Unfortunately, the killall command is not covered, even though it uses the same signals
Yeah...?
as kill but it can be more dangerous.
Might be a precaution for anyone out there also using Solaris, since it will literally kill all. Along with the other risks involved with this sweeping of Gods hand.
I have The Complete FreeBSD and I was going to get the FreeBSD Handbook 2nd ed, however this new book FreeBSD Unleashed sounds excellent from reading that review and reader reviews at Amazon.
Is there any point in getting the Handbook if I get Unleashed?
Remember that the components in any digital system - and I'm not just talking about your windoze desktop PC, but servers, mainframes and embedded systems too - have to talk to each other in order to do anything remotely useful. Last time I looked, most PCI devices din't utilise the provision for 64-bit data bus operation.
PCI devices or PCI busses? Even the original old PCI buses support 64bit transfers via multiplexing (2 32bit transfers). So the bandwidth essentially remained the same, but usage as a "64 bit bus" was supported.
However, just because a CPU can process at 64 bits does not mean it must communicate at 64 bits outside the CPU. 64 bit CPU's do often support smaller word transfers.
It is true that most PCI devices are not true 64bit PCI, but that is mainly due to there being no need for the bandwidth that 64bit PCI affords.
If the bandwidth of 32bit at 33MHz (132MB/s) is not enough for your device to operate at it's fullest potential, then it is probably available as a true 64bit PCI device for a 64bit 66MHz PCI (528MB/s) slot, found in servers.
Realise that the IDE bus that may well be used in your computer, is only 16 bits wide. A 64bit CPU most certainly does not require 64bit here there and everywhere.
My old 486 had a VLB EIDE hard disk controller, which I swapped in after the last one failed. If my controller failed today, I couldn't do that; I'd either need to buy a new mobo or start replacing chips on the old one (which is just as expensive).
Not true, I've yet to see a mobo that would not allow the disabling of it's onboard VGA, IDE, SCSI, SERIAL, PARALLEL, USB, etc. Adding a card to replace a busted and disabled onboard device usually works.
The real value of a 64bit CPU over a 32bit CPU, is in the ability to compute more data at once, higher precision data or larger number data much faster and possibly also address way more data if a 32bit address bus is being compared with a 64bit address bus. A 64bit address bus, can access 4,294,967,296 *times* more data than a 32bit bus.
If you still don't get it, try running uptime (1) on a Linux box that has been up for over 497 days.
How strange then, that the three Linux servers noted in the max uptime list, all have max uptimes of well over 800 days. Perhaps that FAQ is old.
Before you rant that I am an uninformed bsd cheerleader, perhaps you should have taken note of my attempt at wit regarding "Linux and Windows dying" in my post, and bear in mind that Windows 2000 is not limited by the 497 day uptime roll.
At least an "uninformed cheerleader" has an open mind compared with the anti-bsd trolls. My post was in defense of BSD, being some of the Worlds most stable servers compared with the likes of W2K and even edging out IRIX, and seeing Linux servers on the max list at 800 days, I have to wonder why there are'nt more there. : )
Yeah, but that would cost money. Something I think should either come with the OS or be a free install. Printing to postscript is expected, and nowdays, printing to PDF should be too.
The free Unixes have it for free and OSX has it (and the cost of) built into the OS. With the excellent intergration of PDF in OSX, it is worth the cost of the OS.
Windows with Distiller, I could'nt care less about at this stage.
For a second I tbought the dd command had something to do with the post, not your.sig!
; ) Just having a dig at the Linux kernel developers, from the recent VM system changes and system instability and extreme thrashing slowdowns I seemed to be getting since upgrading to 2.4.10.
I think this opinion is based on ego. The hackers think they can hack anything, they just "don't have the motivation" to hack the really hard stuff. The system designers feel that they need to believe and portray this because they fear thier systems will some day be hacked or perhaps keep an open mind about it.
I also think it is silly to beleive that an unhackable system cannot be designed.
Although, I agree with the parent poster regarding practicality. I had an MCSE teacher tell the class I was in, that encryption was'nt good because any crypto algorithm could be cracked if the design is known. I wanted to challenge him on the practicalities of it (but I hate always being the arsehole in classes who corrects the teacher). I mean sure, learn the algorithm and brute force the output, but what about the practicality? What if it is an algorithm that is strong enough to realise the full range of a 4096 bit key? How many hundreds of years is it going to take to brute force crack it with the combined effort of all the computers that will ever exist on Earth? Will we (human race) be history by then? Do people in the year 8002 really give a crap about what people in 2002 were trying to hide? Do any humans still live on Earth, having terraformed and populated Mars and some other planets in other galaxies?
Or how about a cipher text done with a One Time Pad, which could be decrypted with loads of different keys to come out as loads of *different* and *incorrect* yet completely inteligible plain texts!
The rest of the class justs nods (duh!). It was the same teacher that told me that to boot an NT server off a SCSI disk, on a system that has NO SCSI BIOS, you just had to load an NT SCSI driver. Yeah, OK teach, good one. MCSE's, poor bastards, are given the inflated belief that they are computer experts once they have passed MS's "computer science". It's almost as pathetic as Scientology.
What a blast from the past! I remember that. Yeah like 4 or 5 bytes and then whoosh!
That calls a system BIOS program to do the dirty work does'nt it?
I used to actually enjoy typing in debug listings from magazines like Compute!, to muck around with the utils, etc. I remember a util called prune that was a deltree before the days of DOS deltree, which did a great job of pruning dirs and also fucking up file systems every now and then. : ) I guess thats what you get with 50 byte programs without error checking. ; )
Before that though, I was even sicker, back when Compute! mag was a C64 magazine, they had literally pages and pages of multi column HEX listings for utils and games. Some of the games were actually pretty good arcade games, considering thier size. First you had to type in the assembler in BASIC (really just a check summing program) and save it (to tape for me), then use it to enter the HEX listings, the "assembler" could inform you when you got a line wrong, based on the checksum.
I nicer alternative, is to backup the drive from one of these units prior to usage, so that the data on the drives are in their most compressible state.
Just dd the whole drive, piping it through some compressor to a file on your PC. Hopefully, this will leave you with a file small enough to burn onto a CD.
I have assorted images for various OSes in my home, which I use for various testing purposes. You just have to remember to mark the partition type with fdisk (might not be required for all OSes to boot?) and then reboot to that OS with a boot manager like Smart Boot Manager (which seems to remember your many labels for the *same* partition, based on the type, but only one per type). Works nicely, and any OS, from QNX to W2K installs quickly without any fuss at all.
I'd like to just use these with VMWare, but it is so bloody expensive! I *might* have considered it, if it were half the price it is, but the current price is just outrageous.
the disk has been written to in an unintelligible way.
Yeah, dd'ing it with/dev/zero ought to fix it.
So what you need to do is completely wipe the drive with a low-level format, i.e., writing zeroes to the drive.
A commonly used phrase, incorrectly used for ATA drives. "Low level format" comes from the days when it meant a real low level format, where tracks would literally be repositioned (old MFM and SCSI drives could do this). IDE drives are low level formatted at the factory and cannot be re-low level formatted outside the factory. IDE drives recalibrate themselves due to changes in heat, they calibrate off tracks or special encoding (gray code?) between tracks, written at the factory which are on areas that are not user writable.
Then you can repartition it as 0x07 if you want to be able to get productive use out of it.
HPFS/NTFS? Nah, 0x83 and 0xA6 for me.
Here is a link to Western Digital's utility that allows you to low-level partition their ATA drives (the WDC seems to be popular in these devices):
Since the popularity of ATA has taken over the desktop from MFM and SCSI, the "low level format" term has remained. However, in the IDE World, it only means "completely zero every user addressable block" on the drive and NOT "reposition tracks", since ATA drives don't need and are not capable of such a feat at even the leet haxor level.
The term is erroneous for ATA drives, however it has been so commonly used that even the drive manufacturers refer to thier zero-out tools as low level formatters. They're not.
I don't know if modern SCSI drive are capable of this or use the ATA method? Anyone?
All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!
The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.
So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?
With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).
I can't imagine making it this easy to "pirate" the more expensive hardware.
It's not pirating though. The user is purchasing another, more expensive drive to replace the old one and in the process are probably voiding their warrantee.
The companies could probably legally prevent usage of their network with user modified hardware and certainly void any warrantee, though I doubt they would bother pursuing more money from a unit they would rather no longer support.
I imagine requesting more money for a user upgraded unit, would be like condoning user upgrades and validating them as still being supported units. Easier to just void them, rather than project an image that this practice is almost acceptable from their point of view.
Not everyone observes anti-static and electrical precautions and since the unit is not designed to be user upgradable, their legal eagles probably would have a fit at the thought of supporting the unknown. If they had thorough, easy to understand step by step instructions for user upgrades and the hardware was designed to make it easy, then it could be a different story.
Don't get me wrong though, if I had a TiVo, I would love to drop in a couple of 120Gb drives. Actually, I would rather have a network capable unit that I could just sym link to my NFS server, especially if I could have this as combined storage for multiple units around the house. Of course, I'm dreaming a bit here, I don't know if this is possible with any of them.
I have'nt finished reading "Tales of...", I'm about half way. So far it seems annoyingly biased. He has obviously not attempted to learn Linux enough to complain about it the way he has.
He boasts that OSX can print to PDF from any app. So can Linux. Damn near everything printed in Linux, prints as postscript. Which is easily converted to PDF with the ghostscript ps2pdf script.
I save web sites and save much of what I work on as PDF with it. In fact, I also print from Windows machines to a file stored on my samba server for conversion to PDF when I want it.
I have an old Nikon F2AS 35mm camera. Almost as old as me. I wish things were still built like it, because it is still my main camera today due to very high build quality. It also makes a great weapon.
I hope I can buy a CCD back for it before film is dead.
An impressive resume is much more important than a degree...
It seems a resume is no longer impressive without a degree or some certification.
I have 13 years experience in electronics and computing/network support, ranging from electronic weapons with the Navy, computer/network support/admin (PC's to big iron VAX's) with my local stock exchange, same for the largest law firm in my country (minus the big iron). I've been awarded for the unbelievable efforts I put into what I am responsible for, at times working up to 27 hours straight (getting an NEC PABX to do something NEC and our local telco claims is impossible), etc etc etc.... where ever I go, I see the frauds, who pretty soon hate my guts because I can get done what they either have been working on fruitlessly for weeks or previously claimed to be impossible.
I have no MC-bloody-SE, CCNA or degree, I had previously been riding on my experience. And rightfully so, most people I work with are just bullshit artists who are either working through their MCSE or have it (or an MCP or whatever) and that is all they aspire to.
I respect a degree in CS, but not without experience to back it up. I respect more the guy who has the years of proven experience without (or prior to) the degree.
Nowdays, if you don't at least have certification or a degree, it seems the morons who do the hiring will overlook you, regardless of experience.
I've been battling for about 10 months now to get back into working in Sydney and I'll be fucked if I can get noticed past all the graduates, etc.
It's amazing what one word can do. People are telling you you're right, because they're not seeing the word "confidential", which is what made you wrong.
He is correct because he specifies confidential.
He doubts that they'd use XP for confidential info. Which should be correct.
They don't wait in line at K-Mart at midnight to buy the latest copy of Windows to try out to see if it can make their jobs easier. System decisions for confidential applications are first stringently tested before those departments are allowed to use them and when they are, those departments are only allowed to use copies of those systems that come through the department that does the testing, who would also do the installing. A deviation of any of these mechanisms would likely result in extreme penalties. When I worked for the Navy back in the late 80's, I was threatened with 7 years prison throughout documents I had to sign (applying for work), if I were to commit such acts that could be considered simply reckless which may have caused a security breach.
XP, would most certainly NOT be used for any confidential info.
Absolutely. Which is why it could even be a smart move to remove parallel and serial ports on all untrusted users (all but top network admin staff), to prevent installation of MODEMs, line drivers, etc. PC cases should be locked. All external media devices should be avoided, including RO. Machines should also be bolted down to avoid theft, and in extreme cases, diskless machines should be employed.
I've worked in environments like this, where syslog servers output to continous feed printers located in secure computer rooms with no windows (extremely difficult to destroy). Which also have physically seperate networks for security, staff and mission duties, networks which are bridged with many different mediums (microwave, laser, leased lines) to give redundancy and being encrypted for those channels. Even console ports on every piece of network gear is networked into the security ether for remote admin. UPS systems that consist of battery, supplemented with diesel to charge them when they are nearly flat, with fuel tanks large enough to run the diesel until a privately ordered fuel truck can deliver fuel from the worst case distance.
Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to prevent insiders from telling their buddy Usama where this critical entity resides, for a 747 style attack.
Can you provide a link? Everyone knows the NSA has provided enhancements to Linux security via their own linux files made available for download, but I have not heard that they are using it.
Although, I don't doubt they would be. I imagine OpenBSD is probably looked at a lot with them.
I wonder if they sit back and chuckle at what they see in the OS scene (including Linux/*BSD's) as far as security goes.
I would agree regarding the NSA and probably what they come up with would filter down to the others.
Although I whole heartedly agree that security through obscurity should never be relied on, it can make a decent extra layer of protection on top of a system that could otherwise be considered strong enough to publish.
In typical military style, if someone does not need to know some info about the org, then they're not going to be priviliged to that info. Need to know basis only. This could only help compound attack requirements.
Don't feel too bad, my first printer was a 0.05ppm colour Lexmark inkjet. I swear to you, this must be the slowest printer on the face of the earth! It's a Win printer also, thank God!
konmaskisin should be mod'd up. It really is pretty simple.
Preferably buy a printer that interprets postscript or failing that some level of PCL.
If you're not interested in knowing your system then don't use a free OS.
In Windows, I find print drivers and setup to be flakey. Sure, you plug in a printer and boom, it comes up saying Such'n'Such printer found searching for driver etc etc, but once it's done, your in printer admin hell, trying to get the simplest of jobs to bloody print the same as the print preview.
In Linux, set it up, it then works, forever. I've put more than 2,500 pages through my little Xerox laser with no admin of the spool or half printed jobs prior to any blue screens.
And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.
Yeah, that is one of the things that excites me so much about OS X. Microsoft would'nt know WYSIWYG if it were an anti-trust trial excerpt in PDF format.
I have had Word Docs that print preview differently to what actually prints, and also print differently from Wintel machine to Wintel machine.... MS, really cannot provide a WYSIWYG platform to save their lives.
I bought my Xerox laser for less than $400 au, because it does PCL 5&6 natively, knowing that I could use damn near any PCL driver for it. Right now it's a "Samsung", working perfectly at 600dpi. The HP4 driver also works, funnily enough though, the Xerox P8e driver does not work, apparently the P8e is postscript.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, the killall command is not covered, even though it uses the same signals
Yeah...?
as kill but it can be more dangerous.
Might be a precaution for anyone out there also using Solaris, since it will literally kill all. Along with the other risks involved with this sweeping of Gods hand.
I have The Complete FreeBSD and I was going to get the FreeBSD Handbook 2nd ed, however this new book FreeBSD Unleashed sounds excellent from reading that review and reader reviews at Amazon.
Is there any point in getting the Handbook if I get Unleashed?
Remember that the components in any digital system - and I'm not just talking about your windoze desktop PC, but servers, mainframes and embedded systems too - have to talk to each other in order to do anything remotely useful. Last time I looked, most PCI devices din't utilise the provision for 64-bit data bus operation.
PCI devices or PCI busses? Even the original old PCI buses support 64bit transfers via multiplexing (2 32bit transfers). So the bandwidth essentially remained the same, but usage as a "64 bit bus" was supported.
However, just because a CPU can process at 64 bits does not mean it must communicate at 64 bits outside the CPU. 64 bit CPU's do often support smaller word transfers.
It is true that most PCI devices are not true 64bit PCI, but that is mainly due to there being no need for the bandwidth that 64bit PCI affords.
If the bandwidth of 32bit at 33MHz (132MB/s) is not enough for your device to operate at it's fullest potential, then it is probably available as a true 64bit PCI device for a 64bit 66MHz PCI (528MB/s) slot, found in servers.
Realise that the IDE bus that may well be used in your computer, is only 16 bits wide. A 64bit CPU most certainly does not require 64bit here there and everywhere.
My old 486 had a VLB EIDE hard disk controller, which I swapped in after the last one failed. If my controller failed today, I couldn't do that; I'd either need to buy a new mobo or start replacing chips on the old one (which is just as expensive).
Not true, I've yet to see a mobo that would not allow the disabling of it's onboard VGA, IDE, SCSI, SERIAL, PARALLEL, USB, etc. Adding a card to replace a busted and disabled onboard device usually works.
The real value of a 64bit CPU over a 32bit CPU, is in the ability to compute more data at once, higher precision data or larger number data much faster and possibly also address way more data if a 32bit address bus is being compared with a 64bit address bus. A 64bit address bus, can access 4,294,967,296 *times* more data than a 32bit bus.
If you still don't get it, try running uptime (1) on a Linux box that has been up for over 497 days.
How strange then, that the three Linux servers noted in the max uptime list, all have max uptimes of well over 800 days. Perhaps that FAQ is old.
Before you rant that I am an uninformed bsd cheerleader, perhaps you should have taken note of my attempt at wit regarding "Linux and Windows dying" in my post, and bear in mind that Windows 2000 is not limited by the 497 day uptime roll.
At least an "uninformed cheerleader" has an open mind compared with the anti-bsd trolls. My post was in defense of BSD, being some of the Worlds most stable servers compared with the likes of W2K and even edging out IRIX, and seeing Linux servers on the max list at 800 days, I have to wonder why there are'nt more there. : )
Yeah, but that would cost money. Something I think should either come with the OS or be a free install. Printing to postscript is expected, and nowdays, printing to PDF should be too.
The free Unixes have it for free and OSX has it (and the cost of) built into the OS. With the excellent intergration of PDF in OSX, it is worth the cost of the OS.
Windows with Distiller, I could'nt care less about at this stage.
For a second I tbought the dd command had something to do with the post, not your .sig!
; ) Just having a dig at the Linux kernel developers, from the recent VM system changes and system instability and extreme thrashing slowdowns I seemed to be getting since upgrading to 2.4.10.
Anything can be hacked given enough motivation.
The key is practicality.
I think this opinion is based on ego. The hackers think they can hack anything, they just "don't have the motivation" to hack the really hard stuff. The system designers feel that they need to believe and portray this because they fear thier systems will some day be hacked or perhaps keep an open mind about it.
I also think it is silly to beleive that an unhackable system cannot be designed.
Although, I agree with the parent poster regarding practicality. I had an MCSE teacher tell the class I was in, that encryption was'nt good because any crypto algorithm could be cracked if the design is known. I wanted to challenge him on the practicalities of it (but I hate always being the arsehole in classes who corrects the teacher). I mean sure, learn the algorithm and brute force the output, but what about the practicality? What if it is an algorithm that is strong enough to realise the full range of a 4096 bit key? How many hundreds of years is it going to take to brute force crack it with the combined effort of all the computers that will ever exist on Earth? Will we (human race) be history by then? Do people in the year 8002 really give a crap about what people in 2002 were trying to hide? Do any humans still live on Earth, having terraformed and populated Mars and some other planets in other galaxies?
Or how about a cipher text done with a One Time Pad, which could be decrypted with loads of different keys to come out as loads of *different* and *incorrect* yet completely inteligible plain texts!
The rest of the class justs nods (duh!). It was the same teacher that told me that to boot an NT server off a SCSI disk, on a system that has NO SCSI BIOS, you just had to load an NT SCSI driver. Yeah, OK teach, good one. MCSE's, poor bastards, are given the inflated belief that they are computer experts once they have passed MS's "computer science". It's almost as pathetic as Scientology.
in DOS, you could use the debug.com
What a blast from the past! I remember that. Yeah like 4 or 5 bytes and then whoosh!
That calls a system BIOS program to do the dirty work does'nt it?
I used to actually enjoy typing in debug listings from magazines like Compute!, to muck around with the utils, etc. I remember a util called prune that was a deltree before the days of DOS deltree, which did a great job of pruning dirs and also fucking up file systems every now and then. : ) I guess thats what you get with 50 byte programs without error checking. ; )
Before that though, I was even sicker, back when Compute! mag was a C64 magazine, they had literally pages and pages of multi column HEX listings for utils and games. Some of the games were actually pretty good arcade games, considering thier size. First you had to type in the assembler in BASIC (really just a check summing program) and save it (to tape for me), then use it to enter the HEX listings, the "assembler" could inform you when you got a line wrong, based on the checksum.
Man those were the days.
you always have a suitable backup on hand.
I nicer alternative, is to backup the drive from one of these units prior to usage, so that the data on the drives are in their most compressible state.
Just dd the whole drive, piping it through some compressor to a file on your PC. Hopefully, this will leave you with a file small enough to burn onto a CD.
I have assorted images for various OSes in my home, which I use for various testing purposes. You just have to remember to mark the partition type with fdisk (might not be required for all OSes to boot?) and then reboot to that OS with a boot manager like Smart Boot Manager (which seems to remember your many labels for the *same* partition, based on the type, but only one per type). Works nicely, and any OS, from QNX to W2K installs quickly without any fuss at all.
I'd like to just use these with VMWare, but it is so bloody expensive! I *might* have considered it, if it were half the price it is, but the current price is just outrageous.
the disk has been written to in an unintelligible way.
/dev/zero ought to fix it.
Yeah, dd'ing it with
So what you need to do is completely wipe the drive with a low-level format, i.e., writing zeroes to the drive.
A commonly used phrase, incorrectly used for ATA drives. "Low level format" comes from the days when it meant a real low level format, where tracks would literally be repositioned (old MFM and SCSI drives could do this). IDE drives are low level formatted at the factory and cannot be re-low level formatted outside the factory. IDE drives recalibrate themselves due to changes in heat, they calibrate off tracks or special encoding (gray code?) between tracks, written at the factory which are on areas that are not user writable.
Then you can repartition it as 0x07 if you want to be able to get productive use out of it.
HPFS/NTFS? Nah, 0x83 and 0xA6 for me.
Here is a link to Western Digital's utility that allows you to low-level partition their ATA drives (the WDC seems to be popular in these devices):
Since the popularity of ATA has taken over the desktop from MFM and SCSI, the "low level format" term has remained. However, in the IDE World, it only means "completely zero every user addressable block" on the drive and NOT "reposition tracks", since ATA drives don't need and are not capable of such a feat at even the leet haxor level.
The term is erroneous for ATA drives, however it has been so commonly used that even the drive manufacturers refer to thier zero-out tools as low level formatters. They're not.
I don't know if modern SCSI drive are capable of this or use the ATA method? Anyone?
All this time, the person who posts *BSD is dying says the latest netcraft survey shows BSD is dying. And the latest netcraft shows no BSD, Linux or other OS. I've been lied to! BSD is NOT dying!
Certainly not, in fact, according to Netcraft...
The top 10 servers with the highest average uptime are *BSD's. All servers on this list are Unix, mostly a BSD, some IRIX. There are no Linux or Microsoft servers.
The top 9 servers with the all time highest uptimes are *BSD's. All up to 34 consists of mostly BSD's and some IRIX, Linux is at 35, W2K makes the list at 48 with 806 days vs 1342 days for the top BSD. However, the two W2K servers that made this list have an average uptime of 8 and 36 (48'th and 49'th) and 22 and 65 current uptimes. The top 9 BSD servers have an average average uptime of 973 days and an average current uptime of 1005 days.
The top 16 servers with the latest highest uptimes are *BSD's. All servers on this list of 50 are Unix servers. Linux and Microsoft servers did not make this list. Only BSD and IRIX appear on this list of current record holders.
This is accurate at the time of my posting.
So, these dorks that state "BSD is dying", are making some pretty bold statements. Why would sys admins around the World all of a sudden drop the World's most reliable network OS?
With the incredible stability of FreeBSD, awesome platform coverage of NetBSD, extreme security of OpenBSD and sheer beauty of MacOS X, perhaps Linux and Windows are "dying". PS, I am a hardcore Debian lover and user, but I also love to use the BSD's and I am not a blind zealot. Just stating the facts. What I am saying is, take my "Lin and Win dying" remark as seriously as you take the fricken "BSD is dying" cut'n'paste jobs (dont!).
I can't imagine making it this easy to "pirate" the more expensive hardware.
It's not pirating though. The user is purchasing another, more expensive drive to replace the old one and in the process are probably voiding their warrantee.
The companies could probably legally prevent usage of their network with user modified hardware and certainly void any warrantee, though I doubt they would bother pursuing more money from a unit they would rather no longer support.
I imagine requesting more money for a user upgraded unit, would be like condoning user upgrades and validating them as still being supported units. Easier to just void them, rather than project an image that this practice is almost acceptable from their point of view.
Not everyone observes anti-static and electrical precautions and since the unit is not designed to be user upgradable, their legal eagles probably would have a fit at the thought of supporting the unknown. If they had thorough, easy to understand step by step instructions for user upgrades and the hardware was designed to make it easy, then it could be a different story.
Don't get me wrong though, if I had a TiVo, I would love to drop in a couple of 120Gb drives. Actually, I would rather have a network capable unit that I could just sym link to my NFS server, especially if I could have this as combined storage for multiple units around the house. Of course, I'm dreaming a bit here, I don't know if this is possible with any of them.
As an aside, raising the power to 100 mw only gets us another 3 or 4 db at best, peak envelope power.
He speaks as if this is low. A 3dB increase in power is double the power.
Nothing to sneeze at.
I have'nt finished reading "Tales of...", I'm about half way. So far it seems annoyingly biased. He has obviously not attempted to learn Linux enough to complain about it the way he has.
He boasts that OSX can print to PDF from any app. So can Linux. Damn near everything printed in Linux, prints as postscript. Which is easily converted to PDF with the ghostscript ps2pdf script.
I save web sites and save much of what I work on as PDF with it. In fact, I also print from Windows machines to a file stored on my samba server for conversion to PDF when I want it.
Why? Quality.
I have an old Nikon F2AS 35mm camera. Almost as old as me. I wish things were still built like it, because it is still my main camera today due to very high build quality. It also makes a great weapon.
I hope I can buy a CCD back for it before film is dead.
Witnesses have posted that it is.
Then I am absolutely disgusted.
Any links to this?
An impressive resume is much more important than a degree ...
It seems a resume is no longer impressive without a degree or some certification.
I have 13 years experience in electronics and computing/network support, ranging from electronic weapons with the Navy, computer/network support/admin (PC's to big iron VAX's) with my local stock exchange, same for the largest law firm in my country (minus the big iron). I've been awarded for the unbelievable efforts I put into what I am responsible for, at times working up to 27 hours straight (getting an NEC PABX to do something NEC and our local telco claims is impossible), etc etc etc.... where ever I go, I see the frauds, who pretty soon hate my guts because I can get done what they either have been working on fruitlessly for weeks or previously claimed to be impossible.
I have no MC-bloody-SE, CCNA or degree, I had previously been riding on my experience. And rightfully so, most people I work with are just bullshit artists who are either working through their MCSE or have it (or an MCP or whatever) and that is all they aspire to.
I respect a degree in CS, but not without experience to back it up. I respect more the guy who has the years of proven experience without (or prior to) the degree.
Nowdays, if you don't at least have certification or a degree, it seems the morons who do the hiring will overlook you, regardless of experience.
I've been battling for about 10 months now to get back into working in Sydney and I'll be fucked if I can get noticed past all the graduates, etc.
It's amazing what one word can do. People are telling you you're right, because they're not seeing the word "confidential", which is what made you wrong.
He is correct because he specifies confidential.
He doubts that they'd use XP for confidential info. Which should be correct.
They don't wait in line at K-Mart at midnight to buy the latest copy of Windows to try out to see if it can make their jobs easier. System decisions for confidential applications are first stringently tested before those departments are allowed to use them and when they are, those departments are only allowed to use copies of those systems that come through the department that does the testing, who would also do the installing. A deviation of any of these mechanisms would likely result in extreme penalties. When I worked for the Navy back in the late 80's, I was threatened with 7 years prison throughout documents I had to sign (applying for work), if I were to commit such acts that could be considered simply reckless which may have caused a security breach.
XP, would most certainly NOT be used for any confidential info.
At this point, you are worried about insiders.
Absolutely. Which is why it could even be a smart move to remove parallel and serial ports on all untrusted users (all but top network admin staff), to prevent installation of MODEMs, line drivers, etc. PC cases should be locked. All external media devices should be avoided, including RO. Machines should also be bolted down to avoid theft, and in extreme cases, diskless machines should be employed.
I've worked in environments like this, where syslog servers output to continous feed printers located in secure computer rooms with no windows (extremely difficult to destroy). Which also have physically seperate networks for security, staff and mission duties, networks which are bridged with many different mediums (microwave, laser, leased lines) to give redundancy and being encrypted for those channels. Even console ports on every piece of network gear is networked into the security ether for remote admin. UPS systems that consist of battery, supplemented with diesel to charge them when they are nearly flat, with fuel tanks large enough to run the diesel until a privately ordered fuel truck can deliver fuel from the worst case distance.
Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to prevent insiders from telling their buddy Usama where this critical entity resides, for a 747 style attack.
NSA actually uses a custom version of linux
Can you provide a link? Everyone knows the NSA has provided enhancements to Linux security via their own linux files made available for download, but I have not heard that they are using it.
Although, I don't doubt they would be. I imagine OpenBSD is probably looked at a lot with them.
I wonder if they sit back and chuckle at what they see in the OS scene (including Linux/*BSD's) as far as security goes.
likely running their own home-brewed OS
I would agree regarding the NSA and probably what they come up with would filter down to the others.
Although I whole heartedly agree that security through obscurity should never be relied on, it can make a decent extra layer of protection on top of a system that could otherwise be considered strong enough to publish.
In typical military style, if someone does not need to know some info about the org, then they're not going to be priviliged to that info. Need to know basis only. This could only help compound attack requirements.
I have the Docuprint P8 Sigh... I have the worst luck at picking printers.
t ers.html
I looked around for info on your printer, hoping to be able to help. Unfortunetely, I found this... http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Printing-HOWTO/prin
Sorry.
Don't feel too bad, my first printer was a 0.05ppm colour Lexmark inkjet. I swear to you, this must be the slowest printer on the face of the earth! It's a Win printer also, thank God!
konmaskisin should be mod'd up. It really is pretty simple.
Preferably buy a printer that interprets postscript or failing that some level of PCL.
If you're not interested in knowing your system then don't use a free OS.
In Windows, I find print drivers and setup to be flakey. Sure, you plug in a printer and boom, it comes up saying Such'n'Such printer found searching for driver etc etc, but once it's done, your in printer admin hell, trying to get the simplest of jobs to bloody print the same as the print preview.
In Linux, set it up, it then works, forever. I've put more than 2,500 pages through my little Xerox laser with no admin of the spool or half printed jobs prior to any blue screens.
And now NeXT's son, Mac OS X, uses the son of postscript (PDF) for the display (through 'Quartz' technology) and the printing. True WYSIWYG.
Yeah, that is one of the things that excites me so much about OS X. Microsoft would'nt know WYSIWYG if it were an anti-trust trial excerpt in PDF format.
I have had Word Docs that print preview differently to what actually prints, and also print differently from Wintel machine to Wintel machine.... MS, really cannot provide a WYSIWYG platform to save their lives.
xerox laser printer without linux driver support
What Xerox laser printer do you have?
I bought my Xerox laser for less than $400 au, because it does PCL 5&6 natively, knowing that I could use damn near any PCL driver for it. Right now it's a "Samsung", working perfectly at 600dpi. The HP4 driver also works, funnily enough though, the Xerox P8e driver does not work, apparently the P8e is postscript.