I've had problems trying to run Redhat on anything low end, mostly hardware incompatibilities, but also unexplainably long pauses without any disk activity.
So I use Slackware. No problems yet and great low end hardware support. Easy to administer too.
I haven't used linux long enough to say my opinion matters though.
And as of half an hour ago, there is now a second computer (different ip) sending me copies of the virus.
It's amazing how many people take the time to open every large, suspicious email that arrives in their inbox disguised as spam. You'd think they'd learn after the first dozen infections, or at least bother to investigate when they encounter an email that runs a program when they preview it.
Think of it as a proof of concept. It _usually_ works great. The concept is sound. And it's open source, so people can improve upon it or refer to it when writing compatible download managers.
Although this looks like a great little worm, going after a nasty, poorly written worm, it effectively launches a DDOS attack against the real windowsupdate site, by downloading patches as it spreads at an exponentially increasing rate.
You know, like those therac-25's that had a 1 in 256 probability of not validating user input, allowing several patients to be exposed to fatal doses of radiation.
It'll be a bit hard to boycott them since I had little or no chance of ever becoming their customer.
I can encourage others to boycott and refuse to do business with people who have bought from SCO in the time since they announced their war against all that is good and pure in the software world. But I doubt they will survive that long. They've broken a dozens of laws, violated at least 400 copyrights (that I know of), and more. If businesses don't sue them out of existence, the US legal system will tear their company apart.
They leave all those ports open and services running so that when someone on the outside tries to access a feature that hasn't been enabled yet, it'll be able send back "Access Denied" in a friendly fashion rather than just refusing the connection.
Or at least that how I imagine they would try to explain it.
Today I noticed that every morning our couple XP computers at work send out a few uPnP related packets to 239.255.255.250:1900. They're going beyond our lan and out through our gateway to the internet. It's probably not worth the effort to investigate further and correct, but it bugs me a little.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it's easy to misread. I read the sentence, saw "companies", but thought of "distributions".
I've had problems trying to run Redhat on anything low end, mostly hardware incompatibilities, but also unexplainably long pauses without any disk activity.
So I use Slackware. No problems yet and great low end hardware support. Easy to administer too.
I haven't used linux long enough to say my opinion matters though.
I've identified one of the computers that has been sending me the virus.
I think they still owe me money for a programming job I did a couple years ago.
Each email is different.
And as of half an hour ago, there is now a second computer (different ip) sending me copies of the virus.
It's amazing how many people take the time to open every large, suspicious email that arrives in their inbox disguised as spam. You'd think they'd learn after the first dozen infections, or at least bother to investigate when they encounter an email that runs a program when they preview it.
As of this morning, someone's computer has been sending me a 100kb SoBig.F every half hour exactly. That's almost 5mb a day.
Do you think that'll really happen enough to make it useless?
Think of it as a proof of concept. It _usually_ works great. The concept is sound. And it's open source, so people can improve upon it or refer to it when writing compatible download managers.
I personally gave the guy $10.
Security risks include loss of ad revenue.
They could amend the license in future releases to prohibit GPL abusers from using it.
At least the RIAA has a case. SCO will either get an incompetent jury or they will get blasted in court.
Don't feel bad. I find it very hard to beat C64 Chessmaster 2000.
Just wait until some terrorist starts pumping oxygen into there.
It's been 20 days since I've received a penile enlargement ad, though I've received nearly 700 spams on different subjects over that period.
Could it be that one guy was responsible for most of those ads?
Ack! I almost clicked submit having left the word "ad" out of the first paragraph. Glad I caught it.
Searching Google for '"+in soviet russia" site:slashdot.org' returned 434 matches.
Always room for one more I guess.
Although this looks like a great little worm, going after a nasty, poorly written worm, it effectively launches a DDOS attack against the real windowsupdate site, by downloading patches as it spreads at an exponentially increasing rate.
Sadly, I know of $100,000 of tax money that went to buy a single custom Access database at $85/hr.
I was half way through chapter 6. Now the site is almost unresponsive.
"adv-adult: Fill your prescriptions from Canada, save up to 80% !"
That would be really helpful if I not only didn't have a spam filter, but took the time to read every spam that didn't have a pornographic title.
Of course, this only applies to louisianans who send non-anonymous pornographic spam to other louisianans.
You know, like those therac-25's that had a 1 in 256 probability of not validating user input, allowing several patients to be exposed to fatal doses of radiation.
It'll be a bit hard to boycott them since I had little or no chance of ever becoming their customer.
I can encourage others to boycott and refuse to do business with people who have bought from SCO in the time since they announced their war against all that is good and pure in the software world. But I doubt they will survive that long. They've broken a dozens of laws, violated at least 400 copyrights (that I know of), and more. If businesses don't sue them out of existence, the US legal system will tear their company apart.
I'm betting on 70 days.
"Thank you for your interest in Anti-Piracy"
"If you requested more information, you will hear from us soon."
I probably typed way too much in there, since they're going to delete it anyway.
I know. It was mentioned on the same page that said it was used by uPnP.
More likely they'll want a fee per cpu that it's installed on.
They leave all those ports open and services running so that when someone on the outside tries to access a feature that hasn't been enabled yet, it'll be able send back "Access Denied" in a friendly fashion rather than just refusing the connection.
Or at least that how I imagine they would try to explain it.
Today I noticed that every morning our couple XP computers at work send out a few uPnP related packets to 239.255.255.250:1900. They're going beyond our lan and out through our gateway to the internet. It's probably not worth the effort to investigate further and correct, but it bugs me a little.