MS approach works fine. Even if the initial check reports lies, checksumming the disk from the CD will report the real checksum. If they're different, the system is trojaned. If they're the same, but they're not the right checksums, the system is trojaned. Only of the checksums are the same and match the original files is the system OK.
Sorry, their approach is fine, I stand corrected.
However, it only works for MS apps and isn't a part of the OS, an area where Linux packages still have a significant advantage.
What do you think Microsoft is going to do about it? If someone has system access there isn't anything to be done about them moving in with a rootkit.
What I'd like MS to do about it is make detection easier. I.e., record the checksum of every file installed by Windows and third party software, provide a way of backing up that checksum info, and a way to check the contents of the hard disk against the backed up check sums from a rescue CD.
Ie, just like Linux does.
MS current approach is to run a tool on the cracked system and hope it reports bad checksum,s then boot of a CD and check again to see if they're different. This provides no security whatsoever, as the inital app that runs on the system could be made to report whatever checksum it wants.
The comment that was made in the blurb/article about not being able to differentiate between a game and real life is ridiculous.
Exactly. The distinction in this case is unecessary and arbitrary - someone steals something from me, whether in real life or MMORPG, I won't be able to enjoy it. I may have worked very hard to get it. Who is the essay writer to say things I work hard for online are somehow not worth anything? Clearly they're worth something to me, as I worked hard to get them.
> I can just imagine the shareholder meeting where Ballmer announces that, sure, they had the best browser in the world from 1996 to 2002, but apparently Microsoft now can't code its way out of a paper bag
Well, they can't. Or at least they can beat FF. They've said so. Hence having the best browser in the world again might involve using someone elses code.
So the shareholders mind that Windows uses the BSD IP stack?
If the site declares a doctype, why doesn't MS simply use the Active X Gecko to render it?
It's entirely possible for me, a non coder, to get IE to use gecko ActiveX, it surely isn't hard for MS to do it selectively.
Why bother rewriting the wheel? Microsoft keeps publishing new OSS projects of its own, why doesn't it contribute to an existing one?
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
And fuck it, I'll bite for the rest of it too.
> On the one hand, I have a Red Hat system. It's a pile of packages. If I want to find out what's been added to the install
rpm -qa --date.
Much faster than spending time figuring out three different methods to put apps on my system.
If you like, you can add a vendor tag to specify the source. The upgrades are often the same software as the original install. Whether you installed of an FTP server and updates, off RHEL Update 0 and updated, or RHEL U1 CD or DVDs is irrelevant. foo-1.2-r1 is foo-1.2-r1.
This is a good thing.
To properly install a random archive on any OS you'll need to put scripts around it (non BSD people call his packaging, BSD people have a more specific definition of that term).
Then 'up2date foo'.
> Because anything more than the kernel has "Separate source trees, separate build tools, separate configuration tools, separate development teams."
Like a production FreeBSD box (ie, one that uses more than core) has separate source trees?
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
> > At my workplace the first thing the BSD folk do post install is get what they need from ports to achieve their tasks.
> I'm not sure what your point is.
THAT ITS NOT SINGLE SOURCE. THAT EVERY BOX WILL ALWAYS USE MULTIPLE SOURCE TREES.
I promised I wasn't going to respond, but FUCK.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
uses core exclusively, ahem.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
I haven't EVER seen a production FreeBSD box that uses core. At my workplace the first thing the BSD folk do post install is get what they need from ports to achieve their tasks.
So yeah, real, actual production FreeBSD machines use multiple source trees.
And you didn't answer either of my questions. Nor do I think you will. So this is my last post, reply what you want, you're not listening to me so I'm going to stop listening to you.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
> Yes, exactly, it's an argument. A reasoned explanation for an opinion, as opposed to a magical belief. Perhaps you should respond to the argument rather than just say that because I have that reasoning, I'm somehow now giving BSD a fair go?
> every currently viable operating system can trace its roots back to the traditional UNIX source tree
Er, GNU doesn't generally use that source tree.
> The comparable core of Linux is just the kernerl itself
Why? The kernel is maintained along with the userspace tools quite effectively, and more comprehensively than BSD with its artifical concepts of 'third party' software. Recent examples: udev and HAL, inotify and beagle.
Anything that ain't the kernel or libraries is an applications. Last time I checked, there were apps that came in BSD, apps that were installable y 'packages', and apps that installable by ports.
Is this true or not, yes or no?
Would it be more convenient if ther were one method, yes or no?
And if you say no, your reasoning must be something other than 'they're maintained seperately'. That has no bearing whatsoever on the method used to install the software.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
"BSD's different and therefore wrong"
I haven't reacted that way at any point. I've just said what I prefer. Indeed, in my last post, I mentioned that 'Linux philosophy is stick close to the upstream' where, if I had the opinion you're attributing to me, I'd say software that needs massive amounts of modification by packagers isn't stable. But I didn't.
"BSD can only be the way it is because it's unpopular"
Yep. Sorry, that's my opinion. A tiny stable core, and a bunch of ways to install apps do not a mainstream server/desktop OS make.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
One of the aims of good Linux distros is to aim to be as close to the upstream as possible. This means there's more people using and reporting bugs on similar software. If 100,000 people use a similar kernel than me, bugs are ironed out quicker.
RHEL 3 had more than 300 patches to the kernel source - RHEL 4 has less than 20, and that's considered a major improvement.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Even the stuff under "contrib" is modified to fit the BSD build and configuration conventions.
I should clarify: and Linux packages aren't?
I'm quite aware the there's core, and 'packages', and ports, and they all use different installation mechanisms. You should know this, as I've been commenting about how much it wastes my time.
The generic, OS neutral name for a standardized installation system is 'packages', so forgive me if I haven't used in the more stricter BSD sense.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
Even the stuff under "contrib" is modified to fit the BSD build and configuration conventions.
And packages aren't?
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
I'm using core in the same sense FreeBSD does - the group of packages that are maintained and released as a single block.
That the system uses a consistent packaging scheme for all its software does not mean it is unstable.
It does mean it's consistant. Rather than installing FreeB and finding apps nececessary for performing a particular task aren't installed the same way as, or maintained along with, the rest of your system.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
No. I prefer Linux because the stable core is much larger than BSDs.
How many apps/libs are in FreeBSD 5 core? How many packages are there in RHEL 4?
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
The "other software that users depend on" goes in optional packages, so users can choose what they depend on.
I think that software that many users depend upon should be a part of, and maintained with, the stable core.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
> There's a very low possibility of that. The core of BSD is deliberately conservative, and there's no reason for it to change.
For BSD to become popular, there is every reason for core to expand. The popular BSD you mentioned (OSX) has a lot more to it than its BSD core. But I don't think non-OSX BSD intends to be popular. Whether software that comes with the distro is packages the same way as software that doesn't has no effect on that conservatism.
>> But the 'part of OS / not part of OS' thing I think is artificial in an OSS environment
> It's no more or less artificial than in a commercial OS.
You mean proprietary.
> "part of the OS" means "you can depend on it being there" and "you can depend on it working the same way".
For use as a general purpose OS, the amount of software users depend on wil increase. Again, I don't think this is one of BSD's goals. Which is why I don't prefer it.
I like the default Red Hat install. There's lots of useful stuff. 470MB (the recommended server install) isn't much.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
> On the desktop, BSD *is* more popular than Linux You need separate install procedures for the operating system itself.
Yeah. That operating systems consists of software.
>>Last time I checked, ports and packages used different install proceedures. Has this changed or not?
>They're not part of the OS.
So it hasn't. Oh, they're not part of the OS?
a) As I've said, that might change in the next release. The software shouldn't move around
b) What was that you said about BSDs consistency?
>>Is the old one still around being used by an old version of that port?
>Of course it is
Sometimes I'd rather a new version of that app be installed. It minimises redundancy. But I could see how changing as little as possible would be food for stability too. I guess I'll tie that one down to a matter of style.
But the 'part of OS / not part of OS' thing I think is artificial in an OSS environment, and unnecessary, and annoying. And that's why I prefer Linux.
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
> > What if it decides to evolve more rapidly in future?
> It would be more likely that Linus would switch to a Windows-CE based kernel for Linux 2.8.
Er, no. If BSD becomes as popular as Linux, they will likely increase the pace of development. New versions of RHEL, including major new additions to the list of software that comes out with the distro, are released every 18 months (tho each still has a lifetime of 7 years minimum). Because they don't come with the distro now? [...]
> > Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my distro and those that don't?
> Because it's not a "distro", it's an "operating system"
Er, ok. Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my Operating System and those that don't?
>They're not separate packages, there's a complete source tree containing the kernel and all the userland components required for the OS. Even the "contrib" section is maintained by the FreeBSD project, not just turned into an RPM and bundled.
Last time I checked, ports and packages used different install proceedures. Has this changed or not?
>> What if my OS update updates something relied upon by something that was installed later?
> The OS will never update anything under/usr/local
So I install an app from ports that relies on libfoo, which came with BSD. Then I upgrade my BSD distro...oh, sorry, OS. Cause Linux distros aren't OSs. Cause most of BSD's additional packages are maintained by the same people as the distro, and in Linux, most packages are maintained by the same people as the distro, so, um...anyway, Linux is bad. Yeah. Anyway, I get a new version of libfoo. My third party app wanted the old one. Is the old one still around being used by an old version of that port? Is the port upgraded at the same time? Yeah. Anyway, that gives me a new version of
Re:Why FreeBSD is not good for most businesses
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 1
That is a well-thought-out directory structure. You have the operating system, a fixed core that's evolved only gradually over the past 15 years
What if it decides to evolve more rapidly in future?
and add-on packages.
How are these different from core? Because they don't come with the distro now? What if they do in 18 months time?
You upgrade the OS, your packages don't get touched.
Because the OS isn't packaged? Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my distro and those that don't? What if my OS update updates something relied upon by something that was installed later? I want my non-distro software to be updated at the same time, rather than break, thank you very much
Slashdot Mirror
Someone can install root kits without modifying binaries or libraries? Impressive too :).
MS approach works fine. Even if the initial check reports lies, checksumming the disk from the CD will report the real checksum. If they're different, the system is trojaned. If they're the same, but they're not the right checksums, the system is trojaned. Only of the checksums are the same and match the original files is the system OK.
Sorry, their approach is fine, I stand corrected.
However, it only works for MS apps and isn't a part of the OS, an area where Linux packages still have a significant advantage.
What do you think Microsoft is going to do about it? If someone has system access there isn't anything to be done about them moving in with a rootkit.
What I'd like MS to do about it is make detection easier. I.e., record the checksum of every file installed by Windows and third party software, provide a way of backing up that checksum info, and a way to check the contents of the hard disk against the backed up check sums from a rescue CD.
Ie, just like Linux does.
MS current approach is to run a tool on the cracked system and hope it reports bad checksum,s then boot of a CD and check again to see if they're different. This provides no security whatsoever, as the inital app that runs on the system could be made to report whatever checksum it wants.
The comment that was made in the blurb/article about not being able to differentiate between a game and real life is ridiculous.
Exactly. The distinction in this case is unecessary and arbitrary - someone steals something from me, whether in real life or MMORPG, I won't be able to enjoy it. I may have worked very hard to get it. Who is the essay writer to say things I work hard for online are somehow not worth anything? Clearly they're worth something to me, as I worked hard to get them.
> I can just imagine the shareholder meeting where Ballmer announces that, sure, they had the best browser in the world from 1996 to 2002, but apparently Microsoft now can't code its way out of a paper bag
Well, they can't. Or at least they can beat FF. They've said so. Hence having the best browser in the world again might involve using someone elses code.
So the shareholders mind that Windows uses the BSD IP stack?
If the site declares a doctype, why doesn't MS simply use the Active X Gecko to render it?
It's entirely possible for me, a non coder, to get IE to use gecko ActiveX, it surely isn't hard for MS to do it selectively.
Why bother rewriting the wheel? Microsoft keeps publishing new OSS projects of its own, why doesn't it contribute to an existing one?
And fuck it, I'll bite for the rest of it too.
> On the one hand, I have a Red Hat system. It's a pile of packages. If I want to find out what's been added to the install
rpm -qa --date.
Much faster than spending time figuring out three different methods to put apps on my system.
If you like, you can add a vendor tag to specify the source. The upgrades are often the same software as the original install. Whether you installed of an FTP server and updates, off RHEL Update 0 and updated, or RHEL U1 CD or DVDs is irrelevant. foo-1.2-r1 is foo-1.2-r1.
This is a good thing.
To properly install a random archive on any OS you'll need to put scripts around it (non BSD people call his packaging, BSD people have a more specific definition of that term).
Then 'up2date foo'.
> Because anything more than the kernel has "Separate source trees, separate build tools, separate configuration tools, separate development teams."
Like a production FreeBSD box (ie, one that uses more than core) has separate source trees?
> > At my workplace the first thing the BSD folk do post install is get what they need from ports to achieve their tasks.
> I'm not sure what your point is.
THAT ITS NOT SINGLE SOURCE. THAT EVERY BOX WILL ALWAYS USE MULTIPLE SOURCE TREES.
I promised I wasn't going to respond, but FUCK.
uses core exclusively, ahem.
I haven't EVER seen a production FreeBSD box that uses core. At my workplace the first thing the BSD folk do post install is get what they need from ports to achieve their tasks.
So yeah, real, actual production FreeBSD machines use multiple source trees.
And you didn't answer either of my questions. Nor do I think you will. So this is my last post, reply what you want, you're not listening to me so I'm going to stop listening to you.
> Yes, exactly, it's an argument. A reasoned explanation for an opinion, as opposed to a magical belief. Perhaps you should respond to the argument rather than just say that because I have that reasoning, I'm somehow now giving BSD a fair go?
> every currently viable operating system can trace its roots back to the traditional UNIX source tree
Er, GNU doesn't generally use that source tree.
> The comparable core of Linux is just the kernerl itself
Why? The kernel is maintained along with the userspace tools quite effectively, and more comprehensively than BSD with its artifical concepts of 'third party' software. Recent examples: udev and HAL, inotify and beagle.
Anything that ain't the kernel or libraries is an applications. Last time I checked, there were apps that came in BSD, apps that were installable y 'packages', and apps that installable by ports.
Is this true or not, yes or no?
Would it be more convenient if ther were one method, yes or no?
And if you say no, your reasoning must be something other than 'they're maintained seperately'. That has no bearing whatsoever on the method used to install the software.
"BSD's different and therefore wrong"
I haven't reacted that way at any point. I've just said what I prefer. Indeed, in my last post, I mentioned that 'Linux philosophy is stick close to the upstream' where, if I had the opinion you're attributing to me, I'd say software that needs massive amounts of modification by packagers isn't stable. But I didn't.
"BSD can only be the way it is because it's unpopular"
Yep. Sorry, that's my opinion. A tiny stable core, and a bunch of ways to install apps do not a mainstream server/desktop OS make.
One of the aims of good Linux distros is to aim to be as close to the upstream as possible. This means there's more people using and reporting bugs on similar software. If 100,000 people use a similar kernel than me, bugs are ironed out quicker.
RHEL 3 had more than 300 patches to the kernel source - RHEL 4 has less than 20, and that's considered a major improvement.
Even the stuff under "contrib" is modified to fit the BSD build and configuration conventions.
I should clarify: and Linux packages aren't?
I'm quite aware the there's core, and 'packages', and ports, and they all use different installation mechanisms. You should know this, as I've been commenting about how much it wastes my time.
The generic, OS neutral name for a standardized installation system is 'packages', so forgive me if I haven't used in the more stricter BSD sense.
Even the stuff under "contrib" is modified to fit the BSD build and configuration conventions.
And packages aren't?
I'm using core in the same sense FreeBSD does - the group of packages that are maintained and released as a single block.
That the system uses a consistent packaging scheme for all its software does not mean it is unstable.
It does mean it's consistant. Rather than installing FreeB and finding apps nececessary for performing a particular task aren't installed the same way as, or maintained along with, the rest of your system.
No. I prefer Linux because the stable core is much larger than BSDs.
How many apps/libs are in FreeBSD 5 core?
How many packages are there in RHEL 4?
The "other software that users depend on" goes in optional packages, so users can choose what they depend on.
I think that software that many users depend upon should be a part of, and maintained with, the stable core.
> There's a very low possibility of that. The core of BSD is deliberately conservative, and there's no reason for it to change.
For BSD to become popular, there is every reason for core to expand. The popular BSD you mentioned (OSX) has a lot more to it than its BSD core. But I don't think non-OSX BSD intends to be popular. Whether software that comes with the distro is packages the same way as software that doesn't has no effect on that conservatism.
>> But the 'part of OS / not part of OS' thing I think is artificial in an OSS environment
> It's no more or less artificial than in a commercial OS.
You mean proprietary.
> "part of the OS" means "you can depend on it being there" and "you can depend on it working the same way".
For use as a general purpose OS, the amount of software users depend on wil increase. Again, I don't think this is one of BSD's goals. Which is why I don't prefer it.
I like the default Red Hat install. There's lots of useful stuff. 470MB (the recommended server install) isn't much.
> On the desktop, BSD *is* more popular than Linux You need separate install procedures for the operating system itself.
Yeah. That operating systems consists of software.
>>Last time I checked, ports and packages used different install proceedures. Has this changed or not?
>They're not part of the OS.
So it hasn't. Oh, they're not part of the OS?
a) As I've said, that might change in the next release. The software shouldn't move around
b) What was that you said about BSDs consistency?
>>Is the old one still around being used by an old version of that port?
>Of course it is
Sometimes I'd rather a new version of that app be installed. It minimises redundancy. But I could see how changing as little as possible would be food for stability too. I guess I'll tie that one down to a matter of style.
But the 'part of OS / not part of OS' thing I think is artificial in an OSS environment, and unnecessary, and annoying. And that's why I prefer Linux.
> > What if it decides to evolve more rapidly in future?
/usr/local
> It would be more likely that Linus would switch to a Windows-CE based kernel for Linux 2.8.
Er, no. If BSD becomes as popular as Linux, they will likely increase the pace of development. New versions of RHEL, including major new additions to the list of software that comes out with the distro, are released every 18 months (tho each still has a lifetime of 7 years minimum).
Because they don't come with the distro now? [...]
> > Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my distro and those that don't?
> Because it's not a "distro", it's an "operating system"
Er, ok. Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my Operating System and those that don't?
>They're not separate packages, there's a complete source tree containing the kernel and all the userland components required for the OS. Even the "contrib" section is maintained by the FreeBSD project, not just turned into an RPM and bundled.
Last time I checked, ports and packages used different install proceedures. Has this changed or not?
>> What if my OS update updates something relied upon by something that was installed later?
> The OS will never update anything under
So I install an app from ports that relies on libfoo, which came with BSD. Then I upgrade my BSD distro...oh, sorry, OS. Cause Linux distros aren't OSs. Cause most of BSD's additional packages are maintained by the same people as the distro, and in Linux, most packages are maintained by the same people as the distro, so, um...anyway, Linux is bad. Yeah. Anyway, I get a new version of libfoo. My third party app wanted the old one. Is the old one still around being used by an old version of that port? Is the port upgraded at the same time?
Yeah. Anyway, that gives me a new version of
That is a well-thought-out directory structure. You have the operating system, a fixed core that's evolved only gradually over the past 15 years
What if it decides to evolve more rapidly in future?
and add-on packages.
How are these different from core? Because they don't come with the distro now? What if they do in 18 months time?
You upgrade the OS, your packages don't get touched.
Because the OS isn't packaged? Why do I need seperate install proceedures for software that came with my distro and those that don't? What if my OS update updates something relied upon by something that was installed later? I want my non-distro software to be updated at the same time, rather than break, thank you very much
Me: Please provide a link to a computer the same size (or even a little bigger) as a Mac mini that's as powerful.
You: done
But not really.
The Mac Mini is 16.5 x 16.5 x 5cm
Volume of 1361.25
The box you linked to is 25.4 x 14.78 x 7.09cm
Volume of 2661.67
Which is nearly twice the size of the Mac Mini
Windows Vista website
And can be built and run on a completely OSS Java stack using GCJ, thanks to the work of a whole bunch of guys at Red Hat.
It ships with Fedora Core 4 as the main IDE and Red Hat sells commercial support for it as Red Hat Developer Suite.