On the other hand, NetBSD has had amd64 support since 2001.
So NetBSD supports it before AMD even -officially- released it? The specs and emulator(s) have been around for a while, but I seriosuly doubt you could even get AMD's 64bit processors before this year (or possibly maybe even last year, but still, 2002 > 2001).
Although, there could be a blurring of lines on what 'support' means. I look at 'support' as being able to be sure it's stable, and problems are minimal (or non-existant). This is basically what defines (as well as a few other factors) a tier-one platform on FreeBSD.
"Early in the attack, unknown perpetrators targeted SCO's web servers with a SYN flood of approximately 34,000 packets per second," CAIDA said. "Together www.sco.com and ftp.sco.com experienced a SYN flood of over 50,000 packets-per-second early Thursday morning."
Whoa...both ftp and www experienced this? Their www server must be really badly configured compared to their ftp server (or their www server received -a lot- more flooding). During the SYN flood, www.sco.com was unavailable, but ftp.sco.com was easily reached. I checked several times.
RTFA, or even better, RTFP. The only way you'll get an HTA to do anything is with JavaScript (or VBScript, if you're sad enough). It has unrestricted access to the machine, just like any other application, but the UI is done in HTML, with JavaScript and (probably) COM components. It's got nothing to do with web browsers.
Javascript is NOT part of HTML. HTML only knows how to include 'scripts', such as javascript, and a way to reference the scripting language from links and so forth. Although, yeah, maybe I should have said html renderer instead of browser (gecko anyone?). Browser is too specific.
If we still consider this to be HTML somehow, then okay.... The only thing we don't already have is a lack of security in our browsers (because it's easy to get rid of the normal navigation things with web browsers. simply use some javascript when opening a new window *snicker*)
We could call it DHTML Application if you want. That at least implies HTML with some sort of scripting language included.
Umm...what is an html application? html is a -formatting language-. Either this is a really hard patent to infringe on, or they now have a patent on having html stuff displayed without any browser features (it's still a browser, since something has to display it). When I put opera into full screen, things like back and forward go away. Is this what they mean?
But than again, it sounds like they are talking a bunch of junk to let it have purty menus and other widgets, which mean it isn't really just HTML, since HTML doesn't have that stuff. So...why call it HTML? It's obviously not.
Accessmicro...in fact, that's where I got mine (without windows in fact).
On a vaguely related note, one of my friend's family ordered a new computer in August from Dell. Dell kept pushing the shipping date later and later until his family gave up in mid October. Then they got one from Accessmicro (with windows ick). They don't seem to like Dell much anymore:P
Another one of my friends hates Dell. He's an anti-dell zealot if there ever was one (he says it has something to do with the fact that dell is trying to create a monopoly over desktop computers).
Someone else I know also noted the E in Dell is slanted in the same way as the Enron E
I don't think I really know anyone who likes dell. Odd. (And then there is this):P
I don't understand people like this. There is a BIG difference betweeen intelectual property and clothing whether you like it or not. When I download a song I am NOT depriving the RIAA of anything. I am simply copying it. They are still free to sell the music that people are willing to buy. I'm not claiming what I do is legal but I this is just an unfair comparison.
You're depriving the RIAA (or its members really) of profit. Of course, the RIAA doesn't need profit. It's the artists that do. Pondering for a bit here, and it seems like you might not even be able to get the CD from the artists directly (assumming they would). Why? Because the the Record Company owns it, and they hold the copyright, -not- the artist (not usually at least).
[snip DragonFly stuff list]... Oh, boy! Let's look at 5.1-RELEASE's features: rcNG, KSE, Mandatory Access Control framework, better SMP, fast ATA drivers. I hate to say it, but, DragonFlyBSD is all most as silly as that xMach project.:-) It's about arrogance, not software.
It wouldn't surprise me if a good deal of the 'good' things will be ported back to FreeBSD. One of the things about the *BSDs is a lot of (code) sharing goes around.
I'm kinda wondering what DragonFly-STABLE has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't have...I mean..wait... >:P
But if you want a PC, even to run an non-Microsoft OS, you generally have to pay for Windows - even if you choose not to use it.
I managed to get out of (most of anyway) the cost of paying for doze and saved $200+
It was cool when I got the computer. I started it up and was happy when it complained it couldn't find anything to start up OS-wise. I like getting my computers in the Nude, so then I installed something that I liked better than doze on it.:)
However, relying on version numbers to determine the number of vulnerable OpenSSL sites is flawed because vendors backport security patches. So a site using OpenSSL on a Red Hat 9 system will likely report itself as OpenSSL 0.9.7a even though it isn't vulnerable to any of the issues mentioned and the situation is similar for SuSE, Debian, Mandrake, and most of the Linux distributions. Additionally, many of the vendor distributions of Apache have recently started supressing all the extra module information by default, so newer distributions (ones that are not vulnerable) are less likely to be listed.
I'd just add, that FreeBSD does the same thing.
That's because the patch provided by the openssl team does not change the version number, and I doubt anyone outside of the openssl team is gonna want to muck around with the patch more then they need to. If the patch works, and there are no portability issues, then why bother changing it (and making it break)?
openssl is in the base system of FreeBSD, so you can't use something like portupgrade and be done (well, you -can- use the ports version, but I only have the one in the base system installed). FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE probably uses a version of openssl with updated version numbers.
8th Affirmative Defense - The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based theron, or related thereto, are barred.'
Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."
I don't see how the US constitution plays into this either. IIRC, the constitution does little more than dictate how the federal government works. Licensing would have little to do with it then. Possibly, some federal grant money has been contributed to help out or the government may use some GPL licensed things, but I doubt the constitution has anything to say about that.
I doubt antitrust laws would play into this either....it's a license. It's not like their trying to take over the world and force people to use the GPL. Think of it kinda like a premade sign. You can make your own 'sign', or you can use the FSF's. (Although, you could say the GPL has been more 'stressed' tested)
Copyright laws might have something to say about this, but I doubt they dictate what a license can say. Or even if they did, it seems doubtful they'd restrict the distribution methods it requires.
However, I think it's a good idea to remember I'm NOT a lawyer, so I might have gotten something horribly worng:P
What ethernet card was this? I have seen issues with RealTek and Via Rhine ethernet chipsets, mostly because they are awful chipsets. (Not trying to make excuses for FreeBSD. Though I have never seen problems with an ethernet card under FreeBSD except under -CURRENT).
I don't remember what card exactly it was, but it used the xl driver. I had also tried an SMC? that used the dc driver, and it seemed bpf breaking then (but I'm not expert at debugging the kernel). But it appears to be fixed in 4.9, so I'm happy.
I can tell already 4.9 is gonna be better than 4.8 was. I had a machine running 4.8 that would panic and reboot under heavy load (problem was apparently in the driver for the ethernet card). Since I really had nothing to lose, I decided to go up to the release canidate of whatever version was available.
This was friday morning, and the newest version of stable was RC3. I downloaded it,...and it didn't work (and checksum mismatch, which might explain it just -slightly-).
I looked back at the server, and RC4 had been put on the server while I was downloading RC3. Okay! Download, and before too much time passed, 4.9-RC4 was running.
I pushed and pulled some large files off and on it (100 mbit, which in 4.8 it wasn't lasting longer than a few minutes on that card), and this time it stayed up (and it's still up).
Old news!... and its a technical release still. THe ports are REAALL broken.
Upgrade ports then?
The ports that came with 5.1 worked fine for me though. In fact, the only thing that hasn't worked is wine, and apparently the stuff that breaks wine is fixed in CURRENT. That should mean it'll work when 5.2 rolls around.
Until two weeks ago, I was using an old 122mhz 486. That part isn't -too- bad, but I think the case might date back...20 years? I'm a young'un, so it is older then I am.
A friend of mine has an old ast that looks a lot like a those old beige macs. 66 mhz Cyrix with an entire 12 MB of ram. And yes, he still uses it (but he has a bunch of faster computers too).
Slashdot Mirror
How is this off-topic?? RTFA...wait, there is no article.
This may help.
Let it snow, let it snow...
On the other hand, NetBSD has had amd64 support since 2001.
So NetBSD supports it before AMD even -officially- released it? The specs and emulator(s) have been around for a while, but I seriosuly doubt you could even get AMD's 64bit processors before this year (or possibly maybe even last year, but still, 2002 > 2001).
Although, there could be a blurring of lines on what 'support' means. I look at 'support' as being able to be sure it's stable, and problems are minimal (or non-existant). This is basically what defines (as well as a few other factors) a tier-one platform on FreeBSD.
Check the release dates for the Athlon 64 and Opteron.
"Early in the attack, unknown perpetrators targeted SCO's web servers with a SYN flood of approximately 34,000 packets per second," CAIDA said. "Together www.sco.com and ftp.sco.com experienced a SYN flood of over 50,000 packets-per-second early Thursday morning."
Whoa...both ftp and www experienced this? Their www server must be really badly configured compared to their ftp server (or their www server received -a lot- more flooding). During the SYN flood, www.sco.com was unavailable, but ftp.sco.com was easily reached. I checked several times.
RTFA, or even better, RTFP. The only way you'll get an HTA to do anything is with JavaScript (or VBScript, if you're sad enough). It has unrestricted access to the machine, just like any other application, but the UI is done in HTML, with JavaScript and (probably) COM components. It's got nothing to do with web browsers.
Javascript is NOT part of HTML. HTML only knows how to include 'scripts', such as javascript, and a way to reference the scripting language from links and so forth. Although, yeah, maybe I should have said html renderer instead of browser (gecko anyone?). Browser is too specific.
If we still consider this to be HTML somehow, then okay.... The only thing we don't already have is a lack of security in our browsers (because it's easy to get rid of the normal navigation things with web browsers. simply use some javascript when opening a new window *snicker*)
We could call it DHTML Application if you want. That at least implies HTML with some sort of scripting language included.
Umm...what is an html application? html is a -formatting language-. Either this is a really hard patent to infringe on, or they now have a patent on having html stuff displayed without any browser features (it's still a browser, since something has to display it). When I put opera into full screen, things like back and forward go away. Is this what they mean?
But than again, it sounds like they are talking a bunch of junk to let it have purty menus and other widgets, which mean it isn't really just HTML, since HTML doesn't have that stuff. So...why call it HTML? It's obviously not.
They probably just looked in the back of the book.
No, that was an even problem. Only odd problems are in the back of the book.
On a vaguely related note, one of my friend's family ordered a new computer in August from Dell. Dell kept pushing the shipping date later and later until his family gave up in mid October. Then they got one from Accessmicro (with windows ick). They don't seem to like Dell much anymore :P
Another one of my friends hates Dell. He's an anti-dell zealot if there ever was one (he says it has something to do with the fact that dell is trying to create a monopoly over desktop computers).
Someone else I know also noted the E in Dell is slanted in the same way as the Enron E
I don't think I really know anyone who likes dell. Odd. (And then there is this) :P
does this code belong to sco?
Yes. However, in the attempt to make Linux more user friendly, new non-SCO code has been committed to make the hole easier to exploit.
Pretty much -all- of the commits I've seen had to do with syncing with the OpenBSD tree. Just how much code has the ekkoBSD project itself written?
TrollAssasin would be nice, imagine seeing posts subjects as *****TROLL***** heh
Seriously, wasn't that one of the ideas behind moderation?
Are we gonna have a "Free The Hard Drive March" now?
I don't understand people like this. There is a BIG difference betweeen intelectual property and clothing whether you like it or not. When I download a song I am NOT depriving the RIAA of anything. I am simply copying it. They are still free to sell the music that people are willing to buy. I'm not claiming what I do is legal but I this is just an unfair comparison.
You're depriving the RIAA (or its members really) of profit. Of course, the RIAA doesn't need profit. It's the artists that do. Pondering for a bit here, and it seems like you might not even be able to get the CD from the artists directly (assumming they would). Why? Because the the Record Company owns it, and they hold the copyright, -not- the artist (not usually at least).
[snip DragonFly stuff list]... Oh, boy! Let's look at 5.1-RELEASE's features: rcNG, KSE, Mandatory Access Control framework, better SMP, fast ATA drivers. I hate to say it, but, DragonFlyBSD is all most as silly as that xMach project. :-) It's about arrogance, not software.
It wouldn't surprise me if a good deal of the 'good' things will be ported back to FreeBSD. One of the things about the *BSDs is a lot of (code) sharing goes around.
I'm kinda wondering what DragonFly-STABLE has that FreeBSD-STABLE doesn't have...I mean..wait... >:P
now SCO is targetting DEAD OSes! ;-)
You mean next they'll be targetting SCO Unix? ...er..wait a sec..
Like they say: A computer without Windows Media Player is like a dog without a brick tied to its head.
Or cake without mustard.
Or waffles without toenail fungus.
No betting on when a time machine will be invented. Because the person who guesses when, is probably the bastard that did invent it.
If this post didn't make your head spin on your shoulders and implode, then you have a better temproral mind than I.
Sorry, my head was already spinning on my shoulders from a lack of sleep. I'm inventing a time machine, you see.
But if you want a PC, even to run an non-Microsoft OS, you generally have to pay for Windows - even if you choose not to use it.
I managed to get out of (most of anyway) the cost of paying for doze and saved $200+
It was cool when I got the computer. I started it up and was happy when it complained it couldn't find anything to start up OS-wise. I like getting my computers in the Nude, so then I installed something that I liked better than doze on it. :)
Indeed, but:
I'd just add, that FreeBSD does the same thing.
That's because the patch provided by the openssl team does not change the version number, and I doubt anyone outside of the openssl team is gonna want to muck around with the patch more then they need to. If the patch works, and there are no portability issues, then why bother changing it (and making it break)?
openssl is in the base system of FreeBSD, so you can't use something like portupgrade and be done (well, you -can- use the ports version, but I only have the one in the base system installed). FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE probably uses a version of openssl with updated version numbers.
Export control laws? I see, now. Their defense is "We're to fucking retarded that we need a keeper. Please give us money."
I don't see how the US constitution plays into this either. IIRC, the constitution does little more than dictate how the federal government works. Licensing would have little to do with it then. Possibly, some federal grant money has been contributed to help out or the government may use some GPL licensed things, but I doubt the constitution has anything to say about that.
I doubt antitrust laws would play into this either....it's a license. It's not like their trying to take over the world and force people to use the GPL. Think of it kinda like a premade sign. You can make your own 'sign', or you can use the FSF's. (Although, you could say the GPL has been more 'stressed' tested)
Copyright laws might have something to say about this, but I doubt they dictate what a license can say. Or even if they did, it seems doubtful they'd restrict the distribution methods it requires.
However, I think it's a good idea to remember I'm NOT a lawyer, so I might have gotten something horribly worng :P
What ethernet card was this? I have seen issues with RealTek and Via Rhine ethernet chipsets, mostly because they are awful chipsets. (Not trying to make excuses for FreeBSD. Though I have never seen problems with an ethernet card under FreeBSD except under -CURRENT).
I don't remember what card exactly it was, but it used the xl driver. I had also tried an SMC? that used the dc driver, and it seemed bpf breaking then (but I'm not expert at debugging the kernel). But it appears to be fixed in 4.9, so I'm happy.
I can tell already 4.9 is gonna be better than 4.8 was. I had a machine running 4.8 that would panic and reboot under heavy load (problem was apparently in the driver for the ethernet card). Since I really had nothing to lose, I decided to go up to the release canidate of whatever version was available.
...and it didn't work (and checksum mismatch, which might explain it just -slightly-).
This was friday morning, and the newest version of stable was RC3. I downloaded it,
I looked back at the server, and RC4 had been put on the server while I was downloading RC3. Okay! Download, and before too much time passed, 4.9-RC4 was running.
I pushed and pulled some large files off and on it (100 mbit, which in 4.8 it wasn't lasting longer than a few minutes on that card), and this time it stayed up (and it's still up).
Like they say, windows and NetBSD are toaster OSes.
Windows turns your computer into a toaster.
NetBSD turns your toaster into a computer.
Old news! ... and its a technical release still. THe ports are REAALL broken.
Upgrade ports then?
The ports that came with 5.1 worked fine for me though. In fact, the only thing that hasn't worked is wine, and apparently the stuff that breaks wine is fixed in CURRENT. That should mean it'll work when 5.2 rolls around.
Until two weeks ago, I was using an old 122mhz 486. That part isn't -too- bad, but I think the case might date back...20 years? I'm a young'un, so it is older then I am.
A friend of mine has an old ast that looks a lot like a those old beige macs. 66 mhz Cyrix with an entire 12 MB of ram. And yes, he still uses it (but he has a bunch of faster computers too).