Common misconception actually. The guy who created the language made extensive research in the field of AI, thus the source of the misconception. It IS used for artifical intelligence research, but not exclusively.
And when all emacs users has passed away, this misconception will be elevated to the status of Truth and written on stone tablets;-)
i never thought smalltalk dates back so far... i think i saw something like this on Wired a couple years back
Just shows that good ideas survives for a very long time, and quite often re-surfaces when the time is right for general acceptance. Those original creators usually had to take alot of criticism for their "wacky" ideas.
Why is this a troll? It may be sarcastic, but it raises a valid argument against the parent's attitude about kernel security. It should be modded up, at least to the level of the parent, so they can be viewed together.
You got modded down as well for asking this;-) Often I see posts clearly moderated wrongly, and this is really just a testament of that particularly moderator cluelessness. Too bad metamoderation does not really work.
The main thing that I try to focus on is security, and being on the LCML security mailing list has greatly improved my ability to find and squash security issues. You wouldn't believe how many security issues Linux has, actually. Luckily, most of the easy things like buffer exploits are already taken care of.
You are saying that the Linux kernel have unbelievable many security issues that are hard to fix? So the hard-to-fix bugs are results of design flaws and won't be fixed anytime soon?
I'd rather have those guys working on features and we on the Security side can get those features secure. If we spent all our time thinking about how to make the system secure, we'd still be stuck with an age-old kernel like OpenBSD!
Your attitude with regards to features and security is very different from the one practiced by the OpenBSD developers. No feature will be added to OpenBSD unless the developers think that this can be done securely. To them, security is not something that is added to a feature at a later stage. This is one reason as to why OpenBSD only recently added SMP support.
In some respects part of the OpenBSD kernel is "age-old" (you mean "obsolete", I suppose), but it's secure and stable. When it comes to security, OpenBSD is far ahead of the Linux kernel.
There exists security patches (like PaX) for the Linux kernel, but they are not used by many since the commercial distros like SuSE and RedHat don't offer them. A shame, really.
The pages are outdated, archaic and written in a way that takes too much time to find out anything useful and of course teh few existign exampels vaailable in Unix and Linux documentation are totally irrelevant.
SuSE/Novel distro has a comprehensive Users Guide that is very usefull for a newbie. Even better, it's a book of about 400 pages and immediate accessible. For the Pro version you even get an Administrators Guide, also in book form. Of course, you'll have to pay for it. The users guide was the reason I bought SuSE in the first place.
As of Linux man pages and other documentation, your're right : It generally sucks because it's not current and properly maintained, as well as incomplete. Contrast this with any *BSD where the man pages are complete, comprehensive and maintained. The non-man-page documentation is excellent and very usefull.
Okay, so I just made this statistic up, but since hardly anyone bothers to back the oft-quoted "Americans believe Iraq caused 9/11" statistic with sources, I figure I'm in good company.
Here we go. From an
interview (April 2003
) vith Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist :
Ramachandran:The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.
Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except, interestingly, the population of the United States.
In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The international polls show that support for the war is higher in the United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or Iran.
Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war.
As a/. geek I'm sure you now are able to Google for the actual polls yourself. And before you claim that Chomsky's number are made up, I suggest you actually learn more about the man.
Now this is NOT an insignificant study. 100k students and only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories? Excuse me? This misinformation must be coming from somewhere... Are these kids skipping American History/Civics and moving into Psychology and Sociology courses instead?
They are just watching too much American "news", and in particular Fox "news". Heck, the majority of the US population believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. Go figure.
Yeah, if you're doing AES encryption (and your software supports it). For everything else... no performance boost.
As I wrote, this encryption is useful for gateways, even at home. For instance, protecting your wireless network using IPSec. Install OpenBSD and use isakmp that is part of base install.
No way is a 1 GHz Via Nehemiah going to be faster than a 1.25 GHz G4. The mini is already one of the fastest PCs (personal computer, this includes macs by the way) that has been fit into such a small space.
I have an Epia system; to me it feels pretty anemic for its clock speed in comparison to say a PII or better.
The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4. In a gateway this hardware encryption is valuable. For instance, OpenBSD will transparently use Via encryption instructions.
Maybe that's what's wrong with the BSD license. Sun took BSD code, added stuff to it and now makes it impossible for BSD to gain any benefit.
There is nothing wrong with BSD license. It's quite simply a free license.
Perhaps
copycenter
describes BSDL best :
copycenter: n.
[play on 'copyright' and 'copyleft']
1. The copyright notice carried by the various flavors of freeware BSD. According to Kirk McKusick at BSDCon 1999: "The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called 'copycenter', which is 'take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want'".
For fileservers, on a price/capacity ratio, SATA will kick SCSI's ass to the curb and back. While SCSI is faster, and, on average, more reliable, SATA is often 'good enough'.
If you buy a SATA drive you can expect the same relability as a IDE drive. An exception is WD Raptor that has a MTBF of 1.2 million hours full duty cycle, like SCSI drives.
However, Apache isn't auditted. DHCP isn't auditted. The FTP server, I'm fairly sure isn't auditted. Nothing they don't actually write themselves. If you install an OpenBSD machine on the internet and actually turn on services, you'll have just as many security problems as anyone running Linux. OpenSSH has it's fair share of security problems (written by pretty much the same people who wrote OpenBSD). Although with priveledge separation it should have even fewer problems that are actually exploitable to become root.
You entire post shows that you know very little about OpenBSD. Everything that is part of the base install is audited, and that includes programs like Apache httpd, BIND, Sendmail, DHCP and SSH. For the 3.6 release, the DHCP server and client underwent a major cleanup to improve security. In addition there are security enhancments as well (like privilege separation, chroot).
While it probably has a more secure kernel, most exploits out there in the world involve exploiting a user process that is running as root.
Very few deamons are running as root on OpenBSD. Most are running under their own unique, chrooted and privilege separated if possible.
The OpenBSD team has done alot to lessen the impact of exploits. Yes, even programs running on OpenBSD can be exploited, but there is a difference. An attempt to exploit a buffer overflow on OpenBSD is likely to just induce a crash, and thus not work.
Uhm, no. Everything in a base install, even if not turned on, has undergone a code audit... I'm fairly certain that the OpenBSD versions of sendmail, bind, and "the webserver formerly known as Apache" have all had many security-related patches applied, not all of which were accepted back into their respective main code branches.
The Apache httpd diff is about 4000 lines. After the fork the diff is even larger as they are removing the unneeded apr layer.
Security against 'Big Brother' is a myth, especially given that it is very easy for authorities all over the world to label someone a "terrorist", or a "person of interest", and lock him/her up for years without any oversight.
Indeed, and US under Bush II is leading that pack and giving rampant human rights abuses a face of "respectability".
This is old news in the Linux world, I'm glad you caught that. FreeBSD 5.x always impressed me as a catch-up "me too" effort to get where Linux was five years ago
All the *BSD are trying to catch-up on the number of Linux kernel exploits, but so far they failing miserably. I, as a proud BSD user, DEMAND that I have the same excitement and the same feeling of clear and present danger that every Linux users experience on a daily basis. Oh man, it's sooooo booooring to have BSD boxen that just runs, and runs, and runs doing what it's supposed to do.
"Seen those funky remote scripting techniques employed by Orkut, Gmail and Google Suggests that avoid that oh so 80's page reloading (think IBM 3270 only slower)....."
I hope I wasn't the only one that shuddered when I read "remote scripting techniques".
Centrino is fine and dandy, but I still want a little bit more speed than that. I want a Pentium M, but I also want to know how it really is vs that desktop. I would really like to have the fastest thing for a new laptop, as judged by experienced people. So Intel, come on and test all your chips against that 'fast' desktop!
The Pention M is using much less power than P4 for comparable performance, and thus has much less cooling requirements. I for one won't mind cheaper and more available Pentium M with corresponding motherboard.
Actually, I've had a few IDE harddisk fail at home over the last few years, so now I'm buying SCSI hardisks for my home server. Yes, they are far more expensive (with the added overhead of a good sCSI card), but are much more reliable. Now 74GB is plenty of space for my needs.....
is makes a heck of a lot more sense than the original poster's requirement of a PCIe slot on the server. Why would you need a PCIe slot on something that's just serving as a NAS and sitting in your basement?
A 32bit 33MHz PCI bus can handle at maximum 133MB/s, and that includes all your hardisks and network card. With a fast harddisk and a gigabit network card you can saturate the PCI bus, so a PCIe requirement (cheaper than PCI-X that is used for server motherboards) is quite reasonable.
1. Science does not reveal truth, it searches for fact and tries to creat models for predicting facts. (Didn't Harrison Ford give a lecture on this?)
Science does indeed create models, but the science part is the procedure for creating/justify/verify/refute the models along with the theory This does not imply that the models are the "truth" (by definition, they are at best an approximation of the "object" they model). As usual, this is the part that Creationist always fail.
2. It is equally incorrect, and very unfair, to suggest that any religious fanatic is opposed to what science may generate.
Yes, it's unfair, but understandable, to make this assumption. Not so many are aware of the contribution, that, say, Jesuit priests has made to science. Not to mention muslims that before Christian oppression was far more advanced in science than Christians at that time.
With the very strong influence religious extremists has on the current administration, and in some states, it's easy to take a very dim view on USA's scientific future. The graduates filling up US universities are not US born citizens, and tenure tracks goes to extremely qualified immigrants. When you have Creations deciding curriculum, this is no surprise.
FreeBSD switched to X.org in -current in July of 2004. See Eric Anholt's post to freebsd-current here, or the Slashdot writeup here. You can still use XFree86 if you like, but X.org is the default
Ah, was not aware of that FreeBSD had changed to use X.org as default. Thanks for the clarification.
What people have begun abandoning is XFree86, and not everyone is leaving it. I think NetBSD still uses it.
Yes, NetBSD imported the latest XFree86 as they had no problems with the license. OpenBSD has changed to X.org for upcoming release, while FreeBSD appears agnostic in this matter.
Re:Soft Technology Offerings
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
BSD probably wouldn't exist if not for linux (correct me if I'm wrong but it uses the linux kernel right?)
Slashdot Mirror
And when all emacs users has passed away, this misconception will be elevated to the status of Truth and written on stone tablets ;-)
Just shows that good ideas survives for a very long time, and quite often re-surfaces when the time is right for general acceptance. Those original creators usually had to take alot of criticism for their "wacky" ideas.
Actually, my first exposure to object oriented programming was in Simula when I took a programming course in early 90'ies.
You got modded down as well for asking this ;-) Often I see posts clearly moderated wrongly, and this is really just a testament of that particularly moderator cluelessness. Too bad metamoderation does not really work.
The main thing that I try to focus on is security, and being on the LCML security mailing list has greatly improved my ability to find and squash security issues. You wouldn't believe how many security issues Linux has, actually. Luckily, most of the easy things like buffer exploits are already taken care of.
You are saying that the Linux kernel have unbelievable many security issues that are hard to fix? So the hard-to-fix bugs are results of design flaws and won't be fixed anytime soon?
I'd rather have those guys working on features and we on the Security side can get those features secure. If we spent all our time thinking about how to make the system secure, we'd still be stuck with an age-old kernel like OpenBSD!
Your attitude with regards to features and security is very different from the one practiced by the OpenBSD developers. No feature will be added to OpenBSD unless the developers think that this can be done securely. To them, security is not something that is added to a feature at a later stage. This is one reason as to why OpenBSD only recently added SMP support.
In some respects part of the OpenBSD kernel is "age-old" (you mean "obsolete", I suppose), but it's secure and stable. When it comes to security, OpenBSD is far ahead of the Linux kernel.
There exists security patches (like PaX) for the Linux kernel, but they are not used by many since the commercial distros like SuSE and RedHat don't offer them. A shame, really.
SuSE/Novel distro has a comprehensive Users Guide that is very usefull for a newbie. Even better, it's a book of about 400 pages and immediate accessible. For the Pro version you even get an Administrators Guide, also in book form. Of course, you'll have to pay for it. The users guide was the reason I bought SuSE in the first place.
As of Linux man pages and other documentation, your're right : It generally sucks because it's not current and properly maintained, as well as incomplete. Contrast this with any *BSD where the man pages are complete, comprehensive and maintained. The non-man-page documentation is excellent and very usefull.
Here we go. From an interview (April 2003 ) vith Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist :
As a /. geek I'm sure you now are able to Google for the actual polls yourself. And before you claim that Chomsky's number are made up, I suggest you actually learn more about the man.
They are just watching too much American "news", and in particular Fox "news". Heck, the majority of the US population believe that Iraq was behind 9/11. Go figure.
As I wrote, this encryption is useful for gateways, even at home. For instance, protecting your wireless network using IPSec. Install OpenBSD and use isakmp that is part of base install.
I have an Epia system; to me it feels pretty anemic for its clock speed in comparison to say a PII or better.
The newer Via C3 CPU's has special instructions for AES encryption (they call it PadLock), and will outperform a P4 3.0GHz. It will, of course, also outpeform a G4. In a gateway this hardware encryption is valuable. For instance, OpenBSD will transparently use Via encryption instructions.
There is nothing wrong with BSD license. It's quite simply a free license. Perhaps copycenter describes BSDL best :
If you buy a SATA drive you can expect the same relability as a IDE drive. An exception is WD Raptor that has a MTBF of 1.2 million hours full duty cycle, like SCSI drives.
actually reading logs, now, if only they could understand them.
You entire post shows that you know very little about OpenBSD. Everything that is part of the base install is audited, and that includes programs like Apache httpd, BIND, Sendmail, DHCP and SSH. For the 3.6 release, the DHCP server and client underwent a major cleanup to improve security. In addition there are security enhancments as well (like privilege separation, chroot).
While it probably has a more secure kernel, most exploits out there in the world involve exploiting a user process that is running as root.
Very few deamons are running as root on OpenBSD. Most are running under their own unique, chrooted and privilege separated if possible.
The OpenBSD team has done alot to lessen the impact of exploits. Yes, even programs running on OpenBSD can be exploited, but there is a difference. An attempt to exploit a buffer overflow on OpenBSD is likely to just induce a crash, and thus not work.
The Apache httpd diff is about 4000 lines. After the fork the diff is even larger as they are removing the unneeded apr layer.
Indeed, and US under Bush II is leading that pack and giving rampant human rights abuses a face of "respectability".
All the *BSD are trying to catch-up on the number of Linux kernel exploits, but so far they failing miserably. I, as a proud BSD user, DEMAND that I have the same excitement and the same feeling of clear and present danger that every Linux users experience on a daily basis. Oh man, it's sooooo booooring to have BSD boxen that just runs, and runs, and runs doing what it's supposed to do.
I hope I wasn't the only one that shuddered when I read "remote scripting techniques".
The Pention M is using much less power than P4 for comparable performance, and thus has much less cooling requirements. I for one won't mind cheaper and more available Pentium M with corresponding motherboard.
Actually, I've had a few IDE harddisk fail at home over the last few years, so now I'm buying SCSI hardisks for my home server. Yes, they are far more expensive (with the added overhead of a good sCSI card), but are much more reliable. Now 74GB is plenty of space for my needs.....
is makes a heck of a lot more sense than the original poster's requirement of a PCIe slot on the server. Why would you need a PCIe slot on something that's just serving as a NAS and sitting in your basement?
A 32bit 33MHz PCI bus can handle at maximum 133MB/s, and that includes all your hardisks and network card. With a fast harddisk and a gigabit network card you can saturate the PCI bus, so a PCIe requirement (cheaper than PCI-X that is used for server motherboards) is quite reasonable.
Science does indeed create models, but the science part is the procedure for creating/justify/verify/refute the models along with the theory This does not imply that the models are the "truth" (by definition, they are at best an approximation of the "object" they model). As usual, this is the part that Creationist always fail.
2. It is equally incorrect, and very unfair, to suggest that any religious fanatic is opposed to what science may generate.
Yes, it's unfair, but understandable, to make this assumption. Not so many are aware of the contribution, that, say, Jesuit priests has made to science. Not to mention muslims that before Christian oppression was far more advanced in science than Christians at that time.
With the very strong influence religious extremists has on the current administration, and in some states, it's easy to take a very dim view on USA's scientific future. The graduates filling up US universities are not US born citizens, and tenure tracks goes to extremely qualified immigrants. When you have Creations deciding curriculum, this is no surprise.
Ah, was not aware of that FreeBSD had changed to use X.org as default. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, NetBSD imported the latest XFree86 as they had no problems with the license. OpenBSD has changed to X.org for upcoming release, while FreeBSD appears agnostic in this matter.
For this you'll be moderated +10 Insughtful.