i haven't yet met anyone who was addicted to mp3s. it's pretty easy to stop to downloading. additionally, there's a lot of money to be made selling drugs. there appears to be less money to be made uploading mp3s to p2p.
Re:How does NetBSD compare to OpenBSD?
on
NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
as one point of comparison, in the time NetBSD 2.0 has been in beta, OpenBSD has managed to ship two releases out the door.
the firmware does not need to be linked into the linux kernel. you can write a driver that reads it off disk. at least if it's free, it can be put onto the same floppy or cd image as the kernel and you can use it to install.
the firmware does not need to be linked into the driver. you can store it in a separate file. this is how the centrino driver works. it may be convenient to link it in, so it's all one piece, but that is not a requirement for it to work. a gpl driver can read a file off the disk and stuff it into the card just the same as any other driver.
since the linux kernel is not executing the firmware either, in the context of that program, the firmware is not software. it's only binary data that cannot be interpreted. the firmware doesn't actually link against anything in the kernel, nor does it need the linux kernel to work.
if you don't like what he said about linux users, i recommend you prove him wrong by actually doing something about it. say, like trying to contact some people at TI to free up the firmware, instead of whining about mean theo is.
foreach host (`cat ~/myhosts`)
scp login_radius $host:/usr/libexec/auth
end
Re:"Linux" IS secure by default
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Live
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There's way more freedom and more room for innovation in the Linux camp than working under the orders of Theo or the $18,000/year software programmer in the core team of the average BSD distro.
that statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how openbsd, or any bsd, are developed, or even who is developing them.
Re:OpenBSD 3.6 released
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Live
·
· Score: 2, Informative
it would still have to pass the zlib crc in order to decompress. and then the attacker has to hope whatever esoteric changes they made are actually useful to them.
anyway, where are you getting the md5 from? the same ftp server where you're getting the release?
um, weren't we talking about the desktop? have you ever hotplugged a cpu on your desktop?
Re:And with only 1 remote hole in the default inst
on
OpenBSD Now Nine Years Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My comment was, and is, a basic install unix type OS box are almost always secure, and yes even redhat.
apparently you've never typed "redhat worm" into google.
and the years before when it was 386BSD? and 4.2 before that? and BSD 2.1 before that? hey alright, openbsd, "now 29 years old". what's that accomplish? openbsd is 9 years old.
if you want to get particular, the whole ruckus started because it did change. darren released a beta of ipf with a larger "may not modify" clause. then clarified that the meaning didn't change (though the wording certainly did). i don't think a release ever came out with the new wording, only a few betas.
exactly. the license was thought to be acceptable. then darren said, "no, actually you can't modify ipf." so, oh shit, rip it out. it doesn't matter whether it changed or not. unacceptable is unacceptable. you don't go "oh, we were breaking the license yesterday, so who cares? we'll just continue on the same way." you fix the problem.
have you used purify/valgrind? as far as "avoiding the inefficiency of array bounds checking on each access" they pretty much suck. performance is nowhere close to what could be considered "production" level.
Slashdot Mirror
which section of the constitution are you referring to?
i haven't yet met anyone who was addicted to mp3s. it's pretty easy to stop to downloading. additionally, there's a lot of money to be made selling drugs. there appears to be less money to be made uploading mp3s to p2p.
as one point of comparison, in the time NetBSD 2.0 has been in beta, OpenBSD has managed to ship two releases out the door.
except for the fact that you can't download TI's firmware. so your script won't work too well.
the firmware does not need to be linked into the linux kernel. you can write a driver that reads it off disk. at least if it's free, it can be put onto the same floppy or cd image as the kernel and you can use it to install.
since the linux kernel is not executing the firmware either, in the context of that program, the firmware is not software. it's only binary data that cannot be interpreted. the firmware doesn't actually link against anything in the kernel, nor does it need the linux kernel to work.
if you don't like what he said about linux users, i recommend you prove him wrong by actually doing something about it. say, like trying to contact some people at TI to free up the firmware, instead of whining about mean theo is.
what hardware do you have in your computer that came with complete source for all its firmware?
foreach host (`cat ~/myhosts`) scp login_radius $host:/usr/libexec/auth end
that statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how openbsd, or any bsd, are developed, or even who is developing them.
anyway, where are you getting the md5 from? the same ftp server where you're getting the release?
good. :) my rates will go down because i won't have to subsidize all you bumblenuts who can't pay attention.
um, weren't we talking about the desktop? have you ever hotplugged a cpu on your desktop?
My comment was, and is, a basic install unix type OS box are almost always secure, and yes even redhat. apparently you've never typed "redhat worm" into google.
and the years before when it was 386BSD? and 4.2 before that? and BSD 2.1 before that? hey alright, openbsd, "now 29 years old". what's that accomplish? openbsd is 9 years old.
"widely" is a codeword for "i can't prove it, but it sounds good." see also: "everybody else thinks so, what's wrong with you?"
if you want to get particular, the whole ruckus started because it did change. darren released a beta of ipf with a larger "may not modify" clause. then clarified that the meaning didn't change (though the wording certainly did). i don't think a release ever came out with the new wording, only a few betas.
if goals aren't really your thing, there's a few other OSs out there with lots of "features" but short on goals. :)
exactly. the license was thought to be acceptable. then darren said, "no, actually you can't modify ipf." so, oh shit, rip it out. it doesn't matter whether it changed or not. unacceptable is unacceptable. you don't go "oh, we were breaking the license yesterday, so who cares? we'll just continue on the same way." you fix the problem.
no amount of "error checking" would have helped. this wasn't a buffer overflow off by one. it was ref count.
yeah, garbage collection would help, but C with GC is not a "systems programming language with error checking".
have you used purify/valgrind? as far as "avoiding the inefficiency of array bounds checking on each access" they pretty much suck. performance is nowhere close to what could be considered "production" level.
not sure about you, but i like my music playing back at realtime, not 80% realtime. linux can decode vorbis sure, but i don't count that as playing.
which is why you don't run the cvs server from inetd, and instead use ssh for authentication.
shell code is not executed by the shell. shell code is machine code designed to get you a shell.
type it in without the space.