Incidentally, for the sake of those Canadians who complain about our low dollar (when buying American goods), its making our GNP go up because of American foreign purchasing. A lot of smart canadian companies are starting to go online to sell to americans... great deals on products made in the USA;-)
Send more than one spacecraft with different computers and software designs to do the same mission so that if one catastrophically fails, the other will take a few extra pictures before it does.
I was looking through the comments to see if anyone else caught that. The fact that Linux is dominated by hackers is why it has innovated in the ways it has, and hasn't been the way Microsoft is. Which way is better? To some degree, its a pointless discussion -- lets each do things our way, and let people decide. I'm sick of 'convincing' the world that Linux is 'better'.
I prefer Linux... here's why. Why don't you try it?
That was a pretty lame comment... most countrys' money will work in most other countries. You just need a big company that likes different kinds of money (ooh, a bank;-).
I'm Canadian, and we accept Canadian and American money everywhere... we just don't give as good of an exchange rate as they could get back home.:-)
Since some people don't like clicking links for some reason, here's DJB's comments on DNSSEC (a few of them at least):
DNSSEC is a project to have a central company, Network Solutions, sign all the.com DNS records. Here's the idea, proposed in 1993:
Network Solutions creates and publishes a key.
Each *.com creates a key and signs its own DNS records. Yahoo, for example, creates a key and signs the yahoo.com DNS records under
that key.
Network Solutions signs each *.com key. Yahoo, for example, gives its key to Network Solutions through some secure channel, and Network Solutions signs a document identifying that key as the yahoo.com key.
Computers around the Internet are given the Network Solutions key, and begin rejecting DNS records that aren't accompanied by the appropriate signatures.
However, as of February 2000, Network Solutions simply isn't doing this. There is no Network Solutions key. There are no Network
Solutions signatures. There is no secure channel---in fact, no mechanism at all---for Network Solutions to collect *.com keys in the first place.
DNSSEC is often falsely advertised as a software feature that you can install to protect your computer against DNS forgeries. In fact,
installing DNSSEC does nothing to protect you, and it will continue to do nothing for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to bother
implementing DNSSEC until I hear a detailed, concrete, credible plan for central DNSSEC deployment.
Even if DNSSEC is someday put into place, it will continue to allow attacks through Network Solutions itself. What happens if a Network
Solutions employee is bribed? Are the Network Solutions computers secure? An attacker who breaks into one critical Network Solutions
computer will have control over the entire Internet.
Yes, its compliant in zone transfers. It supposedly even supports IXFRs now (incremental updates). DNSSEC? Nobody else is using it and there are serious questions about its usability in the wild (especially associating it to an existing PKI, or building one). TSIG? Microsoft's version is probably as kind as their version of Kerberos, but they come down on DJB?
I want a nameserver that doesn't suddenly disappear out from under me for no reason, or that has a memory management policy of 'help! restart me!'.
Deal with the REAL issues first, add cute features later.
I've never read anything by a security software designer that agrees with you. Sorry. Security, especially in the area of encryption, etc. is not simply an issue of well-written bug-free software (which Bind has definately never been so far). Its a design decision and plan that has to start before the code is ever written.
Their comments about security are quite irritating because they mention things like DNSSEC but don't want to talk about the way BIND is coded. DJBDNS comes up (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html) but is brushed off with false claims (it does support transfers, and support for IPv6 is in the works).
Actually, one of the things they'll be able to accomplish in the multi-CPU market is to hide the fact that there are multiple CPUs from the OS entirely. The software driving the CPUs can (probably) properly disperse the calculations among CPUs the same way it currently fills pipelines.
I wouldn't ever argue that hardware and/or software can't do certain things because there is a very fine line these days. When you look at the translation code and/or microcode in some CPUs, there _is no_ difference.
At any rate, modern Intel/AMD CPUs are actually able to mark branch probabilities as I understand it -- and its not hard when you consider they already have R/W registers galore to work with. Why not store it in another? Read up on modern processor specs...
The use of * instead of 'u' in the title of this article is, I presume, a courtesy to those who do not enjoy profanity on their homepages when they log into the Internet at work, etc.
Its an interesting opinion, but from Napster's standpoint, and mine, they aren't distributing music at all, so they don't need the RIAA's opinion. That would be akin to the hoopela raised over Apple licensing Amazon.com's 1-Click(TM) technology.
The Napster company provides a database that stores pointers to music that is offered and downloaded by users of its software. This is a valuable court decision for both parties, so I'm very glad Napster didn't cop out early.
Re:Why not create something like the DNS system?
on
The Gnutella Paradox
·
· Score: 2
If you're going to do this -- it should be distributed, not centralised, so use an election system similar to MS' master browser system. The problem then is pollution (bad servers, ill-intentioned servers giving mis-information). The user could choose to use the master browsers or not though.
No, hardware is only faster than software at doing simple things. CPUs are built (mostly) out of transistors and the more raw output you can produce with the least transistors, the better off you are (usually). That said, RISC systems were designed because some smart engineers realised that they could pull off higher CPU speeds if they simplified CPU design and put the onus on the compiler to generate complex code, instead of using a complex chip.
Transmeta has just done something similar -- put the onus on the translation software to optimise a given program in a given instruction set for their CPU.
The problem is that the big guys (Intel and AMD) are already doing this in hardware... and the move to software is a good idea, but can be emulated quite quickly with enough programmers. That is, AMD or Intel just has to take their translation hardware and write code that does the same thing (if they wanted to do it).
They're combining several old ideas using new technologies in new (probably patented) ways.
They're taking the idea of microcode, but making it micro-software-code instead (made that up:-), they're actually implementing something resembling a VLIW processor (not done "successfully"... market-wise... before) and they're strapping the whole thing together with a piece of BIOS-type software that translates from one instruction set to their own on the fly.
This is quite advanced, even if the R&D and ideas aren't new.
AMD doesn't need to make good chipsets. They aren't trying to be Intel. VIA makes excellent AMD chipsets for servers thus far... and 8 ways should be on the way soon. AMD makes good CPUs that are fast, and reference chipsets for others to work with.
I don't know anything about this extension Outlook 2k supposedly uses, but if its based on MIME (as a MIME insertion), then I say leave it alone. If its not, then MS is breaking E-mail standards.
If it works as a MIME insertion / attachment that Outlook 2k automatically decodes and reads, then fine, those people get to take advantage of that, and other mail readers can ignore it.
There really are an aweful lot of illiterate people on here some days. The original article poster made it quite clear that they were upset because the copier of the website re-licensed it as public domain, instead of crediting the author of the design.
Open source software gives credit to authors, it isn't stealing.
Don't worry about it -- 90% of these posts are from people who either had their brains turned off when they read the specs on this or didn't bother to read it at all.
This is a PRINT SERVER, not a printer. It is to store print jobs, while the printer is busy doing something else. It is the functional equivalent of attaching a large hard drive to your network printer and giving it Windows drivers.
Read the specs: "Supported Printers: Any LPD-enabled network printer".
Wait a minute folks!:-)... it supports any printer that is ALREADY SUPPORTED by Linux. Wake up and quit bashing companies that are making money. Look at the purpose of this box:
I have a network of 50 computers running Windows and I buy a network laser printer (of almost any make). I hook it up, but have to designate one of the computers as the print server, so that I can specify an UNC name for the printer (\\MACHINE\\SHARE) and thats where the jobs get sent. This can drag an NT or 98 machine to its knees in a network environment.
This box is so that you don't need to assign one of your existing computers to this task. You just add this device to your network and voila, you have a Windows-compatible print server to handle the "hard" work of spooling print jobs and sending them off to the printer.
HPs probably just written a quick piece of software to provide LPD management via Apache (from the list of used software given) and allows connections via SAMBA to spool the jobs. Be HAPPY people, be HAPPY... they're using Linux to replace Windows.
Ditto -- I usually don't have the cash on me to pick up a burger at McD's. I live in Canada where we allow direct payment at almost all stores via a bank card (the same card you use to get cash out of the cash machines). The industry is open, compatible and fast -- I can spend money at any store with a 'debit' machine that I want, as long as I have the cash in my account.
That said, I don't care about the privacy of what I buy. The worst that can happen in 99% of cases is being targetted for advertising which I actually like. I do. I don't want to watch barbie commercials or courses for upgrading my skills. I want to see lots and lots of high-speed car commercials, ads for which stores offer me fastest and cheapest home delivery, etc. Targetted advertising is 'a good thing', as long as its anonymous.
With canadian banking cards, your name isn't on the card at all (except if you sign the back) and you don't have to hand it to anyone, you just swipe it through the machine yourself and punch in your code. No signing, no name, no nothing. Sure, they can break the law and store your card ID# to track your spending, but it won't get them anywhere in identifying me.
I like convenience... I promote privacy and security... there are good middle-points.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, for the sake of those Canadians who complain about our low dollar (when buying American goods), its making our GNP go up because of American foreign purchasing. A lot of smart canadian companies are starting to go online to sell to americans ... great deals on products made in the USA ;-)
It would be really nice to add some of their widgets to Gtk+ though ... they have some good toolbar and slide-out menus/widgets in general.
Send more than one spacecraft with different computers and software designs to do the same mission so that if one catastrophically fails, the other will take a few extra pictures before it does.
We have Playdiums in Canada ...
I was looking through the comments to see if anyone else caught that. The fact that Linux is dominated by hackers is why it has innovated in the ways it has, and hasn't been the way Microsoft is. Which way is better? To some degree, its a pointless discussion -- lets each do things our way, and let people decide. I'm sick of 'convincing' the world that Linux is 'better'.
... here's why. Why don't you try it?
I prefer Linux
That was a pretty lame comment ... most countrys' money will work in most other countries. You just need a big company that likes different kinds of money (ooh, a bank ;-).
... we just don't give as good of an exchange rate as they could get back home. :-)
I'm Canadian, and we accept Canadian and American money everywhere
And for those who want to follow things more easily, read Kernel Traffic. (Click latest on the left bar).
Since some people don't like clicking links for some reason, here's DJB's comments on DNSSEC (a few of them at least):
Taken from http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/forgery.html ; ;Read the rest of that page for his idea for a quick-fix.
Yes, its compliant in zone transfers. It supposedly even supports IXFRs now (incremental updates). DNSSEC? Nobody else is using it and there are serious questions about its usability in the wild (especially associating it to an existing PKI, or building one). TSIG? Microsoft's version is probably as kind as their version of Kerberos, but they come down on DJB?
I want a nameserver that doesn't suddenly disappear out from under me for no reason, or that has a memory management policy of 'help! restart me!'.
Deal with the REAL issues first, add cute features later.
I've never read anything by a security software designer that agrees with you. Sorry. Security, especially in the area of encryption, etc. is not simply an issue of well-written bug-free software (which Bind has definately never been so far). Its a design decision and plan that has to start before the code is ever written.
Their comments about security are quite irritating because they mention things like DNSSEC but don't want to talk about the way BIND is coded. DJBDNS comes up (http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html) but is brushed off with false claims (it does support transfers, and support for IPv6 is in the works).
Actually, one of the things they'll be able to accomplish in the multi-CPU market is to hide the fact that there are multiple CPUs from the OS entirely. The software driving the CPUs can (probably) properly disperse the calculations among CPUs the same way it currently fills pipelines.
I wouldn't ever argue that hardware and/or software can't do certain things because there is a very fine line these days. When you look at the translation code and/or microcode in some CPUs, there _is no_ difference.
...
At any rate, modern Intel/AMD CPUs are actually able to mark branch probabilities as I understand it -- and its not hard when you consider they already have R/W registers galore to work with. Why not store it in another? Read up on modern processor specs
http://www.x86.org/ when you're done.
This has nothing to do with censorship.
The use of * instead of 'u' in the title of this article is, I presume, a courtesy to those who do not enjoy profanity on their homepages when they log into the Internet at work, etc.
Its an interesting opinion, but from Napster's standpoint, and mine, they aren't distributing music at all, so they don't need the RIAA's opinion. That would be akin to the hoopela raised over Apple licensing Amazon.com's 1-Click(TM) technology.
The Napster company provides a database that stores pointers to music that is offered and downloaded by users of its software. This is a valuable court decision for both parties, so I'm very glad Napster didn't cop out early.
If you're going to do this -- it should be distributed, not centralised, so use an election system similar to MS' master browser system. The problem then is pollution (bad servers, ill-intentioned servers giving mis-information). The user could choose to use the master browsers or not though.
No, hardware is only faster than software at doing simple things. CPUs are built (mostly) out of transistors and the more raw output you can produce with the least transistors, the better off you are (usually). That said, RISC systems were designed because some smart engineers realised that they could pull off higher CPU speeds if they simplified CPU design and put the onus on the compiler to generate complex code, instead of using a complex chip.
... and the move to software is a good idea, but can be emulated quite quickly with enough programmers. That is, AMD or Intel just has to take their translation hardware and write code that does the same thing (if they wanted to do it).
Transmeta has just done something similar -- put the onus on the translation software to optimise a given program in a given instruction set for their CPU.
The problem is that the big guys (Intel and AMD) are already doing this in hardware
They're combining several old ideas using new technologies in new (probably patented) ways.
:-), they're actually implementing something resembling a VLIW processor (not done "successfully" ... market-wise ... before) and they're strapping the whole thing together with a piece of BIOS-type software that translates from one instruction set to their own on the fly.
They're taking the idea of microcode, but making it micro-software-code instead (made that up
This is quite advanced, even if the R&D and ideas aren't new.
AMD doesn't need to make good chipsets. They aren't trying to be Intel. VIA makes excellent AMD chipsets for servers thus far ... and 8 ways should be on the way soon. AMD makes good CPUs that are fast, and reference chipsets for others to work with.
I don't know anything about this extension Outlook 2k supposedly uses, but if its based on MIME (as a MIME insertion), then I say leave it alone. If its not, then MS is breaking E-mail standards.
If it works as a MIME insertion / attachment that Outlook 2k automatically decodes and reads, then fine, those people get to take advantage of that, and other mail readers can ignore it.
Get a huge UPS from APC ... like their Symmetra or something, so you can be the only place in town with power when everything's out.
There really are an aweful lot of illiterate people on here some days. The original article poster made it quite clear that they were upset because the copier of the website re-licensed it as public domain, instead of crediting the author of the design.
Open source software gives credit to authors, it isn't stealing.
Don't worry about it -- 90% of these posts are from people who either had their brains turned off when they read the specs on this or didn't bother to read it at all.
:-) ... it supports any printer that is ALREADY SUPPORTED by Linux. Wake up and quit bashing companies that are making money. Look at the purpose of this box:
... they're using Linux to replace Windows.
...
This is a PRINT SERVER, not a printer. It is to store print jobs, while the printer is busy doing something else. It is the functional equivalent of attaching a large hard drive to your network printer and giving it Windows drivers.
Read the specs: "Supported Printers: Any LPD-enabled network printer".
Wait a minute folks!
I have a network of 50 computers running Windows and I buy a network laser printer (of almost any make). I hook it up, but have to designate one of the computers as the print server, so that I can specify an UNC name for the printer (\\MACHINE\\SHARE) and thats where the jobs get sent. This can drag an NT or 98 machine to its knees in a network environment.
This box is so that you don't need to assign one of your existing computers to this task. You just add this device to your network and voila, you have a Windows-compatible print server to handle the "hard" work of spooling print jobs and sending them off to the printer.
HPs probably just written a quick piece of software to provide LPD management via Apache (from the list of used software given) and allows connections via SAMBA to spool the jobs. Be HAPPY people, be HAPPY
-- The guy who thinks
Ditto -- I usually don't have the cash on me to pick up a burger at McD's. I live in Canada where we allow direct payment at almost all stores via a bank card (the same card you use to get cash out of the cash machines). The industry is open, compatible and fast -- I can spend money at any store with a 'debit' machine that I want, as long as I have the cash in my account.
... I promote privacy and security ... there are good middle-points.
That said, I don't care about the privacy of what I buy. The worst that can happen in 99% of cases is being targetted for advertising which I actually like. I do. I don't want to watch barbie commercials or courses for upgrading my skills. I want to see lots and lots of high-speed car commercials, ads for which stores offer me fastest and cheapest home delivery, etc. Targetted advertising is 'a good thing', as long as its anonymous.
With canadian banking cards, your name isn't on the card at all (except if you sign the back) and you don't have to hand it to anyone, you just swipe it through the machine yourself and punch in your code. No signing, no name, no nothing. Sure, they can break the law and store your card ID# to track your spending, but it won't get them anywhere in identifying me.
I like convenience
Just for the sake of anyone wanting a good reference for proper benchmarking, see The Benchmark Handbook (now readable online).