I agree. I would like to see more utilities as packages. I actually build OpenSSL and OpenSSH as ports for convenience (easier to update and track) and the security (MD5 checking).
BTW, I have had NO_UUCP set in/etc/make.conf for quite some time. A lot of tools can be taken out of the build using this process.
With the ports system, they would have to change the checksum on FreeBSD's systems as well as the source on OpenBSD's site. Keeping them separate helps a lot.
Is there any reason why something like this isn't implemented in Linux or FreeBSD?
FreeBSD does have something like this: idle, normal, and real time. By default it is normal, but you can change it to idle (idprio(1)) or real time (rtprio(1)).
In the man page for rtprio(1) is one relevant bug: "Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore non-realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime processes can starve normal priority processes."
The complement to SMPng for FreeBSD (v5) is Kernel Scheduled Entities (KSE). The third milestone was just recently added to CURRENT: KSE-MIII Merged Into Current (5.0).
I agree with you. I work on closed-source (oh-no), but I strongly dislike software patents. I hate that fact that development is a valley full of potential land mines (patents). Competition is good, but patents do not provide that. Personally, I would prefer to see them waive their right to attack others with patents. That would truly be defensive.
When development speeds up, the troll becomes more desperate. I wonder if it goes the other way around: the troll becomes more desperate and development speeds up.
Why make a law for opt-out by default? It is already the assumed default. I think aggregate data should be allowed, but attaching a name to the data should not.
On the other hand, your example will apply very well to the next elections. Candidates who did not care about my privacy will not get my vote.
ATI drivers *SUCK*. Their DVD support SUCKS (I have a standalone MPEG2 decoder card, I've had it since I was using a Pentium 166, it has always played DVDs flawlessly.) On my Pentium III ATI's DVD support glitches now and then.
Got DMA?:)
Seriously, Win98 will sometimes forget the DMA setting on DVD drives. You can set it back, but upon the necessary reboot, it will forget it. I had to uninstall and install the drive. Without DMA, my DVD would pause every couple of seconds.
It was definitely a patent pressure vote. They still did not have to sign it. Only one senator voted no. It certainly tells me it was not a party thing. Both are responsible for it. I just dislike finger pointers, especially when they are misleading.
The fact is both parties voted for it, so both parties agreed with it. If they did not agree with it, they should have voted no.
Morally speaking, why? How is killing any other living creature different from killing a human being. Simply because it's "different from us"?
Sentience is a big factor. Food is another. A creature being different is not a factor. I can eat fish. Dogs are different than humans, but I do not want to eat dogs. They are too smart for me to eat.
No! That does not mean that they are able to get away from me.:)
Well, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose, some day, we travel to the stars and run across a new, sentient species. Is it okay for us to kill them?
I would not feel comfortable killing a sentient species except to defend and even then I would still not like it.
Up until now they were able to hide behind the illusion that humans are somehow different from animals (which from a biological point of view is nonsense, it's just another mammal).
When another animal invents bubble gum, I will consider your view.:) Most religions that I know of will concede that humans are biologically animals. They also believe that humans are more than that on other levels.
I, for instance, would love to have a clone of my heart available when my own one needs replacement in a couple of decades (not entirely unlikely given the number of heart deseases in my family). Of course I wouldn't want to kill a full grown living and breading clone of me to obtain that heart but that may very well be unnecessary.
I agree with this. I have no problem with a clone of a piece of tissue. Killing another human just to get that piece is unacceptable.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
I have seen articles were they said they have proven that at least fetuses are more aware than previously thought. They do feel pain. When studies were performed on aborted fetuses, they found high levels of chemicals that would be present in a "born" person that had sufferred pain.
However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
Killing another species is not the same as killing your own species.
I do not know, but I assume test tube babies did not have the high risk of deformities that clones currently do. It is much safer to mix than to splice.
It depends on what you want. There is no point or need in cloning an entire person. Once they can actually have a chance at performing brain transplants, successfully, there might be a need, but I do not see that coming for quite some time.
What would be useful now is a way to clone a specific part of the human anotomy. Hearts, livers and kidneys should be where the experimentation is done. It also has the benefit of not treading against any morals.
I have problems with cloning a human being but not the body parts.
I did not understand your last paragraph. It looks like you are comparing ext2 to Reiser. FreeBSD supports neither. You are comparing Linux to Linux. Are you saying the FreeBSD's UFS does not handle 40,000,000 symlinks on a single volume?
OT: why in the world would you need 40,000,000 symlinks? I doubt you have that many songs on a DVD jukebox, so I cannot imagine the need. I am just curious.
I guess it is only partially immune: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/368819. Reading the security list I gather that it is only a problem with regards to running Linux apps. Time to give FreeBSD's free() a hug.:)
I think it does hit FreeBSD. FreeBSD uses zlib v1.1.3. v1.1.4 has the fix (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/). No security announcement has arrived in my mailbox, yet I expect it soon.
Re:Open Source probably the solution but not BSD!
on
How to Save PGP
·
· Score: 2
What do any of your words have to do with the license?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I would like to see more utilities as packages. I actually build
/etc/make.conf for quite some time. A lot of
OpenSSL and OpenSSH as ports for convenience (easier to update and track) and
the security (MD5 checking).
BTW, I have had NO_UUCP set in
tools can be taken out of the build using this process.
With the ports system, they would have to change the checksum on FreeBSD's systems as well as the source on OpenBSD's site. Keeping them separate helps a lot.
... who actually reads through to source code for something before they actually compile?
:)
MD5.
I do scan through some of the code I compile now and then. If everyone does this, it should catch a lot of these "additions".
OTOH, MD5 does not hurt. For instance, it helps to keep my FreeBSD box secure as in this case.
Is there any reason why something like this isn't implemented in Linux or FreeBSD?
FreeBSD does have something like this: idle, normal, and real time. By default it is normal, but you can change it to idle (idprio(1)) or real time (rtprio(1)).
In the man page for rtprio(1) is one relevant bug:
"Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore non-realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime processes can starve normal priority processes."
Maybe the new scheduler will fix this?
The complement to SMPng for FreeBSD (v5) is Kernel Scheduled Entities (KSE). The third milestone was just recently added to CURRENT: KSE-MIII Merged Into Current (5.0).
:)
FreeBSD v5 will be a speed daemon.
A request in the license file looks like a requirement. He should move it outside of the license file.
I agree with you. I work on closed-source (oh-no), but I strongly dislike software patents. I hate that fact that development is a valley full of potential land mines (patents). Competition is good, but patents do not provide that. Personally, I would prefer to see them waive their right to attack others with patents. That would truly be defensive.
For all practical purposes, Trolls are dead.
:)
I wonder if a Turn Undead scroll would work.
Just a warning. The troll under the BSD bridge appears to dislike people: flea bite. I got de-karma-ized.
When development speeds up, the troll becomes more desperate. I wonder if it goes the other way around: the troll becomes more desperate and development speeds up.
I agree completely. I do play Bronco, but Paradise was a bit more realistic. At least as realistic as warping around the galaxy can be. :)
I sure do miss it.
Why make a law for opt-out by default? It is already the assumed default. I think aggregate data should be allowed, but attaching a name to the data should not.
On the other hand, your example will apply very well to the next elections. Candidates who did not care about my privacy will not get my vote.
ATI drivers *SUCK*. Their DVD support SUCKS (I have a standalone MPEG2 decoder card, I've had it since I was using a Pentium 166, it has always played DVDs flawlessly.) On my Pentium III ATI's DVD support glitches now and then.
:)
Got DMA?
Seriously, Win98 will sometimes forget the DMA setting on DVD drives. You can set it back, but upon the necessary reboot, it will forget it. I had to uninstall and install the drive. Without DMA, my DVD would pause every couple of seconds.
It was definitely a patent pressure vote. They still did not have to sign it. Only one senator voted no. It certainly tells me it was not a party thing. Both are responsible for it. I just dislike finger pointers, especially when they are misleading.
The fact is both parties voted for it, so both parties agreed with it. If they did not agree with it, they should have voted no.
I am sorry to inform you, but it was not just Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft. Many Democrats and Republicans vote for this bill.
Morally speaking, why? How is killing any other living creature different from killing a human being. Simply because it's "different from us"?
:)
Sentience is a big factor. Food is another. A creature being different is not a factor. I can eat fish. Dogs are different than humans, but I do not want to eat dogs. They are too smart for me to eat.
No! That does not mean that they are able to get away from me.
Well, let's try a thought experiment. Suppose, some day, we travel to the stars and run across a new, sentient species. Is it okay for us to kill them?
I would not feel comfortable killing a sentient species except to defend and even then I would still not like it.
The world is run by idiots because they're more efficient than hamsters.
:)
Prove it.
Up until now they were able to hide behind the illusion that humans are somehow different from animals (which from a biological point of view is nonsense, it's just another mammal).
:) Most religions that I know of will concede that humans are biologically animals. They also believe that humans are more than that on other levels.
When another animal invents bubble gum, I will consider your view.
I, for instance, would love to have a clone of my heart available when my own one needs replacement in a couple of decades (not entirely unlikely given the number of heart deseases in my family). Of course I wouldn't want to kill a full grown living and breading clone of me to obtain that heart but that may very well be unnecessary.
I agree with this. I have no problem with a clone of a piece of tissue. Killing another human just to get that piece is unacceptable.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
I have seen articles were they said they have proven that at least fetuses are more aware than previously thought. They do feel pain. When studies were performed on aborted fetuses, they found high levels of chemicals that would be present in a "born" person that had sufferred pain.
However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
Killing another species is not the same as killing your own species.
I do not know, but I assume test tube babies did not have the high risk of deformities that clones currently do. It is much safer to mix than to splice.
It depends on what you want. There is no point or need in cloning an entire person. Once they can actually have a chance at performing brain transplants, successfully, there might be a need, but I do not see that coming for quite some time.
What would be useful now is a way to clone a specific part of the human anotomy. Hearts, livers and kidneys should be where the experimentation is done. It also has the benefit of not treading against any morals.
I have problems with cloning a human being but not the body parts.
I had gotten hooked on Linux and swore to never use a mainframe again...
:)
What are you going to do if you want to use Linux at work, but it is on a 390?
Both of those channels are fairly sick of newbies asking FAQ's...
Just a note for everyone: newbie questions would best be asked on #FreeBSDHelp.
I did not understand your last paragraph. It looks like you are comparing ext2 to Reiser. FreeBSD supports neither. You are comparing Linux to Linux. Are you saying the FreeBSD's UFS does not handle 40,000,000 symlinks on a single volume?
OT: why in the world would you need 40,000,000 symlinks? I doubt you have that many songs on a DVD jukebox, so I cannot imagine the need. I am just curious.
When I left my comment, it wasn't there. :)
:)
I guess it is only partially immune: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/368819. Reading the security list I gather that it is only a problem with regards to running Linux apps. Time to give FreeBSD's free() a hug.
I think it does hit FreeBSD. FreeBSD uses zlib v1.1.3. v1.1.4 has the fix (http://www.gzip.org/zlib/). No security announcement has arrived in my mailbox, yet I expect it soon.
What do any of your words have to do with the license?