BTW, if Android tablets are dead, then the entire tablet market is also dead which may not be that far off. I'm not convinced the tablet thing isn't a fad that will wear off in 12-18 months. Tablets have been around for years yet have not found an actual purpose outside of niche applications.
They have, but not in the very slim, light form factor that things like the iPad enjoy. Mostly, they've been over-engineered laptops which are way too heavy to comfortably hold and use like a clipboard.
I don't deny it could easily wind up becoming a niche market, but I can see it being a bit odd among niche markets - I can easily see there being lots of niches into which they could fit.
The rot set in long before then. IIRC this started to blow up circa 2002, and by mid-2003 I was meeting people who'd never even used Unix professionally and had independently reached the conclusion that SCO were doing some very odd things.
IMV suing your customers is generally considered to be a Very Bad Idea. Suing your customers and then announcing this fact proudly to the press is... well, it's mind-boggling. Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone running a business would authorise a press release which essentially said "We're suing our customers". The only rational explanation is that there was something else - unrelated to SCOs continued business as an OS vendor - that was pushing Darl to do this.
I generally shy away from conspiracy theories because they almost inevitably end up with some absurdly convoluted idea that includes Elvis still being alive and in cahoots with Dracula - but it's really hard to avoid here.
So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.
Can't think why you'd want the Unixware and Openserver business. Unless you were getting it stupidly cheap and were going to use it to convert the few remaining Unixware/OpenServer customers to Linux (and bill them handsomely for the privilege).
Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL
Before you get voted up, that is the whole point of having a limited company. I believe you call it something else in the US but the general idea's the same - the liability (ie. the assets that can be taken to pay the debts) is limited to what the company owns. The logic is that it encourages businesses because a man is much more likely to take risks if he's not going to lose all his assets if it all goes to pot.
Darl McBride owns his house. But it's not Darl McBride that's in financial trouble, it's his company. That Darl McBride may wind up in financial trouble at a later date as a direct result of this (eg. he wins up jobless) is neither here nor there as far as the company being in bankruptcy is concerned.
Well and good, but with most of us having routers that are left plugged in 24/7 these days, they're essentially having to allocate IP addresses to routers that may be sitting idle much of the time.
I suspect we'll see ISPs supplying their own routers which are nailed to drop the connection when it's not in use before we see widespread adoption of IPv6.
What happens when someone resolves an IPv6 address and their software and/or IP configuration won't support it? The point is that websites have to be 100% backwards compatible with IPv4 but an IPv6 presence will be optional. The point is that everything/everyone will have to maintain IPv4 compatibility which means there is simply no incentive to go dual-stack.
we only offer dynamic IP addresses, therefore our service will not be changing in any way.
I Hope that this answers your query.
I did reply to the effect that sooner rather than later they'd have more customers than they had dynamic addresses to give out, but haven't had a reply.
Pretty sure I'm contracted with them until the end of the year. Dammit. Hopefully them putting me behind a carrier-grade NAT would amount to breach of contract, allowing me to get out.
if perl was installed (as it is on almost every linux system these days) his scripts would have run.
First rule of information security: Never run anything you don't need to. If at all possible, don't even install it. Who cares about an exploit in ${PACKAGE} when you haven't got that installed anyway?
Any hacker worth their salt wouldn't be too disappointed that perl wasn't installed. He already had a root prompt and ls showed a.apt directory - there's a good chance apt-get install perl would have got perl in there in about 20 seconds flat.
this guy was simply to follow his cheat sheet and it didn't work. in fact, i see this as a complete failure of the honeypot scenario as it's supposed to provide a fake environment to gather intel. this honeypot does nothing of the sort and seems to be more for entertainment than anything else.
I'm not so sure. We now have a good idea what's on his cheat sheet and - more importantly - have a number of URLs where some potentially interesting scripts may be found. It's possible (though if this is the sort of thing we're dealing with, I'd venture unlikely) that those scripts might provide information about a hitherto unknown local exploit.
The question I would have is this: Would the MS system have held better?
The answer is "it depends".
Mostly, it depends on who's doing the hacking and who's managing the system. If it's a bunch of script kiddies or some bot which tries a number of well-known hacks then gives up and the system is competently managed, chances are neither would be particularly insecure.
If the system is poorly managed - be it Windows or Linux - chances are it's not going to take much effort to get in and some kid following a script without really understanding it could do it.
Where things get interesting (and impossible to discuss meaningfully without a better understanding of the systems themselves) is when you have competent, well-funded IT management (which I would hope any stock exchange would) and competent, well-funded attackers who are focused on a single goal (which is entirely possible when you're talking about a high-profile victim like this).
Email on its own is not enough, and hasn't been for several years.
Microsoft are at least partly responsible for this; people expect a lot more than just email these days. They expect fully integrated calendaring which allows you to schedule meetings and see when everyone's available, they expect contacts (both shared and private) which are stored on the server and therefore not lost if your PC is.
This was actually the biggest thing that pushed me away from IMAP and to Google with my (soon to be former) employer - it was way cheaper than Exchange - cheaper, in fact, than the colo fees for the secondary MX server - and meant that our sales team (who depend on their contacts list so thoroughly that if one were to lose their contacts list they would be seriously buggered) got free backup for their contacts - something which was always a gap in our previous solution and once I recongised the significance, a serious cause for concern.
Substantially better spam filtering, Google Docs and the calendaring features were icing on the cake.
Fibre to the home is very rare here in the UK. The incumbent telco (who still own much of the infrastructure, despite no longer being a monopoly) is rolling out FTTC, though their first priority is towns that already have cable.
Widespread FTTH is something I don't see happening for at least 10 years here.
Most businesses want a solution, not a religion. When you are already comfortable with Exchange, any alternative will have to offer some real, tangible benefits.
The most likely potential benefits are:
Greater functionality: No chance. None of the F/OSS clones offer even comparable functionality, let alone greater functionality unless you go out and pay for the commercial version. There are one or two solutions which claim not to fall into this trap, but they fall into the age-old F/OSS trap of doing things so differently that there is no way the Powers that Be will sign off on the change and when challenged, the developers insist that their way is better.
Significantly cheaper: Nope, you either go for the free version (with seriously reduced functionality) or the commercial version (which is probably still slightly less capable than Exchange but costs about the same).
Resolves a problem that exists in Exchange. Well, despite the traditional/. view, Exchange is not that bad a product, and for most businesses their existing Exchange server is perfectly adequate and they don't have any significant complaints.
You've missed something that Google (and, for that matter, the Open X-Change people) haven't.
The great majority of businesses are actually pretty small. They don't need huge amounts of infrastructure - there's a good chance their entire server setup is a small box running SBS purchased 5 or 6 years ago, it's starting to look a bit elderly and the business doesn't want to commit the capital expenditure to another similar system. Something like Google apps solves that very neatly.
Larger businesses probably won't go for something like this, but many smaller business may not need to care about things like SOX, PCI etc. So it works pretty well for them.
IIRC it's already been figured out - their top-tier ISPs (presumably under orders from the government) have stopped advertising the addresses they provide routes to at the border routers.
Lloyd Biggle Jr. was dead wrong. That statement is astoundingly stupid if you think about it for even a moment.
A immediate example of a form of tyranny more severe? Religious theocracy imposed from without, with executions for all who refuse to convert. Which has happened many times.
So many times, in fact, that much of the Arab world has such a high percentage of Muslims that there's a good chance a reasonably theocratic government would get elected anyhow. The only thing that's open to debate is would it be a theocratic dictatorship hell-bent on keeping its people living in poverty and hunger or would it be reasonably progressive as they go?
I rather suspect that unless there are some real changes in the Middle East, much of the Arab world will actually become significantly worse. Tunisia has been relatively progressive - sure, it's a Muslim country, but local women wore fairly Western-style clothes and education levels were actually pretty good. I do not think these facts, combined with the fact that all this started in Tunisia, will have escaped the local rulers.
Prosecutors Fallacy much? That they are a monarchy doesn't necessarily cause them to be more or less progressive. The UK is a monarchy...
Only in name.
The UK has been removing power from the monarch since some time before the Restoration. Today, our monarch can't propose legislation and while they can - in theory - veto legislation going through our parliament, this hasn't happened since 1708.
Chances are if it did happen, we'd have a fairly significant political crisis on our hands because the monarch grants assent on the advice of ministers who represent the very parliament that's just passed the bill.
Al-Jazeera is whatever the West wants its people to believe.
Today it's generally being portrayed as a media outlet in the Arab world which is reasonably free (insofar as any media outlet in a muslim country can be). Yet ISTR it was described as a Taliban propaganda station circa 2001-2002.
They were MPs - most people in the public sector can't get the state to pay for a second home! - but actually there is at least one school of thought that suggests that public sector workers aren't that much worse off by the time other benefits are accounted for.
Wouldn't surprise me if they're better off these days - most public sector jobs automatically include inflationary payrises, but I haven't seen a payrise in years. (And I probably won't for some time - salaries in IT around here have gone down, and what was once a reasonable salary is now starting to look rather generous).
Arguably it shouldn't need to exist - Mozilla seem to be able to write an app which runs just fine on OS X without feeling like an X application that's running under OS X under protest - but there you go...
I am aware of the convictions yet I'm still told by the likes of Dell that Microsoft demand all their systems ship Windows or ship not at all - and the Ubuntu systems are limited to one or two models for precisely that reason.
It may be that Dell are talking bullshit. I'm quite sure it's illegal - IIRC it's against the law for company A to dictate how company B runs their business as a condition of a business relationship between them - but I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to find some creative way to interpret that so they can continue the status quo more-or-less unchanged.
Most hardware vendors are quite happy to support the hardware, but on more than one occasion I've found that there's a condition attached to that.
The condition is "no warranty service unless either the system won't boot at all or our magic tool tells you there's a problem". Obviously if the system won't boot at all you're OK, but the magic tool is invariably a Windows application rather than, say, a bootable CD. (Which would make more sense, but could also leave the technician talking an end user through fiddling with their BIOS settings... not ideal).
No, but I don't doubt it for a minute. It became pretty obvious a year or two back when I searched for something on Google and the next time I logged into Amazon it recommended exactly the sort of thing I'd been searching for (but hadn't searched Amazon).
Not to send what exactly? Were browsers to not send cookies by default, they'd break an awful lot of websites for the majority of their users. It's fairly fundamental to HTTP that it's not stateful between requests - cookies allow applications to work around that issue.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, if Android tablets are dead, then the entire tablet market is also dead which may not be that far off. I'm not convinced the tablet thing isn't a fad that will wear off in 12-18 months. Tablets have been around for years yet have not found an actual purpose outside of niche applications.
They have, but not in the very slim, light form factor that things like the iPad enjoy. Mostly, they've been over-engineered laptops which are way too heavy to comfortably hold and use like a clipboard.
I don't deny it could easily wind up becoming a niche market, but I can see it being a bit odd among niche markets - I can easily see there being lots of niches into which they could fit.
The rot set in long before then. IIRC this started to blow up circa 2002, and by mid-2003 I was meeting people who'd never even used Unix professionally and had independently reached the conclusion that SCO were doing some very odd things.
IMV suing your customers is generally considered to be a Very Bad Idea. Suing your customers and then announcing this fact proudly to the press is... well, it's mind-boggling. Seriously, I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone running a business would authorise a press release which essentially said "We're suing our customers". The only rational explanation is that there was something else - unrelated to SCOs continued business as an OS vendor - that was pushing Darl to do this.
I generally shy away from conspiracy theories because they almost inevitably end up with some absurdly convoluted idea that includes Elvis still being alive and in cahoots with Dracula - but it's really hard to avoid here.
So no ownership of Unix or of Linux. All they are really trying to sell is the Unixware and Openserver businesses right now. Last time UnXis tried to buy it the bankruptcy judge said no deal, they need to get his agreement. Also Novell claims the right to veto such a sale and last time said they would.
Can't think why you'd want the Unixware and Openserver business. Unless you were getting it stupidly cheap and were going to use it to convert the few remaining Unixware/OpenServer customers to Linux (and bill them handsomely for the privilege).
Why hasn't the judge taken Darl's computer away? He probably can't afford to replace it, LOL
Before you get voted up, that is the whole point of having a limited company. I believe you call it something else in the US but the general idea's the same - the liability (ie. the assets that can be taken to pay the debts) is limited to what the company owns. The logic is that it encourages businesses because a man is much more likely to take risks if he's not going to lose all his assets if it all goes to pot.
Darl McBride owns his house. But it's not Darl McBride that's in financial trouble, it's his company. That Darl McBride may wind up in financial trouble at a later date as a direct result of this (eg. he wins up jobless) is neither here nor there as far as the company being in bankruptcy is concerned.
Well and good, but with most of us having routers that are left plugged in 24/7 these days, they're essentially having to allocate IP addresses to routers that may be sitting idle much of the time.
I suspect we'll see ISPs supplying their own routers which are nailed to drop the connection when it's not in use before we see widespread adoption of IPv6.
What happens when someone resolves an IPv6 address and their software and/or IP configuration won't support it? The point is that websites have to be 100% backwards compatible with IPv4 but an IPv6 presence will be optional. The point is that everything/everyone will have to maintain IPv4 compatibility which means there is simply no incentive to go dual-stack.
I refer the honourable gentleman to RFC1886.
they most helpfully said:
we only offer dynamic IP addresses, therefore our service will not be changing in any way.
I Hope that this answers your query.
I did reply to the effect that sooner rather than later they'd have more customers than they had dynamic addresses to give out, but haven't had a reply.
Pretty sure I'm contracted with them until the end of the year. Dammit. Hopefully them putting me behind a carrier-grade NAT would amount to breach of contract, allowing me to get out.
if perl was installed (as it is on almost every linux system these days) his scripts would have run.
First rule of information security: Never run anything you don't need to. If at all possible, don't even install it. Who cares about an exploit in ${PACKAGE} when you haven't got that installed anyway?
Any hacker worth their salt wouldn't be too disappointed that perl wasn't installed. He already had a root prompt and ls showed a .apt directory - there's a good chance apt-get install perl would have got perl in there in about 20 seconds flat.
this guy was simply to follow his cheat sheet and it didn't work. in fact, i see this as a complete failure of the honeypot scenario as it's supposed to provide a fake environment to gather intel. this honeypot does nothing of the sort and seems to be more for entertainment than anything else.
I'm not so sure. We now have a good idea what's on his cheat sheet and - more importantly - have a number of URLs where some potentially interesting scripts may be found. It's possible (though if this is the sort of thing we're dealing with, I'd venture unlikely) that those scripts might provide information about a hitherto unknown local exploit.
The question I would have is this: Would the MS system have held better?
The answer is "it depends".
Mostly, it depends on who's doing the hacking and who's managing the system. If it's a bunch of script kiddies or some bot which tries a number of well-known hacks then gives up and the system is competently managed, chances are neither would be particularly insecure.
If the system is poorly managed - be it Windows or Linux - chances are it's not going to take much effort to get in and some kid following a script without really understanding it could do it.
Where things get interesting (and impossible to discuss meaningfully without a better understanding of the systems themselves) is when you have competent, well-funded IT management (which I would hope any stock exchange would) and competent, well-funded attackers who are focused on a single goal (which is entirely possible when you're talking about a high-profile victim like this).
Email on its own is not enough, and hasn't been for several years.
Microsoft are at least partly responsible for this; people expect a lot more than just email these days. They expect fully integrated calendaring which allows you to schedule meetings and see when everyone's available, they expect contacts (both shared and private) which are stored on the server and therefore not lost if your PC is.
This was actually the biggest thing that pushed me away from IMAP and to Google with my (soon to be former) employer - it was way cheaper than Exchange - cheaper, in fact, than the colo fees for the secondary MX server - and meant that our sales team (who depend on their contacts list so thoroughly that if one were to lose their contacts list they would be seriously buggered) got free backup for their contacts - something which was always a gap in our previous solution and once I recongised the significance, a serious cause for concern.
Substantially better spam filtering, Google Docs and the calendaring features were icing on the cake.
Fibre to the home is very rare here in the UK. The incumbent telco (who still own much of the infrastructure, despite no longer being a monopoly) is rolling out FTTC, though their first priority is towns that already have cable.
Widespread FTTH is something I don't see happening for at least 10 years here.
Not really.
Most businesses want a solution, not a religion. When you are already comfortable with Exchange, any alternative will have to offer some real, tangible benefits.
The most likely potential benefits are:
You've missed something that Google (and, for that matter, the Open X-Change people) haven't.
The great majority of businesses are actually pretty small. They don't need huge amounts of infrastructure - there's a good chance their entire server setup is a small box running SBS purchased 5 or 6 years ago, it's starting to look a bit elderly and the business doesn't want to commit the capital expenditure to another similar system. Something like Google apps solves that very neatly.
Larger businesses probably won't go for something like this, but many smaller business may not need to care about things like SOX, PCI etc. So it works pretty well for them.
IIRC it's already been figured out - their top-tier ISPs (presumably under orders from the government) have stopped advertising the addresses they provide routes to at the border routers.
Lloyd Biggle Jr. was dead wrong. That statement is astoundingly stupid if you think about it for even a moment.
A immediate example of a form of tyranny more severe? Religious theocracy imposed from without, with executions for all who refuse to convert. Which has happened many times.
So many times, in fact, that much of the Arab world has such a high percentage of Muslims that there's a good chance a reasonably theocratic government would get elected anyhow. The only thing that's open to debate is would it be a theocratic dictatorship hell-bent on keeping its people living in poverty and hunger or would it be reasonably progressive as they go?
I rather suspect that unless there are some real changes in the Middle East, much of the Arab world will actually become significantly worse. Tunisia has been relatively progressive - sure, it's a Muslim country, but local women wore fairly Western-style clothes and education levels were actually pretty good. I do not think these facts, combined with the fact that all this started in Tunisia, will have escaped the local rulers.
Prosecutors Fallacy much? That they are a monarchy doesn't necessarily cause them to be more or less progressive. The UK is a monarchy ...
Only in name.
The UK has been removing power from the monarch since some time before the Restoration. Today, our monarch can't propose legislation and while they can - in theory - veto legislation going through our parliament, this hasn't happened since 1708.
Chances are if it did happen, we'd have a fairly significant political crisis on our hands because the monarch grants assent on the advice of ministers who represent the very parliament that's just passed the bill.
Al-Jazeera is whatever the West wants its people to believe.
Today it's generally being portrayed as a media outlet in the Arab world which is reasonably free (insofar as any media outlet in a muslim country can be). Yet ISTR it was described as a Taliban propaganda station circa 2001-2002.
They were MPs - most people in the public sector can't get the state to pay for a second home! - but actually there is at least one school of thought that suggests that public sector workers aren't that much worse off by the time other benefits are accounted for.
Wouldn't surprise me if they're better off these days - most public sector jobs automatically include inflationary payrises, but I haven't seen a payrise in years. (And I probably won't for some time - salaries in IT around here have gone down, and what was once a reasonable salary is now starting to look rather generous).
Try NeoOffice.
Arguably it shouldn't need to exist - Mozilla seem to be able to write an app which runs just fine on OS X without feeling like an X application that's running under OS X under protest - but there you go...
Maybe it should be worded another way.
I am aware of the convictions yet I'm still told by the likes of Dell that Microsoft demand all their systems ship Windows or ship not at all - and the Ubuntu systems are limited to one or two models for precisely that reason.
It may be that Dell are talking bullshit. I'm quite sure it's illegal - IIRC it's against the law for company A to dictate how company B runs their business as a condition of a business relationship between them - but I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to find some creative way to interpret that so they can continue the status quo more-or-less unchanged.
Most hardware vendors are quite happy to support the hardware, but on more than one occasion I've found that there's a condition attached to that.
The condition is "no warranty service unless either the system won't boot at all or our magic tool tells you there's a problem". Obviously if the system won't boot at all you're OK, but the magic tool is invariably a Windows application rather than, say, a bootable CD. (Which would make more sense, but could also leave the technician talking an end user through fiddling with their BIOS settings... not ideal).
What's the weather like on your planet?
No, but I don't doubt it for a minute. It became pretty obvious a year or two back when I searched for something on Google and the next time I logged into Amazon it recommended exactly the sort of thing I'd been searching for (but hadn't searched Amazon).
Not to send what exactly? Were browsers to not send cookies by default, they'd break an awful lot of websites for the majority of their users. It's fairly fundamental to HTTP that it's not stateful between requests - cookies allow applications to work around that issue.
What makes you think that people who are currently members of the other 99.something% would do a dramatically better job?