While I don't really care for UF as much as I used to, it's still nice to see an online comic getting some mainstream publishing so that non-onliners can even pick it up. I think the biggest problem today with online comics that are published in bookform is that they are not mainstream, but self-published or published by small houses like Plan Nine. I'd love to be able to walk into my local Barnes&Noble and pick up a copy of Goats, PVP, PLIF, or GPF.
The reason you haven't needed it is just because Thomas is such a damn good prof. I skipped class almost daily, so the book was a lot more useful for me. I'm CS so I never really covered a lot of the material in the book. I had no idea what a K-map was before that class. The book also came in handy when it was time to start writing Verilog code.
So Linux is the same way in that Linus only accepts good and valuable code. Where you are wrong is that you fail to take into account the BSD license, which is both more open and less open then the GPL. The thing with the BSD licence is that you can take the code, make modifications, but do not need to share those modifications with the world.
Okay, while it would be reliable to attack the whole document as FUD, I just want to touch on some of the security issues that they bring up.
Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.
Can somebody please tell me why any user process would need to manipulate OS data structures? It seems to me that this is an inherently bad thing to do.
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
Whoever wrote this is obviously living in a cave. Linux administrators probably spend less tim trying to understand the "latest linux bugs" then NT administrators spend on NT bugs. At least if there is a linux bug, you can either go in and fix it yourself, or after a quick post to the relevant mailing list, get the patch in a day or so. As opposed to NT, where you have to whip out the tea leaves just to divine where the bug is coming from, and then hopefully figure out a work around, since God knows Microsoft will not get around to fixing it unless you're lucky enough it's in the next service pack 8 months down the road.
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
Wrong. Incorrect. It doesn't require an "expert" at anything, let alone the OS. What it does require is either a working knowledge (or the ability to read a HOWTO) of various programs that are *NOT* part of the operating system. If sendmail is vulnerable, don't install it. Whereas the very fact that you have NT installed probably opens you up to hundreds (thousands?) of security holes.
All in all, this article made amusing reading for the fact that some people will actually buy in and believe this tripe. There are some valid points raised in the article, and those points should probably be addressed, but it's hard to abstract from all of the FUD.
The Weizmann institute says it has a device. Yet later in the article a member of the EIQC says that Quantum COmputers are still some ways off.
I am guessing that this means the Weizmann Institute has designed a machine that theoretically could crack RSA 512 encryption IF AND WHEN it can be built.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't really care for UF as much as I used to, it's still nice to see an online comic getting some mainstream publishing so that non-onliners can even pick it up. I think the biggest problem today with online comics that are published in bookform is that they are not mainstream, but self-published or published by small houses like Plan Nine. I'd love to be able to walk into my local Barnes&Noble and pick up a copy of Goats, PVP, PLIF, or GPF.
And you thought the lines to get into Space Mountatin were long.
Unfortunately, there aren't any hidden messages on the legal/copyright page. I guess even in ultra-cool startups the lawyers are stodgy and boring.
I'm just happy to note that the Transmeta page is completely lynx compliant.
The reason you haven't needed it is just because Thomas is such a damn good prof. I skipped class almost daily, so the book was a lot more useful for me. I'm CS so I never really covered a lot of the material in the book. I had no idea what a K-map was before that class. The book also came in handy when it was time to start writing Verilog code.
So Linux is the same way in that Linus only accepts good and valuable code. Where you are wrong is that you fail to take into account the BSD license, which is both more open and less open then the GPL. The thing with the BSD licence is that you can take the code, make modifications, but do not need to share those modifications with the world.
Okay, while it would be reliable to attack the whole document as FUD, I just want to touch on some of the security issues that they bring up.
Linux only provides access controls for files and directories. In contrast, every object in Windows NT, from files to operating system data structures, has an access control list and its use can be regulated as appropriate.
Can somebody please tell me why any user process would need to manipulate OS data structures? It seems to me that this is an inherently bad thing to do.
Linux system administrators must spend huge amounts of time understanding the latest Linux bugs and determining what to do about them. This is made complex due to the fact that there isn't a central location for security issues to be reported and fixed. In contrast Microsoft provides a single security repository for notification and fixes of security related issues.
Whoever wrote this is obviously living in a cave. Linux administrators probably spend less tim trying to understand the "latest linux bugs" then NT administrators spend on NT bugs. At least if there is a linux bug, you can either go in and fix it yourself, or after a quick post to the relevant mailing list, get the patch in a day or so. As opposed to NT, where you have to whip out the tea leaves just to divine where the bug is coming from, and then hopefully figure out a work around, since God knows Microsoft will not get around to fixing it unless you're lucky enough it's in the next service pack 8 months down the road.
Configuring Linux security requires an administrator to be an expert in the intricacies of the operating system and how components interact. Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be vulnerable to attack. Windows NT security is easy to set up and administer with tools such as the Security Configuration Editor.
Wrong. Incorrect. It doesn't require an "expert" at anything, let alone the OS. What it does require is either a working knowledge (or the ability to read a HOWTO) of various programs that are *NOT* part of the operating system. If sendmail is vulnerable, don't install it. Whereas the very fact that you have NT installed probably opens you up to hundreds (thousands?) of security holes.
All in all, this article made amusing reading for the fact that some people will actually buy in and believe this tripe. There are some valid points raised in the article, and those points should probably be addressed, but it's hard to abstract from all of the FUD.
The Weizmann institute says it has a device. Yet later in the article a member of the EIQC says that Quantum COmputers are still some ways off.
I am guessing that this means the Weizmann Institute has designed a machine that theoretically could crack RSA 512 encryption IF AND WHEN it can be built.
Make a better mousetrap, and a computer genetic algorithm will build a bridge to your door.