As a thought......yeah! If I may be so bold as to expound on this a little...
Imagine, if you will, a central server somewhere on the internet (maybe you run it, maybe you lease time on it, whatever.). You have the IP address (and/or domain name), as do your friends and family. You log onto this trusted server, send some validation string (password, processor ID, whatever) that identifies you as you, and the server provides you with LAN emulation services; i.e., everyone who's logged in has access to each other's computers just like they were all sitting on the same router.
With this environment in mind, you could set up 'global' messaging services, file sharing utilities, have a central virus scanner that eliminates the need for six people to buy six copies of NAV (dubious legality here, but if you're using one copy of Norton to scan the contents of your own LAN...hmmmm)...all sorts of random ideas and thoughts.
Thoughts, comments on what you could do with a trusted computing environment... </ramble>
Yeah, but see, the problem with this is that Apple may not be able to SELL a 1 GB edition of the iPod with acceptable (Apple_acceptable, not rational_human acceptable).
Just because you quarter the capacity of the drive doesn't mean you can quarter the price; Hitachi (or whoever makes the drives) can make 40 or 80 GB drives cheaply, but that's because their mass manufacturing stuff is ALL geared towards that (or so I assume, from the rumor that they're run out of iPod drives...).
Odds are that Apple would have to special order a 1 GB drive from [rand(manufacturer)], which might not necessarily lower the price. Maybe 4GB was an optimum price? Who knows? All we know is that it sells. Big. If I had the spare money, I would so buy one....alas, I am just a poor boy, from a poor family...
...if your hood is welded shut, how in the world will you make the universal "my car be broke!" signal of popping your hood on the side of the road?...stupid question, maybe, and a little late, maybe, but...there ya go.
Okay, am I the only one who's getting "page unavailable" and "503 Service Not Available" errors every other time I try to read slashdot?
Is slashdot being slashdotted? Or has sco.com finally redirected all the mydoom traffic to slashdot? [as per http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/30/wwwsc ocom_is_a_weapon_of_mass_destruction.html ]
Yup, I figured this out awhile ago with quarters. My younger sister bet me that I couldn't call quarter tosses. I conveniently neglected to tell her about this random effect here, and called 9 outta 13 tosses; 7 straight:D
Let's look a bit at the article. If you look at the FAQ link, after "Executive Summary" ( http://www.mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/faq.pdf )
1. mi2g notes that hackers they anonymously interviewed preferred attacking Linux systems, NOT because they're inherently less secure - but because of configuration errors that run rampant from poor sysadmining.
1b. Unfortunately, this immediately invalidates any analysis of the security of the actual operating systems. Not to be redundant, but the system is only as good as the administrator.
2. I don't know where I saw someone ask this, but if you look at section two: "Multiple website attacks resulting from a single system breach" do actually count as many. For instance: if foo.com and bar.com are being hosted off the same server, and that server is breached, they count it as two attacks. Their reasoning is that from an insurance perspective, the industry is shelling out twice as many bucks they would've if it had only been a single page.
====
Okay. This article tells us one thing: Linux systems breached are simply victims of poor sysadmining. This should spur us on to do one thing. LEARN.
Shoot, if you're doing this informally, then get a good friend and learn to hack linux systems together; spend spare time hacking each other's systems. If you're doing this professionally, then *learn*. Readreadread. Patch. Patch. Read some more. Patch again. Retouch the basics; shut down unneeded services; configure permissions correctly. Go drop a hundred bucks at Barnes and Noble and buy a 12 pound book on Linux sysadmining. Or security. Above all, no matter how you do it, or even on what platform you do it...
I've thought about this too, and I'm beginning to wonder something.
If it's the responsibility of the folks in charge of Foo_Project to ensure that none of the contributions to their code are actually from Windows......and they can't look at the source from this leak to make SURE...
Scenario A:
1. Evil kid contributes Windows source to Foo_Project.
2. Since they haven't seen the code, Foo_Project developers have no idea it's from the leaked Windows source.
3. Foo_Project developers cheerfully integrate the code.
4....lawsuit ensues.
Scenario B:
1. Foo_Project developers look at source code.
2. Lawsuit ensues, and the developers have their hands dirty already.
....no way this is a good thing. I am *so* not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly how these things work...but is there a third scenario that I'm missing here?
Yeah, but remember that profits from Linux have traditionally never been (although this may change...) about product *sales*. It's been about support packages and installation assistance and all the corporate helpdesk goodness (that can be sarcastic if you like; either way...) that companies like RedHat (and, god forbid, Novell) can provide.
So if the majority of your profit comes from supporting existing or new installations, then it would make sense to spread your software as quickly as you possibly can. It goes something like this:
1. Novell buys SuSE 2. Novell gives SuSE away for FREE (and will also sell it to people who like boxed software) 3. SuSE becomes pervasive. (right, right, I know, but for the sake of argument...) 4. PROFIT! [or something like it]
Slashdot Mirror
Plywood. Duct tape.
What? It works for mah gun rack!
n/t
On the plus side, if you shut them all up in a room for long enough, you get your own free Beowulf cluster!
[...but is that really what they meant by data replication?]
Yes.
--==insert "love is a battlefield" joke here==--
As a thought... ...yeah! If I may be so bold as to expound on this a little...
Imagine, if you will, a central server somewhere on the internet (maybe you run it, maybe you lease time on it, whatever.). You have the IP address (and/or domain name), as do your friends and family. You log onto this trusted server, send some validation string (password, processor ID, whatever) that identifies you as you, and the server provides you with LAN emulation services; i.e., everyone who's logged in has access to each other's computers just like they were all sitting on the same router.
With this environment in mind, you could set up 'global' messaging services, file sharing utilities, have a central virus scanner that eliminates the need for six people to buy six copies of NAV (dubious legality here, but if you're using one copy of Norton to scan the contents of your own LAN...hmmmm)...all sorts of random ideas and thoughts.
Thoughts, comments on what you could do with a trusted computing environment...
</ramble>
Yeah, but see, the problem with this is that Apple may not be able to SELL a 1 GB edition of the iPod with acceptable (Apple_acceptable, not rational_human acceptable).
...alas, I am just a poor boy, from a poor family...
Just because you quarter the capacity of the drive doesn't mean you can quarter the price; Hitachi (or whoever makes the drives) can make 40 or 80 GB drives cheaply, but that's because their mass manufacturing stuff is ALL geared towards that (or so I assume, from the rumor that they're run out of iPod drives...).
Odds are that Apple would have to special order a 1 GB drive from [rand(manufacturer)], which might not necessarily lower the price. Maybe 4GB was an optimum price? Who knows? All we know is that it sells. Big. If I had the spare money, I would so buy one.
...if your hood is welded shut, how in the world will you make the universal "my car be broke!" signal of popping your hood on the side of the road? ...stupid question, maybe, and a little late, maybe, but...there ya go.
Okay, am I the only one who's getting "page unavailable" and "503 Service Not Available" errors every other time I try to read slashdot?
c ocom_is_a_weapon_of_mass_destruction.html ]
Is slashdot being slashdotted? Or has sco.com finally redirected all the mydoom traffic to slashdot? [as per http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/30/wwws
I read this, and I look at the pictures, and all I can think, numbly, is "...holy shit..."
Yup, I figured this out awhile ago with quarters. My younger sister bet me that I couldn't call quarter tosses. I conveniently neglected to tell her about this random effect here, and called 9 outta 13 tosses; 7 straight :D
Moral Of The Story: don't bet on quarters.
Is it just me, or is your karma an imaginary number? karma == sqrt(-2) == 2i ?!
...wow...this could explain those strange -E- errors I get whenever I do advanced math with my checkbook...
Y'know, I was just thinkin'...
...if you made a live CD off of FreeBSD...
...you'd be able to boot from the living dead!
*ducks*
Let's look a bit at the article. If you look at the FAQ link, after "Executive Summary" ( http://www.mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/faq.pdf )
1. mi2g notes that hackers they anonymously interviewed preferred attacking Linux systems, NOT because they're inherently less secure - but because of configuration errors that run rampant from poor sysadmining.
1b. Unfortunately, this immediately invalidates any analysis of the security of the actual operating systems. Not to be redundant, but the system is only as good as the administrator.
2. I don't know where I saw someone ask this, but if you look at section two: "Multiple website attacks resulting from a single system breach" do actually count as many. For instance: if foo.com and bar.com are being hosted off the same server, and that server is breached, they count it as two attacks. Their reasoning is that from an insurance perspective, the industry is shelling out twice as many bucks they would've if it had only been a single page.
====
Okay. This article tells us one thing: Linux systems breached are simply victims of poor sysadmining. This should spur us on to do one thing. LEARN.
Shoot, if you're doing this informally, then get a good friend and learn to hack linux systems together; spend spare time hacking each other's systems. If you're doing this professionally, then *learn*. Readreadread. Patch. Patch. Read some more. Patch again. Retouch the basics; shut down unneeded services; configure permissions correctly. Go drop a hundred bucks at Barnes and Noble and buy a 12 pound book on Linux sysadmining. Or security. Above all, no matter how you do it, or even on what platform you do it...
Learn.
wireless delivery of power still has some serious bugs in it that prevent it from being used in consumer devices.
:D
...you haven't seen my desk, have you?
Yah, like the slightly detrimental effects of sticking your hand in a microwave beam?
There's no such thing as a desk that it's impossible to string a wire accross...
...yeah. Bluetooth is dead.
So don't tell Apple. Or ANY of the folk who make PDAs and accessories with Bluetooth capabilities.
Out of curiosity, am I the only one who hadn't heard of "Wireless USB" before this article?
I've thought about this too, and I'm beginning to wonder something.
...and they can't look at the source from this leak to make SURE...
...lawsuit ensues.
...no way this is a good thing. I am *so* not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly how these things work...but is there a third scenario that I'm missing here?
If it's the responsibility of the folks in charge of Foo_Project to ensure that none of the contributions to their code are actually from Windows...
Scenario A:
1. Evil kid contributes Windows source to Foo_Project.
2. Since they haven't seen the code, Foo_Project developers have no idea it's from the leaked Windows source.
3. Foo_Project developers cheerfully integrate the code.
4.
Scenario B:
1. Foo_Project developers look at source code.
2. Lawsuit ensues, and the developers have their hands dirty already.
.
Yeah... ...and am I the only one who can hear Agent Smith reading the first paragraph of this letter?
"It is...unfortunate... that you are not willing to do so...Mister Eisner..."
"You can't scare me with this hostile takeover crap! I know my rights! I want my board meeting!"
"Ahh, but what good is a board meeting...if..all your shareholders...are...belong...to us?"
*twitch* Sorry.
No, actually, it isn't, AFAIK. It's just remarkably devoid of commas ;)
So. Neutron star. Clumps of heavy matter. Collections.
...a Beowulf cluster of UnunPentium? :D
::ducks the karma reaper::
One might even say...
Yeah, but remember that profits from Linux have traditionally never been (although this may change...) about product *sales*. It's been about support packages and installation assistance and all the corporate helpdesk goodness (that can be sarcastic if you like; either way...) that companies like RedHat (and, god forbid, Novell) can provide.
So if the majority of your profit comes from supporting existing or new installations, then it would make sense to spread your software as quickly as you possibly can. It goes something like this:
1. Novell buys SuSE
2. Novell gives SuSE away for FREE (and will also sell it to people who like boxed software)
3. SuSE becomes pervasive. (right, right, I know, but for the sake of argument...)
4. PROFIT! [or something like it]
Hmm...sounds suspiciously like a Macintosh... ;)
:D ]
[anti-flame note: the above does not apply to OS X, which I use and love
Not to be pedantic, but isn't the proper adjective "Hungarian"?
If HP/Apple can get iPods to chat with HP Windows boxen, can we get them to talk to Linux as well? Has this already been done?
Actually, I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in the parent. At least, I hope I do. I have more faith in my fellow carbon-based lifeforms than this...
Maybe he should be modded "funny" instead, for the good of our self-esteem.
--==prods inquisitively with a 2x4==--