Only the CIA computer (terminal) in Mission Impossible was so silent, that Ethan Hunt had a pretty hard time to work on it without triggering the noise sensor alarms...
I switched recently to a Soekris net4801 with a 2.5" harddrive as my main ADSL router, Postfix, Cyrus/IMAP, and thttpd server, running FreeBSD 5.2.1.
One of the main reasons was the noise of the PC being always on. Of course, the other reason was to save (a lot of) power. Now, my desktop PC is still not silent, but it's great to be able to turn if off before going to bed.
That's not new, ROKSO
on
Spam's U.S. Roots
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Spamhaus published ROKSO list has always shown that most top spammers are U.S.-based.
All it takes is more vigorous law enforcement. Where are the prosecutors, when we really need them?
Yes, 17 to 20 years is a long time, esp. in the IT field.
And this is optimistic too, because we never know what those Congress critters will do when pressed to extend patent protection to, say, 50 years or so, just like they extended copyright protection from 70 years to 95 years post-mortem.
Hardware hacking is not that difficult. Everything encrypted will
eventually need to be decrypted at some stage in the processing. Grab
that signal, and write it to non-DRM media.
If your close relatives and people you trust get a worm or virus, it's already too late. All it takes is for a worm on THEIR computer to harvest your preciously guarded e-mail addy, and voila, you're in.
Unless you make sure that you trust only people who don't use Windows, that is.
Good idea! That is, until spammers start advertising non-spam
sites that would get the heat.
But the idea is good nonetheless. A few volunteers could
harvest spammer-advertised website URLs; verify that they
do indeed belong to those scumbags, and only then DDoS them.
A little bit less draconian are challenge-response systems
like TMDA. They are whitelist
based too, but allow senders to add themselves to a greylist,
if they reply to an initial challenge. So if someone has a
legitimate interest in contacting you, they can still do so. OTOH, Spammers
won't see the bounces and will not reply to the challenge.
And for all those who would object about backscatter,
it is a piece of cake to configure your MTA or MUA to filter
out TMDA challenges. If you know that you didn't contact
someone, you can safely ignore their bounces.
TMDA is a wonderful system that is pretty effective. In
many organizations, it reduced the amount of spam by over
99.2%. Unlike content based filtering, it doesn't have problems
with false positives.
My first reaction was: "Why the heck should Linux be Unix-certified? With increasing popularity, Unix will soon have to be
Linux-certified if it wants to get any kind of market acceptance."
Well, as amusing as it may be, this thought is flawed. First of all Linux is merely the kernel; it's not even glibc,
nor any other GNU tools, or third party packages. BSDs are Unix-like OS, just like Linux(-distros) are Unix-like. Solaris is
also _a_ Unix-like OS, just like HP-UX.
Actually Unix has become a generic term which refers to all kind of kernels that expose a POSIX (don't remember
the exact number) interface to userland applications. Any kernel (or microkernel + servers) that implements this
interface, can be justly called Unix (or at least Unix-like; so as to not feed SCOundrel or Open Group lawyers).
The really interesting thing about the hype around Linux, is when we will move on and replace the Linux kernel
with something totally different (be it microkernelized, or whatever). Then, we won't have just a GNU/Linux
system anymore, but, say, also a GNU/Hurd/L4, GNU/Hurd/Mach or GNU/BSD, BSD/Linux, BSD/Hurd/*,... system
(terminology being
"OS personality"/"OS servers"/"microkernel"
or "OS personality"/"monolithic kernel").
It seems silly to use the kernel name only as a brand for all kind of Unix-oid systems, regardless of
them using the Linux kernel or something else; but providing the POSIX Unix interface.
To wrap it up: it's just a matter of names and brands. As other posters have commented before,
Linux has gained enough popularity and visibility. It doesn't need to be certified to be successful!
It is irrelevant wether the person who was spied on was
a public servant or a private employee. It's not the job
of sysadmins to assess the amount of work a user is doing.
If he was having problems with his boss playing solitaire,
he could have reported this to his boss'es boss and if that
didn't work, then even higher up. He may even have acted
like a regular whistleblower and report this to the press too.
BUT, he should NEVER EVER have abused his position of
trust, by installing spying software,
even if it helped catch the alledged offender red-handed.
This is just as reprehensible as recording speeches with
a hidden recorder: most courts would throw out such
illegaly obtained "evidence", because it was obtained
in bad faith.
No, I beg to disagree. A sysadmin is in a position of trust.
He is not like any other normal whistleblower.
Being able to access every account in a system bears special
responsibilities, esp. the ability to keep your mouth shut.
Imagine your bank clerk would disclose your _true_ income to the
IRS, just because she felt you were trying to circumvent taxes?
Or what about your attorney going to the prosecutor, because
he discovered that you were really guilty in a case?
Whatever, a whistleblower is a good guy, but sysadmins
should refrain from _actively_ spying on their users, no matter
what axe they have to grind with them. It is blatantly unethical.
Uh, no. Firing this guy was absolutely the right decision
to take. Sysadmins have very high responsibilities w.r.t.
privacy. Spying on your boss (or any other computer user),
just because you have a grief with them, is absolutely
unethical. If we had a sysadmin guild, we'd gladly kick
that guy out, no matter what.
By the same token: it is also absolutely unethical
to spy on user's email or surfing habits. Yes, some
companies have a big brother mentality, and, sadly,
their sysadmins are implementing such stupid policies
without even thinking about it. Perhaps that guy worked
for such evil companies before, and thought he was
doing the right thing. He was dead wrong.
Oh, and btw., only a true BOFH would get away with
this anyway...
MS, as usual, will move in and out of the boundary that separates the legal from the illegal.
No, Microsoft DEFINES the boundary that separates the legal from the illegal. What MSFT does is legal, what the competition does is illegal. It's that simple.
A congressman is a great investment. Everyone should own one!
There are no BSD vendors with big pockets out there. SCO can sue individuals as long as they like.
It will only be a drain on their litigation money and will lead them nowhere.
you sell over 100 products based directly on this invention
Microsoft is certainly selling a lot more than that (do they have programs that sort images based on time? Probably).
Yet this kind of patent STILL has no merit. Fix the broken patent system, and if you can't, at least please stop trying to force it upon other countries in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Soekris provides small metal cases. You can order them on their site.
In other news: The SCO Group (SCOX) field suit against Al Qadea for their use of unlicensed SCO code in their modified Linux Distro Qaedux.
Imagine Darl McBride whining in Washington DC to get Patriots to protect his HQ against "those evil Linux/Qaedux using terrorists."
Of course, Linux:
Or perhaps a derivative, named Quaedux.
Now imagine Darl going after Al Quaeda for copyright infrigements in Quaedux...!
Only the CIA computer (terminal) in Mission Impossible was so silent, that Ethan Hunt had a pretty hard time to work on it without triggering the noise sensor alarms...
I switched recently to a Soekris net4801 with a 2.5" harddrive as my main ADSL router, Postfix, Cyrus/IMAP, and thttpd server, running FreeBSD 5.2.1.
One of the main reasons was the noise of the PC being always on. Of course, the other reason was to save (a lot of) power. Now, my desktop PC is still not silent, but it's great to be able to turn if off before going to bed.
Spamhaus published ROKSO list has always shown that most top spammers are U.S.-based.
All it takes is more vigorous law enforcement. Where are the prosecutors, when we really need them?
Yes, 17 to 20 years is a long time, esp. in the IT field.
And this is optimistic too, because we never know what those Congress critters will do when pressed to extend patent protection to, say, 50 years or so, just like they extended copyright protection from 70 years to 95 years post-mortem.
When was that alledged patent filed? We may as well be patient and wait for it to expire, just like GIF, RSA etc...
Hardware hacking is not that difficult. Everything encrypted will eventually need to be decrypted at some stage in the processing. Grab that signal, and write it to non-DRM media.
That's a common myth that needs to be debunked.
If your close relatives and people you trust get a worm or virus, it's already too late. All it takes is for a worm on THEIR computer to harvest your preciously guarded e-mail addy, and voila, you're in.
Unless you make sure that you trust only people who don't use Windows, that is.
Good idea! That is, until spammers start advertising non-spam sites that would get the heat.
But the idea is good nonetheless. A few volunteers could harvest spammer-advertised website URLs; verify that they do indeed belong to those scumbags, and only then DDoS them.
A little bit less draconian are challenge-response systems like TMDA. They are whitelist based too, but allow senders to add themselves to a greylist, if they reply to an initial challenge. So if someone has a legitimate interest in contacting you, they can still do so. OTOH, Spammers won't see the bounces and will not reply to the challenge.
And for all those who would object about backscatter, it is a piece of cake to configure your MTA or MUA to filter out TMDA challenges. If you know that you didn't contact someone, you can safely ignore their bounces.
TMDA is a wonderful system that is pretty effective. In many organizations, it reduced the amount of spam by over 99.2%. Unlike content based filtering, it doesn't have problems with false positives.
Yes. Unfortunately, all it takes is one pawn to knock off a whole army of lawyers; iff he/she has the right piece of evidence.
A lot of problems (though not all) would go away with the right GCC extension.
That's why he should use encryption:
GNU: GNU (is) Now Unix
My first reaction was: "Why the heck should Linux be Unix-certified? With increasing popularity, Unix will soon have to be Linux-certified if it wants to get any kind of market acceptance."
Well, as amusing as it may be, this thought is flawed. First of all Linux is merely the kernel; it's not even glibc, nor any other GNU tools, or third party packages. BSDs are Unix-like OS, just like Linux(-distros) are Unix-like. Solaris is also _a_ Unix-like OS, just like HP-UX.
Actually Unix has become a generic term which refers to all kind of kernels that expose a POSIX (don't remember the exact number) interface to userland applications. Any kernel (or microkernel + servers) that implements this interface, can be justly called Unix (or at least Unix-like; so as to not feed SCOundrel or Open Group lawyers).
The really interesting thing about the hype around Linux, is when we will move on and replace the Linux kernel with something totally different (be it microkernelized, or whatever). Then, we won't have just a GNU/Linux system anymore, but, say, also a GNU/Hurd/L4, GNU/Hurd/Mach or GNU/BSD, BSD/Linux, BSD/Hurd/*, ... system
(terminology being
"OS personality"/"OS servers"/"microkernel"
or "OS personality"/"monolithic kernel").
It seems silly to use the kernel name only as a brand for all kind of Unix-oid systems, regardless of them using the Linux kernel or something else; but providing the POSIX Unix interface.
To wrap it up: it's just a matter of names and brands. As other posters have commented before, Linux has gained enough popularity and visibility. It doesn't need to be certified to be successful!
It is irrelevant wether the person who was spied on was a public servant or a private employee. It's not the job of sysadmins to assess the amount of work a user is doing. If he was having problems with his boss playing solitaire, he could have reported this to his boss'es boss and if that didn't work, then even higher up. He may even have acted like a regular whistleblower and report this to the press too.
BUT, he should NEVER EVER have abused his position of trust, by installing spying software, even if it helped catch the alledged offender red-handed. This is just as reprehensible as recording speeches with a hidden recorder: most courts would throw out such illegaly obtained "evidence", because it was obtained in bad faith.
No, I beg to disagree. A sysadmin is in a position of trust. He is not like any other normal whistleblower.
Being able to access every account in a system bears special responsibilities, esp. the ability to keep your mouth shut. Imagine your bank clerk would disclose your _true_ income to the IRS, just because she felt you were trying to circumvent taxes? Or what about your attorney going to the prosecutor, because he discovered that you were really guilty in a case?
Whatever, a whistleblower is a good guy, but sysadmins should refrain from _actively_ spying on their users, no matter what axe they have to grind with them. It is blatantly unethical.
Uh, no. Firing this guy was absolutely the right decision to take. Sysadmins have very high responsibilities w.r.t. privacy. Spying on your boss (or any other computer user), just because you have a grief with them, is absolutely unethical. If we had a sysadmin guild, we'd gladly kick that guy out, no matter what.
By the same token: it is also absolutely unethical to spy on user's email or surfing habits. Yes, some companies have a big brother mentality, and, sadly, their sysadmins are implementing such stupid policies without even thinking about it. Perhaps that guy worked for such evil companies before, and thought he was doing the right thing. He was dead wrong.
Oh, and btw., only a true BOFH would get away with this anyway...
What this sysadmin did was absolutely unethical. I'm glad that he was fired.
Care to give one real example?
I didn't stumble across one java program that would barf on a recent CURRENT.
MS, as usual, will move in and out of the boundary that separates the legal from the illegal.
No, Microsoft DEFINES the boundary that separates the legal from the illegal. What MSFT does is legal, what the competition does is illegal. It's that simple.
A congressman is a great investment. Everyone should own one!
There are no BSD vendors with big pockets out there. SCO can sue individuals as long as they like. It will only be a drain on their litigation money and will lead them nowhere.
demonstrate your invention working.
Sorting images based on time works.
you sell over 100 products based directly on this invention
Microsoft is certainly selling a lot more than that (do they have programs that sort images based on time? Probably).
Yet this kind of patent STILL has no merit. Fix the broken patent system, and if you can't, at least please stop trying to force it upon other countries in the world.