Re:BSD Jail - been there done that
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sure, UM Linux is not something that's for security advancement, but rather for people who want a partially isolated kernel development
enviornment.
Readers of slashdot (i.e. ignorant masses) took it as something for creating honeypots, secure isolated servers, etc. Having brought that up, it _then_ becomes fair game to bring up jail(2)
The health benefits of organic foods are questionable because the
traditionally grown food is washed, and in the end pesiticide residue
is a non-issue.
Organic foods also can be more dangerous because they use manure
as a fertilizer for them, and that can lead to E.coli and whatnot infecting your food.
Also, organic farms use too much space. If all of the traditional farms switched to organic methods today, and maintained the same output, we'd have to use up all free land that's not covered in ice or water.
In the end, the claim of health benefits has no foundation in fact.
Yes, that was a mistype. I'm surprised I didn't see that in the preview. *sigh*
Re:BSD Jail - been there done that
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 1
I think moderating this down to -1 was a bit extreme. He does have a point, sadly, and his rudeness should be no reason for him not to be heard at all.
The United States is basically the only "first-world" country that still has the death penalty. Have you seen the list of countries that have the death penalty? Members of that list include countries like Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, United States, South America, and North Korea.
To make matters worse, the United States, especially in Texas, has a death penalty that is cruel, harsh, and unjust. A federal judge has stated that the quality of the public defender system in Texas is criminal. The UN has given the United States a slap on the wrist for cruel restraits and/or torture.
The United States is also one of the six countries to execute people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. The other five countries are Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Saudia Arabia. This is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IOCCPR), a violation of international law. Gary Graham was a recent case of this, in which a man who was 17 at the time of the alleged crime (in which there is reasonable doubt, mind you) was executed this past summer.
12 of the 17 child offenders put to death after 1993 were executed in the good 'ol USA.
AI is tough on the United States, because we're one of the worst offenders of international law and human rights with regards to the death penalty, and other countries look up to us. It's quite fair, I'm afraid.
If you want to consider "BSD" as everything
that came from the original 1BSD, and wage that as some sort of bad fragmentation, you need to think about what you're saying.
By that logic, UNIX is twice as fragmented as BSD, so we should abandon the entire idea of UNIX.
I'm not sure I could have worded it better myself.
My explaination would involve the fact that IBM should not be expected to, nor will they ever, phase out AIX in favor of Linux. People who use AIX don't care that it's not free, it does the job and it does it well. IBM knows they can charge lots of money for that.
First of all, I don't think there's a way that IBM could devote itself to AIX that I couldn't think of.
Secondly, Sun is a company and it's not "developed." And IBM is a direct competitor with Sun Microsystems, so if you'd like to elaborate..
And everyone knows that IBM working with Linux is for PR and to satisfy those who don't want to pick up the check for AIX- they can save it for an "upgrade"
Who wouldn't think of IBM when they think of UNIX developers?
Given that we've just gotten through the whole ext2fs corruption in 2.4-test kernels and other goodness, I don't think that the "2.4-test?" kernels can handle any real work at the moment, SMP or not.
What good is SMP if the box won't stay up? And BTW, RAID on FreeBSD is just fine. Linux RAID? Linux should worry about good SCSI support first.
Linus first planned for 2.4 in Fall of 1999. Yeah, there's the "it'll be ready when it's ready" stuff, but when we've been sitting on top of 2.3-dev kernels for a year and there's still no 2.4..
What I'm getting at is that "what will come from 2.4" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know when 2.4 is coming, but I'll bet it's in 2001.
And if you want to speculate on future SMP implementations, FreeBSD's 5.0's implementation will be much superior to Linux's 2.4. I don't think anyone who is well versed in the subject will disagree.
Nope, you're both wrong. BSD came from Sixth Edition. 1BSD was 1977 or so and SysV was 1983. SVR4 and Ninth Edition are the (earliest) two big commericals that had significant BSD influences.
I've never seen an explaination for why
if Eric Corely thinks what he is doing is
ethical, why he hides behind a false name that
sounds suspiciously real.
Note, I have nothing wrong against using handles for say, slashdot or CB radio (such as what I'm using now, bugg) but to hint that it's your real name? That's not right.
Given the unsafe behavior of some older
programs, there are still possible race conditions
in which data not for your eyes may be obtained by predicting what the temporary filename will be.
The addition of 26 characters to your charset
(what is gained by case sensitivity) will
increase the total possible 8-letter
filenames by 200 billion or so.
That's one of the largest advantages for case sensitive filesystems. But for Mac OS/X, an OS for the end user, I don't think it's terribly important. One way or the other.
First of all, modern kernels have filesystem
caching. These do matter! Some systems,
such as McKusick's softupdates
will have additional benefit.
As for why not to use memory filesystems, it's
because most implementations have the memory
filesystem as a device not unlike a harddrive,
and then place a filesystem on top of that. So
you've got the overhead of a filesystem on top
of the overhead of the memory disk.
As a rule, they aren't worth the hassle. Like most filesystem discussions, there _are_ cases where a technique shows its strengths. Memory filesystems have more weaknesses than strengths.
In most states, the power company
must pay you for excess electricity
the going rate for bulk electiricty- that
is, what they would pay another company
for electricity in the event of a shortage.
All depends on the year you're talking about, my friend. When "'tis" was accepted as the contraction of "it is", "it's" was the possessive of "it".
Either way, I don't think he was trolling too badly. With regards to grammar, this post was
one of the worst. And to suggest coping with
it and not complaining, it's an insult the five intelligent Slashdot readers out there.
The software in question is still free. Sun didn't steal the Tulip and eepro100 drivers out of the mouths of children. Anyone who wants them can still get them.
If my work makes its way into a commerical program, I see it as a success. What incentive would you have to write free software if that is the end result? The same incentive you have now: the ability to charge for support, the publicity, and another notch for your resume.
Sun Microsystems did not infringe on anyone's rights. They merely made a tool that makes a GPL'd driver more versitale.
Parallels could easily be drawn to this and DeCSS. The MPAA's argument is that DeCSS shouldn't be allowed because it promotes the
violation of the licenses on DVD programs.
Sounds a lot like "promoting infringement of the GPL," eh? If anything, you all should be thanking Sun. I'm sure they've introduced the drivers in question, and Linux drivers as a whole, to at least a couple Solaris hackers. And they will probably end up contributing.
Play nicely. Noone is hurting your software, or making it "less free." Picking on Sun Microsystems is totally unfair in this scenario.
Remember: Keeping commerical companies from
developing a product does nothing to help your
software. The only affects it can have would
be detrimental due to reduced exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
Readers of slashdot (i.e. ignorant masses) took it as something for creating honeypots, secure isolated servers, etc. Having brought that up, it _then_ becomes fair game to bring up jail(2)
Organic foods also can be more dangerous because they use manure as a fertilizer for them, and that can lead to E.coli and whatnot infecting your food.
Also, organic farms use too much space. If all of the traditional farms switched to organic methods today, and maintained the same output, we'd have to use up all free land that's not covered in ice or water.
In the end, the claim of health benefits has no foundation in fact.
Yes, that was a mistype. I'm surprised I didn't see that in the preview. *sigh*
I think moderating this down to -1 was a bit extreme. He does have a point, sadly, and his rudeness should be no reason for him not to be heard at all.
To make matters worse, the United States, especially in Texas, has a death penalty that is cruel, harsh, and unjust. A federal judge has stated that the quality of the public defender system in Texas is criminal. The UN has given the United States a slap on the wrist for cruel restraits and/or torture.
The United States is also one of the six countries to execute people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. The other five countries are Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Saudia Arabia. This is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IOCCPR), a violation of international law. Gary Graham was a recent case of this, in which a man who was 17 at the time of the alleged crime (in which there is reasonable doubt, mind you) was executed this past summer.
12 of the 17 child offenders put to death after 1993 were executed in the good 'ol USA.
AI is tough on the United States, because we're one of the worst offenders of international law and human rights with regards to the death penalty, and other countries look up to us. It's quite fair, I'm afraid.
By that logic, UNIX is twice as fragmented as BSD, so we should abandon the entire idea of UNIX.
This kernel has been coming out since Fall of 1999. I don't think you should set your schedule by it.
My explaination would involve the fact that IBM should not be expected to, nor will they ever, phase out AIX in favor of Linux. People who use AIX don't care that it's not free, it does the job and it does it well. IBM knows they can charge lots of money for that.
Secondly, Sun is a company and it's not "developed." And IBM is a direct competitor with Sun Microsystems, so if you'd like to elaborate..
And everyone knows that IBM working with Linux is for PR and to satisfy those who don't want to pick up the check for AIX- they can save it for an "upgrade"
Who wouldn't think of IBM when they think of UNIX developers?
What good is SMP if the box won't stay up? And BTW, RAID on FreeBSD is just fine. Linux RAID? Linux should worry about good SCSI support first.
See http://slashdot.org/articles /99 /06/16/1849231.shtml
Linus first planned for 2.4 in Fall of 1999. Yeah, there's the "it'll be ready when it's ready" stuff, but when we've been sitting on top of 2.3-dev kernels for a year and there's still no 2.4..
What I'm getting at is that "what will come from 2.4" needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know when 2.4 is coming, but I'll bet it's in 2001.
And if you want to speculate on future SMP implementations, FreeBSD's 5.0's implementation will be much superior to Linux's 2.4. I don't think anyone who is well versed in the subject will disagree.
Nope, you're both wrong. BSD came from Sixth Edition. 1BSD was 1977 or so and SysV was 1983. SVR4 and Ninth Edition are the (earliest) two big commericals that had significant BSD influences.
Who knows, you may get into some record book for that. AFAIK LW isn't terribly good at propogation.
Just another reason why broadcasters should switch to SSB... :)
"This should be a good example for Linux"
"Linux has had this support in some alpha form since 2.2.1182-preac8-test1.1"
And so on.
And by the way, Terasolutions obviously supports FreeBSD; it was co-founded by a FreeBSD cofounder and core team member :)
Your words will be just as secure.
What is the point of ignoring people who aren't "secure"?
I've never seen an explaination for why if Eric Corely thinks what he is doing is ethical, why he hides behind a false name that sounds suspiciously real.
Note, I have nothing wrong against using handles for say, slashdot or CB radio (such as what I'm using now, bugg) but to hint that it's your real name? That's not right.
See http://www.newdealinc.com/ for more.
Namely, CVS and CVSup.
Given the unsafe behavior of some older programs, there are still possible race conditions in which data not for your eyes may be obtained by predicting what the temporary filename will be.
The addition of 26 characters to your charset (what is gained by case sensitivity) will increase the total possible 8-letter filenames by 200 billion or so.
That's one of the largest advantages for case sensitive filesystems. But for Mac OS/X, an OS for the end user, I don't think it's terribly important. One way or the other.
People out there who aren't yet using either CVS or CVSup or CTM or even rsync, you're missing out.
The Linux kernel is an example of a popular project that is using very old technology for distribution.
As for why not to use memory filesystems, it's because most implementations have the memory filesystem as a device not unlike a harddrive, and then place a filesystem on top of that. So you've got the overhead of a filesystem on top of the overhead of the memory disk.
As a rule, they aren't worth the hassle. Like most filesystem discussions, there _are_ cases where a technique shows its strengths. Memory filesystems have more weaknesses than strengths.
In most states, the power company must pay you for excess electricity the going rate for bulk electiricty- that is, what they would pay another company for electricity in the event of a shortage.
See http://www.eren.doe.gov/ greenpower/netmetering/index.shtml for more.
All depends on the year you're talking about, my friend. When "'tis" was accepted as the contraction of "it is", "it's" was the possessive of "it".
Either way, I don't think he was trolling too badly. With regards to grammar, this post was one of the worst. And to suggest coping with it and not complaining, it's an insult the five intelligent Slashdot readers out there.
The software in question is still free. Sun didn't steal the Tulip and eepro100 drivers out of the mouths of children. Anyone who wants them can still get them.
If my work makes its way into a commerical program, I see it as a success. What incentive would you have to write free software if that is the end result? The same incentive you have now: the ability to charge for support, the publicity, and another notch for your resume.
Sun Microsystems did not infringe on anyone's rights. They merely made a tool that makes a GPL'd driver more versitale.
Parallels could easily be drawn to this and DeCSS. The MPAA's argument is that DeCSS shouldn't be allowed because it promotes the violation of the licenses on DVD programs.
Sounds a lot like "promoting infringement of the GPL," eh? If anything, you all should be thanking Sun. I'm sure they've introduced the drivers in question, and Linux drivers as a whole, to at least a couple Solaris hackers. And they will probably end up contributing.
Play nicely. Noone is hurting your software, or making it "less free." Picking on Sun Microsystems is totally unfair in this scenario.
Remember: Keeping commerical companies from developing a product does nothing to help your software. The only affects it can have would be detrimental due to reduced exposure.