The Linux culture has so far prevented Linux from taking the next step. Just look the (essentially) complete lack of interest in gcj (gcc open-source java). Just look at the slow pace of Mono.
SUN's Java is schrouded in restrictive licenses, that also includes the documentation. Kudos to the Open Source developers for making alternative implementations, despite the licenses hurdles they have to overcome.
Exactly how is this different from the multitude of patches to fix things in the Linux kernel? Or patches in ANY OSS project? Are you trying to tell me that there has never been a security patch to any Linux kernel ever?
Not at all. It's just that Windows is plagued with exploits and viruses, while *BSD and Linux does not suffer the same fate.
I think the most important matter would be discussing what the GPL is actually compatable with. There have been so many accusations lately of incompatablity (some of which conflict with that the GPL actually states) it's getting a bit out of hand.
It seems like every 8 years or so we have to go through some period
where someone tries to take free software and makes it less free
because they don't feel they are getting enough credit.
I am not entirely sure who would really want to kill him?
Who knows what kind of treaths Darl has recieved for his, to put it mildly, unpopular litigation? I'm fairly sure that if you got death treaths from numerous random people you would feel nervous as well, in particular if you live in such a violent (from an EU perspective) country as USA.
yeah theo can show and put their hands where his mouth is.
WE want to see that XFree86 openbsd fork.
Add to that an Apache fork either.
OpenBSD imported the latest release candidate of Xfree86 with the old license (minus a few files with new license) for use in the upcoming OpenBSD 3.5. So this could be considered a fork.
The Apache httpd server (1.3.29 + patches of about 4000 lines) is in maintenance mode, and Apache httpd 2.0 won't be in OpenBSD anytime soon, with or without the new license.
As a side note, using mocking websites to give actual information does excist.
An example of this is the site
GRC Sucks dot com | Debunking Steve Gibson exposing a security incompetent.
A year or so ago, Richard started talking with Hackel's staff about earning income from the site. An attempt was made to secure advertisements for the site with profits going to Richard, but Hackel said that generated only a small response.
An ad on the Sheriff's Office homepage could imply an endorsement of the advertised products. Totally unacceptable, of course. This really expose the web site operator as a charletan, but the Sheriff's Office should have handled this with more finesse.
May I suggest that you read what I actually wrote? For easy digestion let me quote myself in reponse to the grandparent poster (that incidentally clearified very well what he meant in a followup post, read it, you might learn something) :
What do you mean by "hidden servers" on Windows machine? They are no more hidden than servers enabled by default during a Linux/*BSD install.
The keywords are "hidden servers", and not about your "I have full control of my linux boxen, my windows boxen have full control over me and I just try to bend around whats there."
Most BSD systems can be properly configured using any 'UNIX system administration' book published in the last decade, and the vi editor.
Not quite, but the *BSDs have very good and uptodate FAQ and man pages, and other online documentation. This was one of the major reasons for me switching from SuSE to OpenBSD.
A lot of software is shared between BSD and Linux installations. Stuff like sendmail (qmail, postfix,...), apache, bind, etc... is exactly the same on both OSes.
This is not the case for all programs. For instance, OpenBSD Apache httpd is different (like chroot, privilige separation, a diff about 4000 lines). Xfree86 also has some differences to enchance security. Note that on OpenBSD, the latest Xfree local root exploit was just a relability issue (causing only a crash) Other common userland programs like syslog and tcpdump are different (privilige separation).
Most security breaches involve a buffer overrun in one of these server programs. So obviously, Linux and BSD systems should be equally vulnerable (or safe) w.r.t. remote exploits...
A bit too general a claim. There are several Linux distros that are security oriented (like Adamantix, or the Hardened Gentoo project and others), OpenBSD works hard in this respect of course, and within FreeBSD there are projects for security enhancements. These are generally easier to secure than a ordinary RedHat/SuSE distro.
Linux or BSD are both great systems, but they can be really dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced.
True enough, but a good distro/OS should faciliate running the OS whithout becoming a security expert before installing it.
Bullshit. A secured box is a secured box. If you turn off all non-essential services in Windows and do the same in Linux, keep your users with low privileges etc on both, and keep both systems up-to-date with patches, they're equally secure.
There are only three variables: how secure is the box/by default/, how easy is it to make the box secure, and how easy is it to apply updates
The catch is : "how easy is it to make the box secure".
I confess that my OpenBSD machines at home are probably more secure than the Windows machine my wife is using. Not because I don't care about her machine : it's uptodate with patches, has uptodate anti-virus program, she use a low privilege account, using a mail server rejecting most mails with attachments, is behind behind a real firewall. But still, I feel unease about me having secured the box since there a quite a few other poorly documented security features that may be enabled, including tweaking the registry.
You're kidding, right? The main/problem/ with Windows is the number of (often hidden) servers that are running by default. UPnP, DCOM, Windows Messenger, etc, etc, etc.
What do you mean by "hidden servers" on Windows machine? They are no more hidden than servers enabled by default during a Linux/*BSD install. A "netstat -an" works on a Windows machine as well.
The United States withdrew from the ABM treaty, as permitted in the provisions of the treaty. The treaty was not "broken". Get your facts straight before you start jerking your knees.
Indeed, this is correct. However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker. The problem, is of course, to sign new agreements with strong states, or even weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Of course, the ABM treaty was also signed with a nation that no longer exists, the USSR. So...what's the problem?
The problem is that US demonstrates that it will renege on any agreement if it thinks that the other signatories are weaker at a later stage.
The Space Treaty does not ban weapons in space, it only bans nuclear weapons in space. None of the weapons specified in this report are nuclear.
Of course we should believe the Bush administation claims that this will not happen? If/when US puts weapons in space, expect other nations to follow suit in this extremely dangerous weapons race.
Any significant conflict involving orbital space will leave so much debris that satellites and spacecraft will run much higher risks of collisions. The consequences of a war in space may be devastating to our communication and weather networks.
I worry much more about what's left of the Earth after such a conflict.
Call me crazy, but I think the US having the ability to rain down death and destruction on anyone who gets in our way does make the world a safer place. For Americans. And those are the only people our tax dollars should be protecting in the first place.
Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
You see, I think you are fairly representative of the current US administration in the first part : raining destruction on anyone they like with impunity. The second part : "get your own military" they object strongly too.
You see, you are scaring allies and potenial enemies alike. I, and many with me, are very concerned with the direction US has taken during the Bush admministration. (And for the record, I did military service in a NATO country, just in case you call me a peace-loving treehugging liberal).
The Bush administration has made the world a much less safer one.
You're either misinformed, or terminally stupid. I'm inclined to think the latter.
The US airstrikes consistently landed within feet, and oft times inches, or their intended targets.
I know, I was there, I pushed some of the buttons that launched those airstrikes.
So all the bombings of hospitals, schools and other "soft" targets was no mistakes then, but done "consistently"?
Is this perhaps part of the "Shock and Awe" intended to win the hears and minds of Iraqies? I guess the US officers really know how to
show helpfullness
"With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them," Colonel Sassaman said.
No, it will probably be the opposite. As Linux grows in popularity, you'll see more and more vendors shipping proprietary drivers for their products. That's not a bad thing unless OSS is your religion.
It's quite a bad thing, irrespective of religion, if the vendors don't release enough documentation of the devices to make open source drivers. We'll end up in a situation where it'll be difficult to install Linux/*BSD on a machine whithout proprietary drivers. As an example, for the NForce chipset I've to buy a NIC due to lack of driver.
As documentation goes, Intel network division is very bad : they release GPL drivers, but no documentation is given (without NDA). That makes it difficult to make good open source drivers. And now the same company wants us to accept more and more hardware components with only a vague promise of drivers, much less documentation?
Even if a soldier is just waiting in a fox hole, they need 2000 calories per day of energy. If the fighting is intense (the time when no eating is possible) then they might need more tha 5000 calories per day of energy.
What they can do is to reduce the level of metabolism, and thus reduce energy consumption. From nature you have animals hibernating to survive long winters. Deep going whales and seals reduce the body temperature to conserve energy (and thus use less oxygen).
Even humans can reduce metabolism by reducing blood stream to "nonessensial" body parts (say, when you get too cold). However, you get sluggish and take some time to get alert. So the trick is to reduce the metabolism, but still be alert enough.
Slashdot Mirror
SUN's Java is schrouded in restrictive licenses, that also includes the documentation. Kudos to the Open Source developers for making alternative implementations, despite the licenses hurdles they have to overcome.
As for Mono, a keyword : Patents.
Not at all. It's just that Windows is plagued with exploits and viruses, while *BSD and Linux does not suffer the same fate.
Perhaps Theo de Raadt of OpenBSD summs up the sentiment best in his response to new Xfree86 license:
Who knows what kind of treaths Darl has recieved for his, to put it mildly, unpopular litigation? I'm fairly sure that if you got death treaths from numerous random people you would feel nervous as well, in particular if you live in such a violent (from an EU perspective) country as USA.
The TCP/IP stack can be stopped by sending unordered TCP fragments.
This is a serious remote vulnerability, and any FreeBSD with an open TCP port should be patched ASAP.
Crashing a server via the TCP/IP stack is just a denial of service, however annoying it is. But getting rooted is far more serious in most cases.
OpenBSD imported the latest release candidate of Xfree86 with the old license (minus a few files with new license) for use in the upcoming OpenBSD 3.5. So this could be considered a fork.
The Apache httpd server (1.3.29 + patches of about 4000 lines) is in maintenance mode, and Apache httpd 2.0 won't be in OpenBSD anytime soon, with or without the new license.
As a side note, using mocking websites to give actual information does excist. An example of this is the site GRC Sucks dot com | Debunking Steve Gibson exposing a security incompetent.
An ad on the Sheriff's Office homepage could imply an endorsement of the advertised products. Totally unacceptable, of course. This really expose the web site operator as a charletan, but the Sheriff's Office should have handled this with more finesse.
A homepage is certainly not needed in order to recieve e-mail, but for giving contact information to the public it is very useful.
And if it is licensed as GLP they can't? Moron.
The keywords are "hidden servers", and not about your "I have full control of my linux boxen, my windows boxen have full control over me and I just try to bend around whats there."
Not quite, but the *BSDs have very good and uptodate FAQ and man pages, and other online documentation. This was one of the major reasons for me switching from SuSE to OpenBSD.
This is not the case for all programs. For instance, OpenBSD Apache httpd is different (like chroot, privilige separation, a diff about 4000 lines). Xfree86 also has some differences to enchance security. Note that on OpenBSD, the latest Xfree local root exploit was just a relability issue (causing only a crash) Other common userland programs like syslog and tcpdump are different (privilige separation).
Most security breaches involve a buffer overrun in one of these server programs. So obviously, Linux and BSD systems should be equally vulnerable (or safe) w.r.t. remote exploits...
A bit too general a claim. There are several Linux distros that are security oriented (like Adamantix, or the Hardened Gentoo project and others), OpenBSD works hard in this respect of course, and within FreeBSD there are projects for security enhancements. These are generally easier to secure than a ordinary RedHat/SuSE distro.
Linux or BSD are both great systems, but they can be really dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced.
True enough, but a good distro/OS should faciliate running the OS whithout becoming a security expert before installing it.
The catch is : "how easy is it to make the box secure".
I confess that my OpenBSD machines at home are probably more secure than the Windows machine my wife is using. Not because I don't care about her machine : it's uptodate with patches, has uptodate anti-virus program, she use a low privilege account, using a mail server rejecting most mails with attachments, is behind behind a real firewall. But still, I feel unease about me having secured the box since there a quite a few other poorly documented security features that may be enabled, including tweaking the registry.
What do you mean by "hidden servers" on Windows machine? They are no more hidden than servers enabled by default during a Linux/*BSD install. A "netstat -an" works on a Windows machine as well.
Yup, and a circle is a circle because by definition a circle is a circle ;-)
Indeed, this is correct. However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker. The problem, is of course, to sign new agreements with strong states, or even weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
The problem is that US demonstrates that it will renege on any agreement if it thinks that the other signatories are weaker at a later stage.
The Space Treaty does not ban weapons in space, it only bans nuclear weapons in space. None of the weapons specified in this report are nuclear.
Of course we should believe the Bush administation claims that this will not happen? If/when US puts weapons in space, expect other nations to follow suit in this extremely dangerous weapons race.
I worry much more about what's left of the Earth after such a conflict.
You see, I think you are fairly representative of the current US administration in the first part : raining destruction on anyone they like with impunity. The second part : "get your own military" they object strongly too.
You see, you are scaring allies and potenial enemies alike. I, and many with me, are very concerned with the direction US has taken during the Bush admministration. (And for the record, I did military service in a NATO country, just in case you call me a peace-loving treehugging liberal).
The Bush administration has made the world a much less safer one.
So all the bombings of hospitals, schools and other "soft" targets was no mistakes then, but done "consistently"?
Is this perhaps part of the "Shock and Awe" intended to win the hears and minds of Iraqies? I guess the US officers really know how to show helpfullness
It is, of course, very reassuring to know that :
Beeing a bit cynical, I find the article more like a sales plug than a journalistic piece.
It's quite a bad thing, irrespective of religion, if the vendors don't release enough documentation of the devices to make open source drivers. We'll end up in a situation where it'll be difficult to install Linux/*BSD on a machine whithout proprietary drivers. As an example, for the NForce chipset I've to buy a NIC due to lack of driver.
As documentation goes, Intel network division is very bad : they release GPL drivers, but no documentation is given (without NDA). That makes it difficult to make good open source drivers. And now the same company wants us to accept more and more hardware components with only a vague promise of drivers, much less documentation?
The researches have read some Slashdot posts, and believe that there must be a huge market for this chip. There is clearly a need for it ;-)
What they can do is to reduce the level of metabolism, and thus reduce energy consumption. From nature you have animals hibernating to survive long winters. Deep going whales and seals reduce the body temperature to conserve energy (and thus use less oxygen).
Even humans can reduce metabolism by reducing blood stream to "nonessensial" body parts (say, when you get too cold). However, you get sluggish and take some time to get alert. So the trick is to reduce the metabolism, but still be alert enough.