I hope they finally included imap folder browsing. I'm suprised they haven't added a gui (xmutt?) to the program yet. Well, just a useful tidbit of information - Mutt was the open source mailer ESR developed to test the ideas he presented in CatB (The Cathedral and the Bazaar). ESR also thinks this mailer sucks - it just sucks less than all the other mailers.:^)
I get the impression you're being satirical, but yes.. that would help. But since BO2K is GPL'd they'd basically only be selling support / documentation. I'm certain that if they did this the B02K helpline would have some very interesting stories to tell.:^) I might have to go work there if they ever incorporated. Hehehe.
Anyway, more to the point - RealWorld(tm) generally doesn't take things seriously until they're printed on paper with some nice bar graphs and/or pictures and made into a "press release" by an official company.
I have a great deal of respect for anyone who can enjoy life, do what they want, and get by without playing the mainstream game. And I see very little reason why tech people, in particular, should give in to the mainstream game if they don't want to.
I pride myself on being unconventional as well. But I don't portray, or try to portray, myself as a mainstream person. cDc seems to want to be taken seriously, yet they are unwilling to invest the necessary effort to do so. For this they will get no sympathy for me. Now, if they boldly came out and said "we're unconventional - the conventional way of doing things is fundamentally flawed and we're not going to use that methodology" I'd be more supportive. But they're asking mainstream media to accept them - something that is 180 opposite of the methodology they're using. Specifically if you wanna attract the suits, you gotta put a suit on. This is how it works out there. In our community, you're judged on how well you code/hack/do neat stuff with your machine. I cannot, and will not, say that this is a better system than what the mainstream uses... they all have their tradeoffs.
Getting out into the Big Blue Room was alot like getting tossed into freezing cold water for me. It shattered alot of conceptions I had about how the world worked. One of them is that people in general are not judged on the basis of their contributions, but rather on deference to a higher authority. Suprise suprise... that's 180 opposite of this culture - where you are judged on the basis of your work, with (a kind of) "authority" being gained solely on that.
I think that you need to stop using the bold tag because it makes it hard to read your post, which is unfortunate because it's worth a read. I hope you didn't do this to the entire client's website or you'll have people banging down your door to ask you to stop using the bold tag like that.
This wasn't a slam.. I'm just trying to humorously point something out to 'ya!:^)
Yeah, verifiable... Like "Click here only if you've gotten your parent's permission to see hot sexxxy babed"?
There is no foolproof system to ensure that you are who you say you are online - as the old saying goes "on the net, nobody knows you're a dog".. or for that matter a cybernetic being running a news for nerds site (how else does he put in 20 hours a day?!)...
Sig, you're being uptight about this. How does saying that their focus is not programming imply that they're script kiddies?
I want to know what their focus is if it isn't programming. So far the only answer that I've seen is "we do whatever the fsck we want, and worry about the explanation later". That's the message I get. Go to a site like securityfocus.com - then look at cDc's site. Both of them are in the same "business" - computer security. Yet one gets the addition and respect of a corporation, and the other is rejected as a bunch of ranting teenagers. Gee, how could this be? I don't think they're script kiddies - they have a solid understanding of how things work.. but there isn't a term to describe somebody that's between a programmer and where they are.
And why does it take the release of a product that can covertly spy on a system everybody already knows is inherently insecure to make you take them seriously? I appreciate them giving MS a kick in the ass.. but I'm not going to take them seriously for doing that alone.
Any idiot can get up on a soapbox and say he's bucking the system.. but it takes alot of dedication, research, and friendly professional-like conduct to get you taken seriously by the mainstream. cDc doesn't want to play the Mainstream Game.. so in an ironic twist - my parting words are: fuck 'em. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk and talk the talk.
My post addressed their wanting to be taken seriously by the industry (ie: releasing a useful software product for administrators) instead of a bunch of l335 d00dz (ie: releasing a trojan horse to take over remote systems). In this case, image is everything. Shades of grey, my friend.
I didn't say I agreed with it. I didn't say I like how the system works. But I have no sympathy for people that understand it yet ignore it, and then whine about how nobody takes them seriously. In the media, not only is image everything, it is the only thing. Why do you think linux isn't making as much progress in corporations as it should? Image - it's young and immature. It has nothing to do with the technical merits. Witness again a young CEO being denied entrance to comdex... the "image" that most people have about the under-18 crowd is why that happened.
Absolutely amazing - most of this article was contradicting itself. For example - they denied that they were script kiddies and such, and then went on to say they didn't "consider programming to be the focus" of their group. Well, which is it? For a closely knit group, you guys sure have alot of conflicting answers. (yes I'm aware that I only included one example - this is for brevity)
Also - after reading this article I have no sympathy for cDc getting the shaft by several anti-virus makers - when your image includes swear words and thinly-veiled slams on serious questions about your group - it's very difficult to take you guys seriously.
Okay, help me out with my math - Install rh6 (w/ apache). ~35m Add ssl support,recompile. ~20m Install mod_php3 ~1m Install pgsql ~15m + setup Setup permissions, verify setup - ~20m Use cookie support in php3 to store any user data, or optionally use http authentication. ~0m use, ~3hr/devel (if you don't know about FM) Webpage setup - could take up to a week, ~40h
There you have it.. a total of up to 50 hrs. Now Amazon thinks it spent thousands of hours on that? How many meetings did they force their developers to sit in on instead of doing real work?:) And about that "single-click" shopping - see also the whole point of http cookies - to store persistent information on a remote machine! This meets two of the criterion mentioned in a recent/. article - obviousness and prior work. I bet I could prove both.:^)
All I gotta say is that I wouldn't want to be the janitor that works at the cloning lab when that mammoth is brought in. I mean, you've seen how much a COW can leave behind.. just imagine a prehistorical version of a cow and well... if you've ever driven through the countryside during the spring... you know what I mean....
First, I commend the author(s) of this paper for making some very interesting observations and coming up with creative solutions to the problems proposed in their paper.
There are two additional thoughts I would like to share. First - alot of this should be considered today. Examples include wake-on-LAN and power-management systems as well as laptops. For the first, assume a company has several hundred workstations that use wake-on-lan technology or other power management (maybe wake on modem activity?). Alot of power is consumed while those devices are "awake", so it would seem logical to put them to sleep when not in use (to save money on power). Somebody could simply walk up to a station and start sending out rogue "Wake p!" packets across the network, wasting large amounts of electricity and costing the company hundreds of dollars each day. This is, of course, theoretical.. but it underscores what these guys are talking about - conventional security wisdom isn't applicable in all situations.
I like the message. It's a wake up (pardon the pun) call for security analysts - consider your requirements! Locking everything down military-style does little good if an attacker can just start turning devices off at will by draining away all their power!
That almost brought a tear to my eye. VERY well spoken! I wish you had put an e-mail addy on your/. profile so I could talk with you outside the forums. Ah, such is life.
Excellent excellent insight there, keep up the good work!
Here's a question for all you out there - where's the central repository for "Stuff to read" for your typical net.geek ? There doesn't seem to be one place you can go which says, "okay this is cool, you gotta check THAT out, and don't forget this!" Instead it seems to be implicitly assumed you've already read things like the Illuminati, the Hacker Dictionary, Ender's Game, and related.
My question is, of course, with all the disorganization... what else have I missed?
This "slashdot interval" you're talking about isn't new. Infact it's quite old. In the technical field the way engineers, programmers, even guru hackers like Alan Cox judge their work is through thorough evaluation by their peers. This is how we rapidly identify faults and design flaws, and provide quick fixes. It is called the "scientific method". The pattern is roughly as follows - hypothesis (idea!), research (will that work?), design (let's see if it works), release (do you think it works?), feedback. Repeat the last two until you have something that works to the satisfaction of the majority.
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
This "slashdot interval" you're talking about isn't new. Infact it's quite old. In the technical field the way engineers, programmers, even guru hackers like Alan Cox judge their work is through thorough evaluation by their peers. This is how we rapidly identify faults and design flaws, and provide quick fixes. It is called the "scientific method". The pattern is roughly as follows - hypothesis (idea!), research (will that work?), design (let's see if it works), release (do you think it works?), feedback. Repeat the last two until you have something that works to the satisfaction of the majority.
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
This "slashdot interval" you're talking about isn't new. Infact it's quite old. In the technical field the way engineers, programmers, even guru hackers like Alan Cox judge their work is through thorough evaluation by their peers. This is how we rapidly identify faults and design flaws, and provide quick fixes. It is called the "scientific method". The pattern is roughly as follows - hypothesis (idea!), research (will that work?), design (let's see if it works), release (do you think it works?), feedback. Repeat the last two until you have something that works to the satisfaction of the majority.
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
Netscape for Linux is just as bad as Netscape for Windows. It's substantially faster, but I'll agree with you that it's just as unstable.
So the thing that I'm really griping about is just the blanket dismissal of Windows due to a crash of unspecified scope. Point well taken. But there's something to be said (or unsaid?) that not many people would question his statement. There's a common belief that windows crashes alot and for no apparent reason. Is this still true? I don't know, I haven't used windows in a long time due to the aforementioned qualities.:^)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. Must have been the link from his homepage that threw me off. Thanks for the correction!
--
I hope they finally included imap folder browsing. I'm suprised they haven't added a gui (xmutt?) to the program yet. Well, just a useful tidbit of information - Mutt was the open source mailer ESR developed to test the ideas he presented in CatB (The Cathedral and the Bazaar). ESR also thinks this mailer sucks - it just sucks less than all the other mailers. :^)
--
Yeah, the real shocker is that somebody would actually buy it. . . *rimshot*
--
linbot "http://www.thesite.com" & sniffit -twww.thesite.com -d & tail -f x.x.x.x:x | egrep -i "hint" | mail -s "Hints" root@localhost ; echo 'I win!'
--
Anyway, more to the point - RealWorld(tm) generally doesn't take things seriously until they're printed on paper with some nice bar graphs and/or pictures and made into a "press release" by an official company.
--
I pride myself on being unconventional as well. But I don't portray, or try to portray, myself as a mainstream person. cDc seems to want to be taken seriously, yet they are unwilling to invest the necessary effort to do so. For this they will get no sympathy for me. Now, if they boldly came out and said "we're unconventional - the conventional way of doing things is fundamentally flawed and we're not going to use that methodology" I'd be more supportive. But they're asking mainstream media to accept them - something that is 180 opposite of the methodology they're using. Specifically if you wanna attract the suits, you gotta put a suit on. This is how it works out there. In our community, you're judged on how well you code/hack/do neat stuff with your machine. I cannot, and will not, say that this is a better system than what the mainstream uses... they all have their tradeoffs.
Getting out into the Big Blue Room was alot like getting tossed into freezing cold water for me. It shattered alot of conceptions I had about how the world worked. One of them is that people in general are not judged on the basis of their contributions, but rather on deference to a higher authority. Suprise suprise... that's 180 opposite of this culture - where you are judged on the basis of your work, with (a kind of) "authority" being gained solely on that.
--
This wasn't a slam.. I'm just trying to humorously point something out to 'ya! :^)
--
There is no foolproof system to ensure that you are who you say you are online - as the old saying goes "on the net, nobody knows you're a dog".. or for that matter a cybernetic being running a news for nerds site (how else does he put in 20 hours a day?!)...
--
I want to know what their focus is if it isn't programming. So far the only answer that I've seen is "we do whatever the fsck we want, and worry about the explanation later". That's the message I get. Go to a site like securityfocus.com - then look at cDc's site. Both of them are in the same "business" - computer security. Yet one gets the addition and respect of a corporation, and the other is rejected as a bunch of ranting teenagers. Gee, how could this be? I don't think they're script kiddies - they have a solid understanding of how things work.. but there isn't a term to describe somebody that's between a programmer and where they are.
And why does it take the release of a product that can covertly spy on a system everybody already knows is inherently insecure to make you take them seriously? I appreciate them giving MS a kick in the ass.. but I'm not going to take them seriously for doing that alone.
Any idiot can get up on a soapbox and say he's bucking the system.. but it takes alot of dedication, research, and friendly professional-like conduct to get you taken seriously by the mainstream. cDc doesn't want to play the Mainstream Game.. so in an ironic twist - my parting words are: fuck 'em. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk and talk the talk.
--
I didn't say I agreed with it. I didn't say I like how the system works. But I have no sympathy for people that understand it yet ignore it, and then whine about how nobody takes them seriously. In the media, not only is image everything, it is the only thing. Why do you think linux isn't making as much progress in corporations as it should? Image - it's young and immature. It has nothing to do with the technical merits. Witness again a young CEO being denied entrance to comdex... the "image" that most people have about the under-18 crowd is why that happened.
--
Also - after reading this article I have no sympathy for cDc getting the shaft by several anti-virus makers - when your image includes swear words and thinly-veiled slams on serious questions about your group - it's very difficult to take you guys seriously.
--
Install rh6 (w/ apache). ~35m
Add ssl support,recompile. ~20m
Install mod_php3 ~1m
Install pgsql ~15m + setup
Setup permissions, verify setup - ~20m
Use cookie support in php3 to store any user data, or optionally use http authentication. ~0m use, ~3hr/devel (if you don't know about FM)
Webpage setup - could take up to a week, ~40h
There you have it.. a total of up to 50 hrs. Now Amazon thinks it spent thousands of hours on that? How many meetings did they force their developers to sit in on instead of doing real work? :) And about that "single-click" shopping - see also the whole point of http cookies - to store persistent information on a remote machine! This meets two of the criterion mentioned in a recent /. article - obviousness and prior work. I bet I could prove both. :^)
--
Daemon v. Penguin :: Showdown on 10110100 IO Lane, film at 11!
--
All I gotta say is that I wouldn't want to be the janitor that works at the cloning lab when that mammoth is brought in. I mean, you've seen how much a COW can leave behind.. just imagine a prehistorical version of a cow and well... if you've ever driven through the countryside during the spring... you know what I mean....
--
There are two additional thoughts I would like to share. First - alot of this should be considered today. Examples include wake-on-LAN and power-management systems as well as laptops. For the first, assume a company has several hundred workstations that use wake-on-lan technology or other power management (maybe wake on modem activity?). Alot of power is consumed while those devices are "awake", so it would seem logical to put them to sleep when not in use (to save money on power). Somebody could simply walk up to a station and start sending out rogue "Wake p!" packets across the network, wasting large amounts of electricity and costing the company hundreds of dollars each day. This is, of course, theoretical.. but it underscores what these guys are talking about - conventional security wisdom isn't applicable in all situations.
I like the message. It's a wake up (pardon the pun) call for security analysts - consider your requirements! Locking everything down military-style does little good if an attacker can just start turning devices off at will by draining away all their power!
--
Excellent excellent insight there, keep up the good work!
--
Even the best minds only know a fraction of what it could know.
--
My my, the hardware requirements for running a linux webserver are falling faster and faster all the time. By kernel 2.4 we won't need memory at all!
--
My question is, of course, with all the disorganization... what else have I missed?
--
The message is "this message is not yet here."
--
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
No doubt this is an alien concept to modern media - they're used to being the purveyors of truth. "I'm right because I'm the media" they chant. And they feel a moral imperative to spread their view of the world, because that's the "right" one. Suprise suprise, modern media meets scientific method.
It ain't new, but it's still revolutionary.
--
It's substantially faster, but I'll agree with you that it's just as unstable.
So the thing that I'm really griping about is just the blanket dismissal of Windows due to a crash of unspecified scope. :^)
Point well taken. But there's something to be said (or unsaid?) that not many people would question his statement. There's a common belief that windows crashes alot and for no apparent reason. Is this still true? I don't know, I haven't used windows in a long time due to the aforementioned qualities.
--
"Where do you want to go today?"
Back to the software store to get a refund!
"Where are we going tomorrow?"
I don't know, but suspect that "thinking differently" won't get you there any sooner!
--