Your post nothing but thinly-veiled FUD. I can't even tell what point you are trying to make, as your arguments aren't at all analogous to a social network.
An OSS Facebook will have hundreds of competing distros,
There are very few serious distributions that compete for the same niche market.
several dozen kernel forks,
Most distributions commit kernel fixes back to upstream or backport them to older versions.
Countless different versions of the standards that developers will argue over for years
s/argue/collaborate/
horrid UI's
Compared to what?
It's pretty well known that you should never let programmers design user interfaces.
and no documentation
I've used a lot of free software so far, and it's extremely rare that there is no documentation. Just because it's not in your preferred format, doesn't mean it's non-existent.
New users wishing to convert over from commercial Facebook will be told "Well, first you have to decide if you want to go with a RTH, KJG, RTY, or TTTY desktop interface; then you need to pick a client from this list which you can download from this obscure irc channel; then you need to config it to your router and find the drivers for your system; and you might also need to download and install Java, Greasemonkey, and a compiler to create binaries for your particular OS" and presented with a long list of bug fixes in lieu of a user manual.
Despite your example being exaggerated, I've never had to do anything so ridiculous using any free operating system. I'm willing to accept that a minority of applications have less than perfect installation procedures, but fortunately, there is rarely a shortage of alternatives in the free software world -- you can often find something better.
And before you mod me troll, know that this is exactly what Linux (and plenty of other OSS) looks like to a non-geek user.
What does a non-geek need to know about kernel versions, distributions etc. to use Ubuntu for their non-geek activities (i.e. web browsing, writing documents and listening to music)? All these activities are possible with the default installs.
My first iPhone app was released to the app store from a US$350 MSI Wind netbook that I hackintoshed. Not my top recommendation for a dev machine, but it got the job done as Xcode seems to go easy on resources. You're not going to be running VS2010 on a netbook.
You may also note that you'll need a computer to run Visual Studio. I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.
How inconsistent. You complain about Microsoft's prices, then use pirate and/or EULA-violating Apple software and claim that option is cheaper.
Legally, you only need to pay Microsoft the tiny Windows OEM license fee to have full access to the entire.NET SDK and Express Editions. To develop an iPhone application you need to invest a lot more on the hardware and OS X (which all goes to Apple).
Then again, this is Slashdot, where Microsoft bashing takes precedence over facts.
No, he tells you you can't compile your code without forking him [sic] $550 in the first year and requiring an additional $500 for upgrades every 2 or 3 years. That's way cheaper!
This comes up on every Slashdot article even vaguely related to Microsoft, Express Editions are free, dumbass.
You need an Apple computer for the iPhone SDK. How much is the cheapest new Apple computer?
GPL: You can only tell your friend how you built your house on the condition they tell everyone who asks, along with any original ideas your friend spent time and/or money proving themselves.
The mailserver is just an example. There is plenty of insecure software running as root.
FTFY
MAC cannot prevent the exploit as such, but it can make the attacker completely limitless. You can take away execute permission, write permission (allowing just append), no file creation, absolutely nothing except the very minimal that the program actually needs.
This sounds a lot like what securelevel(7) already does.
There is absolutely no reason to have a user with absolute power when we have the technology to segregate power and duties, there by significantly reducing the attack surface.
There is absolutely no reason to put up walls so the sysadmin can't do anything, rather than fix the bugs that let an attacker gain root in the first place.
Re:Got my CD in the mail a few days ago
on
OpenBSD 4.7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OpenBSD doesn't want to take over the world, see the project goals. This doesn't stop their work becoming used on a large scale, but this happens because of the software's features and technical superiority.
On the other hand, many Linux advocates seem to be obsessed with the idea of world domination. I've seen these people choose Ubuntu for reinstall/upgrade jobs when their friends and family would genuinely be more comfortable, and better off, with Windows or OS X.
The fact that the OS code is audited is nice, but can't protect against other insecure software. If you run postfix which isn't audited, and it has a hole and the attacker gets root, then there is nothing to stop them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the mail server isn't crap it should give up root privileges as soon as possible. So, to get root you need to do two things.
1) Exploit a bug in the mail server 2) Exploit a bug in the operating system to gain root privileges
If MAC is part of the operating system, and can therefore contain operating system bugs, how does it mitigate step 2? How does it mitigate it any more than an operating system without MAC?
An example from a commenter on the blog is that he needed to prevent root from reading users files. OpenBSD is almost the only OS left that can't meet this requirement.
Are you serious? The root user has ultimate power by definition. That's been the case with *NIX for decades.
Re:I can't actually get anything done on OpenBSD.
on
OpenBSD 4.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
It's entirely possible that a piece of hardware you buy contains portions of *BSD code.
So maybe at some point you will use it, if you don't already, just not how you'd expect.
No, Ubuntu isn't unusable because of omitting features. It's unusable because what they start with is unusable, and they have nowhere to go from there.
Much like security. You can't bolt on features after the fact and suddenly have a secure product.
...hostile user community and theocratic leader...
I've observed the OpenBSD attitude as being anything but religious in most cases, at least compared to FSF/GNU folk, and far closer to the laudable `shut up and hack'.
The community may appear hostile, but successful users need to have initiative rather than being spoon fed. `RTFM', or a milder equivalent, is often the best way to encourage that.
Technology should be used for its original purpose. It is completely ridiculous that cell phones contain so many useless features.
The factors to consider when buying a cell phone are no longer call time, standby time or address book capacity. Instead customers want to know "How many Java games can it run?", "How many MP3s can it store?" or "How many photos can it hold?".
Cell phones are slowly loosing their original purpose as communications devices and becoming nothing more than fashionable toys.
Different Linux distributions exist because they are designed for a different purpose. Trying to augment various, unique features of these well established distributions will inevitably reduce user choice. Surely, creating a standardized, "super-distro" is contrary to open-source philosophy.
If there is an attempt to create such a distribution, it should at least have a firm base. Support for new hardware is one of the factors preventing Windows users migrating to Linux, such a project should not use a distribution as outdated as Debian.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post nothing but thinly-veiled FUD. I can't even tell what point you are trying to make, as your arguments aren't at all analogous to a social network.
An OSS Facebook will have hundreds of competing distros,
There are very few serious distributions that compete for the same niche market.
several dozen kernel forks,
Most distributions commit kernel fixes back to upstream or backport them to older versions.
Countless different versions of the standards that developers will argue over for years
s/argue/collaborate/
horrid UI's
Compared to what?
It's pretty well known that you should never let programmers design user interfaces.
and no documentation
I've used a lot of free software so far, and it's extremely rare that there is no documentation. Just because it's not in your preferred format, doesn't mean it's non-existent.
New users wishing to convert over from commercial Facebook will be told "Well, first you have to decide if you want to go with a RTH, KJG, RTY, or TTTY desktop interface; then you need to pick a client from this list which you can download from this obscure irc channel; then you need to config it to your router and find the drivers for your system; and you might also need to download and install Java, Greasemonkey, and a compiler to create binaries for your particular OS" and presented with a long list of bug fixes in lieu of a user manual.
Despite your example being exaggerated, I've never had to do anything so ridiculous using any free operating system. I'm willing to accept that a minority of applications have less than perfect installation procedures, but fortunately, there is rarely a shortage of alternatives in the free software world -- you can often find something better.
And before you mod me troll, know that this is exactly what Linux (and plenty of other OSS) looks like to a non-geek user.
What does a non-geek need to know about kernel versions, distributions etc. to use Ubuntu for their non-geek activities (i.e. web browsing, writing documents and listening to music)? All these activities are possible with the default installs.
I've been compiling 64bit Gentoo Linux since I bought one the first models of Athlon 64, which was almost 7 years ago!
FTFY
My first iPhone app was released to the app store from a US$350 MSI Wind netbook that I hackintoshed. Not my top recommendation for a dev machine, but it got the job done as Xcode seems to go easy on resources. You're not going to be running VS2010 on a netbook.
You may also note that you'll need a computer to run Visual Studio. I'm not sure what point you're driving at here.
How inconsistent. You complain about Microsoft's prices, then use pirate and/or EULA-violating Apple software and claim that option is cheaper.
Legally, you only need to pay Microsoft the tiny Windows OEM license fee to have full access to the entire .NET SDK and Express Editions. To develop an iPhone application you need to invest a lot more on the hardware and OS X (which all goes to Apple).
Then again, this is Slashdot, where Microsoft bashing takes precedence over facts.
at least Ballmer doesn't tell me I can't compile my code without forking him $100/yr
Of course, staying up to date with Visual Studio is going to cost you significantly more than that (unless you use the same version for 8 years).
Not if you take advantage of the free Express Editions which are mentioned on a nearly daily basis here on Slashdot, of course.
No, he tells you you can't compile your code without forking him [sic] $550 in the first year and requiring an additional $500 for upgrades every 2 or 3 years. That's way cheaper!
This comes up on every Slashdot article even vaguely related to Microsoft, Express Editions are free, dumbass.
You need an Apple computer for the iPhone SDK. How much is the cheapest new Apple computer?
GPL: You can only tell your friend how you built your house on the condition they tell everyone who asks, along with any original ideas your friend spent time and/or money proving themselves.
OSX 10.6 will be replaced and DISCON, will be actively unsupported by Apple.
How can anything be `actively unsupported'?
ERRATA NOTICE
Good morning,
Your shill welcome pack contained a misprint on page 49, section 3, the term 'C+' should be 'C++'.
Best regards,
Apple
The mailserver is just an example. There is plenty of insecure software running as root.
FTFY
MAC cannot prevent the exploit as such, but it can make the attacker completely limitless. You can take away execute permission, write permission (allowing just append), no file creation, absolutely nothing except the very minimal that the program actually needs.
This sounds a lot like what securelevel(7) already does.
There is absolutely no reason to have a user with absolute power when we have the technology to segregate power and duties, there by significantly reducing the attack surface.
There is absolutely no reason to put up walls so the sysadmin can't do anything, rather than fix the bugs that let an attacker gain root in the first place.
OpenBSD doesn't want to take over the world, see the project goals. This doesn't stop their work becoming used on a large scale, but this happens because of the software's features and technical superiority.
On the other hand, many Linux advocates seem to be obsessed with the idea of world domination. I've seen these people choose Ubuntu for reinstall/upgrade jobs when their friends and family would genuinely be more comfortable, and better off, with Windows or OS X.
Decide for yourself which is the more noble goal.
The fact that the OS code is audited is nice, but can't protect against other insecure software. If you run postfix which isn't audited, and it has a hole and the attacker gets root, then there is nothing to stop them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but if the mail server isn't crap it should give up root privileges as soon as possible. So, to get root you need to do two things.
1) Exploit a bug in the mail server
2) Exploit a bug in the operating system to gain root privileges
If MAC is part of the operating system, and can therefore contain operating system bugs, how does it mitigate step 2? How does it mitigate it any more than an operating system without MAC?
An example from a commenter on the blog is that he needed to prevent root from reading users files. OpenBSD is almost the only OS left that can't meet this requirement.
Are you serious? The root user has ultimate power by definition. That's been the case with *NIX for decades.
It's entirely possible that a piece of hardware you buy contains portions of *BSD code.
So maybe at some point you will use it, if you don't already, just not how you'd expect.
I'm surprised you have time to investigate other operating systems if you're thinking in MMORPG analogies. :)
The archaic UNIX security model is exactly that, archaic. There are needs it cannot meet, and something like MAC is needed.
When operating system code is security audited, what needs can the *NIX security model not meet?
No, Ubuntu isn't unusable because of omitting features. It's unusable because what they start with is unusable, and they have nowhere to go from there.
Much like security. You can't bolt on features after the fact and suddenly have a secure product.
That MAC is anything but bloated a waste of time.
The notion that adding security as an afterthought is a good idea.
Maybe if the article had any real merit, instead of making stupid statements that aren't true.
It's a shame the author's love affair with MAC can't help him write a decent article.
I wonder how many installations of Linux have SELinux disabled because it broke something.
...hostile user community and theocratic leader...
I've observed the OpenBSD attitude as being anything but religious in most cases, at least compared to FSF/GNU folk, and far closer to the laudable `shut up and hack'. The community may appear hostile, but successful users need to have initiative rather than being spoon fed. `RTFM', or a milder equivalent, is often the best way to encourage that.
That article has been posted several times on *BSD mailing lists and is hardly relevant to the release of a new version.
I wonder if an article criticizing the security of Slashdot's darling OS, Linux, would receive such positive moderation on a release story.
Even with the new CD protection, it is still trivial to copy the contents of CDs.
One simply needs to connect the "analog" output of their CD player to a recording device (PC w/soundcard) and the protection can be circumvented.
As long as we are allowed to hear the music, it will always be copied.
There is no way of preventing music piracy short of bolting headphones to peoples heads!
Technology should be used for its original purpose. It is completely ridiculous that cell phones contain so many useless features.
The factors to consider when buying a cell phone are no longer call time, standby time or address book capacity. Instead customers want to know "How many Java games can it run?", "How many MP3s can it store?" or "How many photos can it hold?".
Cell phones are slowly loosing their original purpose as communications devices and becoming nothing more than fashionable toys.
Different Linux distributions exist because they are designed for a different purpose. Trying to augment various, unique features of these well established distributions will inevitably reduce user choice. Surely, creating a standardized, "super-distro" is contrary to open-source philosophy.
If there is an attempt to create such a distribution, it should at least have a firm base. Support for new hardware is one of the factors preventing Windows users migrating to Linux, such a project should not use a distribution as outdated as Debian.
How can this diet become popular with hackers if it involves giving up caffeine?