if you don't like it, then leave, vile capitalist pig'.
When the producitve people leave, the left say 'the evil capitalist pigs are leaving, but they have a duty to stay and be our slaves! No-one will leave without permission!'.
You probably believe the Berlin Wall was built to stop the EVIL CAPITALIST PIGS infiltrating the GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S UTOPIA rather than to stop people fleeing a communist hellhole, right?
Please do not let the door hit your butt.
That's what the left always say until the productive people take their advice and leave. Then the left realise they're about to lose all their taxes and start demanding exit visas and ranting about how the evil productive people have a duty to stay and work as slaves for the unproductive.
Unless the notaries' public keys (or certificates that verify them) are already on the client's computer somehow.
But what if those are fake?
Again, you're replacing a broken but kind of works most of the time system with a hand-waving belief that if you trust more people it will all work out OK.
Er, Self-Signed certs work, so long as you KNOW you want to trust them. Any attempt to use a different self-signed cert will throw an error, since the cert thumbprints wont match the "trusted" ones.
And, uh, how do you know to trust the key?
You've solved the problem of untrustworthy keys by... ignoring it away.
I didn't realise being a mobster was a crime. I thought you actually had to commit a crime while in the mob to be charged; hence nailing Capone on tax evasion.
That was back in the bad old days when the government actually had to get a constitutional amendment to ban things, before they discovered that the interstate commerce clause allowed them to make any law they wanted.
should be nationalized.
Government-run CAs are the only ones you can absolutely guarantee will be used to issue fake certiifcates at some point.
You already have offline contact with the bank via mail or even walking into a branch, so they could use this to send you their certs and you won't have to trust anyone else.
I would totally, TOTALLY, trust a self-signed cert for my bank that turned up on a CD in my mailbox over one that was signed by a CA.
Do you even follow tech news?
Did you read my post?
Ah, no, because you cropped out the part saying 'That trust may be misplaced'.
Now, CAs earned their trusts by passing a real audit, as in people from a company you know IRL goes to that company to check stuff IRL. Not that it helped much to that Dutch company, but it guarantees a minimum of security.
The big problem with the CA system is that it limits your security to the level of the least secure CA. You can get your certs from supersecureCA.com, but anyone who hacks into CAinmygarage.ng can produce a certificate that will be trusted just as much as the real one.
Insert simpsons voice "ha ha". The whole point is that is just not so.
As I said, that trust may be misplaced. But just because some CAs aren't trustworthy, that's no reason to accept self-signed certitificates which are guaranteed not to be trustworthy.
The bad CAs get removed from the browser. No browser developer is going to want to have to track millions of bad self-signed certs, nor could they when anyone can create new ones.
A man in the middle attack can just wipe out ssl.. unless you always check to make sure you are genuinely on the https page then you are just as vulnerable to this attack.
And, guess what, my web browser does warn me if I go to my bank and it's not encrypted. But most people don't have those options enabled because they're too painful, warning numerous times about sites where I don't care whether the connection is encrypted.
But its ok that none warnings are issued just because mybank.com spent a lot of money to buy a signed certificate from douchebags-ca.com?
Untrusted CAs aren't included in the web browser, so there will be a warning unless the browser flags that CA as trusted. That trust may be misplaced, but that's a different issue.
The big flaw with current browsers is that it doesn't tell you when it sees a new certificate where the old one was from bignameCA.com, but the new one is from CAIveneverheardof.ng.
The CA concept is fundamentally broken, but so long as the CAs are legitimately trusted it's vastly more secure than accepting any old crap without warning.
I agree that self signed certs should be treated like clear text from a security perspective rather than setting off alarm bells
Yeah, because I totally want my web browser not to set off alarm bells when I go to www.mybank.com and it receives a self-signed certificate from that site.
Please mount for critiques of capitalism in terms that don't also apply to personal liberty.
Uh, that's because communists hate both. You're free to set up a communist community in a capitalist society, but you'll be sent to the Gulag if you try to set up a capitalist community in a communist society.
I'm still amazed that anyone outside academia could take communism seriously after a century of Marxists demonstrating what a disaster it is.
You put the pins on the motherboard and you shift the liability and cost to the motherboard manufacturer. And since Intel designs the socket, that's what they did.
Bending pins on a CPU is easy. Bending pins on the motherboard is hard if you even remotely follow the instructions.