This does not make any sense at all to me. Ok, great, you use BIND and Sendmail. They work for you. But WHY use them? They have a history of security issues. There are alternatives in high use that have no such history. Why risk the chance of yet another flaw when you can use products such as djbdns, qmail, postfix, etc. that are designed for security?
Yes, fine, any admin worth his salt should be able to configure BIND and Sendmail. And it is possible to minimize (but not eliminate) the dangers of running either through the use of chroot, priviledge separation, etc. But that does not explain why it is prudent to run either program. There are alternatives to both that are easier to configure (== more time spent on more important tasks) and likely (based on track record) more secure (== less downtime next time there's a security hole discovered).
One does not have to be a masochist to be an admin, contrary to your views.
"It was wholly dependent upon openssl. 9.2.1 is two years ago."
That is patently untrue bullshit, but you continue to lie about it. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the CERT advisory if you still think I'm mistaken. Quit giving the OpenSSL guys all the blame.
Of course, this does not mean recent version of BIND are less secure than tinydns. They may even be more secure. But give ISC's track record, I'll stick with tinydns, written by an author that still holds an ounce of credibility regarding security issues in his products. You can deal with your downtime, lost productivity, and unhappy customers when you get hacked, DoSed, or just have to recompile BIND yet again.
Oh, and half those features you mentioned are unnecessary for 80% of sysadmins out there or you're just being unclear about what you mean. And that's pretty funny, telling ME to drop the attitude, since I only suggested a more secure DNS server for the general populus and you flew off the handle.
And it's unclear why the DNS management services you mention need to be included in the DNS server software. This is UNIX we're talking about, right? Since when did UNIX advocate one tool for many jobs? But that's precisely what BIND is.
Your attitude is what bothers me more than BIND, though. I hope you don't manage systems for a living, because I'd hate to be your boss. Your religious zealotry only serves to hurt your case, and you don't seem to be open to alternatives to the products you use. It smacks of unprofessionalism. You make blind assertions, blatently lie in several posts about the flaws of BIND, and exaggerate the usefulness of poorly designed and questionably standardized "features." I can only assume that you work for ISC or make money selling support for BIND, since you clearly want others to avoid even trying tinydns or evaluating it as an option. Good day.
Bullshit. He mentioned the DoS flaw, but you completely ignored it. Also, older versions of BIND 9 INCLUDED the version of OpenSSL that had the flaw. So by extension, BIND 9 had the flaw since even recompiling would not have helped. You'd have to know to replace the included version of OpenSSL. And recompiling should not be necessary if you're using shared libraries. Liar.
Wow. I offer my views about an alternative DNS server, and you get all emotional on me. What a nutcase.
The lack of features is an interesting thing to bring up, because it's not entirely clear what features you're missing. For internal nameservers, sure, I can see the utility of BIND; after all, you might be doing dynamic hostnames and stuff like that. But tinydns is designed for machines on the Internet. It has all the features you need and nothing you don't. In fact, I challenge you to name something that tinydns lacks that even 50% of sites on the 'net need. You can't.
I like how you tell me to contribute to ISC's BIND. Why would I do that? I already said I like tinydns. Why should I contribute to a buggy, poorly designed codebase? Why shouldn't I just accept tinydns and its solid security? More professionals don't use it simply because they're not aware it exists.
I encourage you to read DJB's rants against BIND and DNS in general. I could summarize them poorly here, or you could just follow my earlier link and read them yourself. Why don't you do that instead of blindly supporting BIND 9?
Finally, BIND 9 is relatively new, and is coded by the same organization as BIND 4 and BIND 8, no? Why should I believe that they "finally got it right" this time? After all, BIND 9 is a new codebase. djb's software has NEVER had security flaws. It's easy to set up. It forces you to properly separate DNS cache and nameserver. It's small. Quit clinging to poor software just because that's the UNIX party line.
(Oh, and by the way, BIND 9.x, x 2.1 had a DoS problem that was marked SERIOUS, liar. Who's to say it doesn't have more that have yet to be discovered?)
Exploits are not uncommon in BIND, even today. Take a look at their security alert page, especially the matrix at the bottom. Security problems abound!
It's not clear why people continue to use BIND. It's probably because it's just assumed that it's the only thing out there. But everything from security to configuration is poorly done in BIND. I use tinydns (part of djbdns) instead on all my servers. It's written by Daniel Bernstein, the same guy that wrote qmail. He's got a great track record -- no security holes in any of his software, AND he backs up that assertion with a $1000 prize to anyone that finds such a hole. He makes a better case than I do for tinydns/qmail vs. BIND/sendmail than I ever could.
Yeah, websites that fail to date their content are ridiculously obnoxious. Fortunately, you can tell from the URL that this is 10/10/2002. I wonder what happened as well.
The GUI wizards generate skeleton code. Everything else resides in a resource file. This is highly preferred to creating dialogs in code since it makes coding much more flexible -- you only have to relink to make changes to dialogs, strings, etc., and you can easily include different languages. Of course, you can create resource files without the GUI wizard too; they can be compiled from text files IIRC from my Windows coding days.
That's the most ridiculous post I've ever read on Slashdot. It's probably a troll; I mean, the majority of your sentences are coherent, but there's just no logic from sentence to sentence. I imagine you like this guy, only with foam coming out of his mouth as well. But I'll respond anyway.
You claim that Microsoft keeps stealing our ideas, that if they didn't have their patents, but we had patents, we'd win in the marketplace. Or something like that. It's not really clear. But allow me to refute that anyway. Look at GNOME. Look at Mono. Look at KDE. Now look at Microsoft Windows. Who is innovating, again? Who is copying who? And don't give me that crap about the BSD TCP/IP stack. Whether or not Microsoft "stole it," I'd hardly say that the TCP/IP stack is the "vast majority of [Microsoft's] 'innovation'". Whether or not you like their products, you'd have to be foolish to claim that all their good ideas came from open source software.
It sounds like what you're calling for is a GPL for patents. I'm not sure how you'd word it. You can't sell products using this patent unless you release the source code under the GPL? Something like that? Get a clue. Not everyone likes the GPL. BSD folk will want to release code using your patents. Mozilla will want to include your new algorithms and whatnot. People such as myself will want to put code using your patents in the public domain. Oh, but too bad. We should extend the GPL virus.
And if you meant that instead we should licence the patent to anyone, what's the point of paying the fees? You might as well just publish your software and not worry about paperwork. You'll have established prior art for the future by doing so. After all, patents are relatively easy to knock down with obvious prior art. It's the "obvious" part that's tough to claim.
But let's say that we still think patents will help the open source community. Let's say that we manage to come up with some innovative idea and we patent it. Let's say Microsoft really wants/needs this technology. What will we gain? Microsoft has the funds to buy us off fairly easily. They also have the funds to get the patent invalidated without much hassle. But the small business software writer does not. He just can't use our technology. So he suffers, and Microsoft wins the day again. Who have we helped, again?
No, patents for open source ideas is a horrible idea. It would merely make writing software more difficult for everyone, and especially for non-GPL fans. It would delay the development of open source software, hurting one of the key benefits of open source -- fast turnaround and constant development. And in the end, it would solve nothing.
Interestingly enough, Einstein was influenced by patents he saw. You see, at the time everyone was submitting patents for ways to syncronize clocks. This led Einstein to think about the nature of time and light and such, thus leading to special relativity. I'm sure someone can post a link or more information.
This new long distance WiFi you speak of... it intrigues me. Oh, wait, they already have that. It's called cell phones with a data cable/Bluetooth/infrared.
Wrong... Wrong. Just wrong. Everything you said is absolutely and utterly wrong.
Computers are hard because people with your attitude develop software for them. Me, I like computers being difficult -- I don't think of computers as tools, but as sources of entertainment, as puzzles of sorts. Some people solve crossword puzzles, I set up secure IP tunnels.
But market forces will prove you wrong. The supplier should conform to the user or risk losing out to a competitor. See the preference of MacOS X to KDE/GNOME, and see the recent Slashdot articles regarding a move from OSS to Mac.
Hahaha... People like me. Don't label me as J. Random Whiner. If I don't contribute code, I at least contribute precise bug reports. I never complain. The products that I think are beyond repair, I stop using. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
In any case, these high and mighty developers of which you speak need to reconsider their motives. If they just want to code useful tools for themselves and release the code because they're benevolent, then your argument stands. But if developers gain happiness/utility from their products have more market share, then THEY'RE the ones that need to shut up and put out, not the users. The whining is a sign that competition is needed, and the developers will be left high and dry when it arrives and all the whiners switch to the better product. For example, affluent OSS users are supposedly switching to OS X. No surprise there -- KDE/GNOME failed to provide a compelling product, thanks to your anti-user sentiment, and so the rich guys jumped ship to Mac. Hell, I used to use Linux on my desktop until Windows 2000 offered a useful alternative (though I still use Linux on my servers).
But nobody listens. KDE and GNOME will get more features each version. GNOME will rewrite everything in C# and provide more and more bloat. Meanwhile they're continue to create bad copies of Windows. And users will continue to jump ship. Linux on the desktop is doomed to failure.
"We need to make a push to make the users understand that they are not buying a product. They are joining a worldwide effort and they help is needed."
Uh, I'm sorry, but you must have Open Source confused with Free Software.
I frankly don't give a damn about your "worldwide effort," and if that's the official position of OSS, then I don't want any part of it. I want the most cost effective software that does what I want. If OSS can provide that, so be it. If I have the urge to contribute to something that lacks features, I will do so. But I certainly do not feel compelled to design a UI for someone's pet project.
But you say I'm not allowed to complain unless I fix it myself. I have always disagreed with this idea. Let analyze it:
Situation 1: you're a developer creating a public good work as a pet project. You're not particular devoted to some "worldwide effort." I complain. If you're interested in making your project appealing to others, you will fix it. If not, no problem. I might switch to another product, but you don't really care.
Situation 2: you're a developer creating a public work as part of the "worldwide effort." I complain, despite cries that I should not. Now, if you really believe in the worldwide effort, you (or someone in the effort) will fix it because you're trying to get more people on board. But if you really just want to be self-important, you'll insist that I fix your bugs because to be in your little worldwide effort, I have to take part. You're no longer really creating public works. Instead, you've got your Eric Raymond "gift economy," in which, if you had it your way, a non-contributor would not even be allowed to use the Free Software.
Situation 2 is why the average user will hate Linux.
(That being said, I do contribute to projects from time to time. But not because I'm obligated to.)
I can't say I agree with you. Floppy disks are slowly being eliminated because it's very hard to make floppies backward compatible and because no new software comes out on floppies. It seems that 680MB is enough for most software packages and operating systems these days, so they continue to stick around years after their introduction and are only recently starting to be replaced by DVDs on some larger software packages. Furthermore, music comes out on CDs and will probably continue to do so until there arises a very good reason to switch to something better, and given the happiness of most people with CD quality, there is no good reason to "upgrade" from the CD.
Finally, new optical standards continue to support CDs as the baseline. You've already got the caddy thing, the motor, and the laser arm thingy (technical terms). It's not that hard to throw a laser and detector for a CD on there too.
You rarely get the best bang for the buck with proprietary hardware. Apple and Sun hardware performs worse than x86 hardware, though Apple's can come close (their G5 comparisons have been shown to be against benchmarking standards, if not intentionally flawed). However, both these products cost much more. Commodity hardware provides the best bang for the buck except in niche markets. Please don't spread x86 FUD; Apple does a good enough job without you.
On the other hand, no one has created an extremely compelling operating system for x86. I would say that most people just use what they see as the worst of the evils, whether that be Windows, Linux, *BSD, etc.
To pull this back ontopic, this product will fail. Consumers will not buy this drive because they do not see the need for backups. Prosumers will not buy this because it is proprietary and cost inefficient; DVD burners and external HDs fill in the gaps much easier. Companies will not buy this because 35GB is nothing these days.
Reliability numbers are very difficult to predict, as you imply. But shelf life numbers are much easier to predict since we know the properties of each material in the drive. The real question is whether or not you'll have equipment that will be able to access the drive in 30 years when you go to restore your ancient data. Or the desire to do so, for that matter. A 30-year shelf life is not a real selling point for a non-enterprise product, I think.
Yeah, they're really happy until the backdoor username and password leaks and their network is hacked.
There is no justification for this. If I bought ANY program with a backdoor that I could not disable, I would be outraged. What's the point of any security if an immoral employee can break right through it? Or more importantly, if my competetors/hackers/the government can break right through it after bribing said immoral employee.
I think he's saying that the wealthy people should be expected to pay for superior health care and safer cars for everyone because if they don't, they're greedy.
Slashdot Mirror
This does not make any sense at all to me. Ok, great, you use BIND and Sendmail. They work for you. But WHY use them? They have a history of security issues. There are alternatives in high use that have no such history. Why risk the chance of yet another flaw when you can use products such as djbdns, qmail, postfix, etc. that are designed for security?
Yes, fine, any admin worth his salt should be able to configure BIND and Sendmail. And it is possible to minimize (but not eliminate) the dangers of running either through the use of chroot, priviledge separation, etc. But that does not explain why it is prudent to run either program. There are alternatives to both that are easier to configure (== more time spent on more important tasks) and likely (based on track record) more secure (== less downtime next time there's a security hole discovered).
One does not have to be a masochist to be an admin, contrary to your views.
"It was wholly dependent upon openssl. 9.2.1 is two years ago."
That is patently untrue bullshit, but you continue to lie about it. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at the CERT advisory if you still think I'm mistaken. Quit giving the OpenSSL guys all the blame.
Of course, this does not mean recent version of BIND are less secure than tinydns. They may even be more secure. But give ISC's track record, I'll stick with tinydns, written by an author that still holds an ounce of credibility regarding security issues in his products. You can deal with your downtime, lost productivity, and unhappy customers when you get hacked, DoSed, or just have to recompile BIND yet again.
Oh, and half those features you mentioned are unnecessary for 80% of sysadmins out there or you're just being unclear about what you mean. And that's pretty funny, telling ME to drop the attitude, since I only suggested a more secure DNS server for the general populus and you flew off the handle.
And it's unclear why the DNS management services you mention need to be included in the DNS server software. This is UNIX we're talking about, right? Since when did UNIX advocate one tool for many jobs? But that's precisely what BIND is.
Your attitude is what bothers me more than BIND, though. I hope you don't manage systems for a living, because I'd hate to be your boss. Your religious zealotry only serves to hurt your case, and you don't seem to be open to alternatives to the products you use. It smacks of unprofessionalism. You make blind assertions, blatently lie in several posts about the flaws of BIND, and exaggerate the usefulness of poorly designed and questionably standardized "features." I can only assume that you work for ISC or make money selling support for BIND, since you clearly want others to avoid even trying tinydns or evaluating it as an option. Good day.
I don't know anything about "the same race condition bugs," though I'm willing to learn. Enlighten me.
Bullshit. He mentioned the DoS flaw, but you completely ignored it. Also, older versions of BIND 9 INCLUDED the version of OpenSSL that had the flaw. So by extension, BIND 9 had the flaw since even recompiling would not have helped. You'd have to know to replace the included version of OpenSSL. And recompiling should not be necessary if you're using shared libraries. Liar.
Wow. I offer my views about an alternative DNS server, and you get all emotional on me. What a nutcase.
The lack of features is an interesting thing to bring up, because it's not entirely clear what features you're missing. For internal nameservers, sure, I can see the utility of BIND; after all, you might be doing dynamic hostnames and stuff like that. But tinydns is designed for machines on the Internet. It has all the features you need and nothing you don't. In fact, I challenge you to name something that tinydns lacks that even 50% of sites on the 'net need. You can't.
I like how you tell me to contribute to ISC's BIND. Why would I do that? I already said I like tinydns. Why should I contribute to a buggy, poorly designed codebase? Why shouldn't I just accept tinydns and its solid security? More professionals don't use it simply because they're not aware it exists.
I encourage you to read DJB's rants against BIND and DNS in general. I could summarize them poorly here, or you could just follow my earlier link and read them yourself. Why don't you do that instead of blindly supporting BIND 9?
Finally, BIND 9 is relatively new, and is coded by the same organization as BIND 4 and BIND 8, no? Why should I believe that they "finally got it right" this time? After all, BIND 9 is a new codebase. djb's software has NEVER had security flaws. It's easy to set up. It forces you to properly separate DNS cache and nameserver. It's small. Quit clinging to poor software just because that's the UNIX party line.
(Oh, and by the way, BIND 9.x, x 2.1 had a DoS problem that was marked SERIOUS, liar. Who's to say it doesn't have more that have yet to be discovered?)
Exploits are not uncommon in BIND, even today. Take a look at their security alert page, especially the matrix at the bottom. Security problems abound!
It's not clear why people continue to use BIND. It's probably because it's just assumed that it's the only thing out there. But everything from security to configuration is poorly done in BIND. I use tinydns (part of djbdns) instead on all my servers. It's written by Daniel Bernstein, the same guy that wrote qmail. He's got a great track record -- no security holes in any of his software, AND he backs up that assertion with a $1000 prize to anyone that finds such a hole. He makes a better case than I do for tinydns/qmail vs. BIND/sendmail than I ever could.
Yeah, websites that fail to date their content are ridiculously obnoxious. Fortunately, you can tell from the URL that this is 10/10/2002. I wonder what happened as well.
The GUI wizards generate skeleton code. Everything else resides in a resource file. This is highly preferred to creating dialogs in code since it makes coding much more flexible -- you only have to relink to make changes to dialogs, strings, etc., and you can easily include different languages. Of course, you can create resource files without the GUI wizard too; they can be compiled from text files IIRC from my Windows coding days.
Well, that's no surprise. I have yet to read that book, but my physics professor did.
That's the most ridiculous post I've ever read on Slashdot. It's probably a troll; I mean, the majority of your sentences are coherent, but there's just no logic from sentence to sentence. I imagine you like this guy, only with foam coming out of his mouth as well. But I'll respond anyway.
You claim that Microsoft keeps stealing our ideas, that if they didn't have their patents, but we had patents, we'd win in the marketplace. Or something like that. It's not really clear. But allow me to refute that anyway. Look at GNOME. Look at Mono. Look at KDE. Now look at Microsoft Windows. Who is innovating, again? Who is copying who? And don't give me that crap about the BSD TCP/IP stack. Whether or not Microsoft "stole it," I'd hardly say that the TCP/IP stack is the "vast majority of [Microsoft's] 'innovation'". Whether or not you like their products, you'd have to be foolish to claim that all their good ideas came from open source software.
It sounds like what you're calling for is a GPL for patents. I'm not sure how you'd word it. You can't sell products using this patent unless you release the source code under the GPL? Something like that? Get a clue. Not everyone likes the GPL. BSD folk will want to release code using your patents. Mozilla will want to include your new algorithms and whatnot. People such as myself will want to put code using your patents in the public domain. Oh, but too bad. We should extend the GPL virus.
And if you meant that instead we should licence the patent to anyone, what's the point of paying the fees? You might as well just publish your software and not worry about paperwork. You'll have established prior art for the future by doing so. After all, patents are relatively easy to knock down with obvious prior art. It's the "obvious" part that's tough to claim.
But let's say that we still think patents will help the open source community. Let's say that we manage to come up with some innovative idea and we patent it. Let's say Microsoft really wants/needs this technology. What will we gain? Microsoft has the funds to buy us off fairly easily. They also have the funds to get the patent invalidated without much hassle. But the small business software writer does not. He just can't use our technology. So he suffers, and Microsoft wins the day again. Who have we helped, again?
No, patents for open source ideas is a horrible idea. It would merely make writing software more difficult for everyone, and especially for non-GPL fans. It would delay the development of open source software, hurting one of the key benefits of open source -- fast turnaround and constant development. And in the end, it would solve nothing.
How did your post get a +5?
Interestingly enough, Einstein was influenced by patents he saw. You see, at the time everyone was submitting patents for ways to syncronize clocks. This led Einstein to think about the nature of time and light and such, thus leading to special relativity. I'm sure someone can post a link or more information.
The RIAA can't be voted out of office.
This new long distance WiFi you speak of... it intrigues me. Oh, wait, they already have that. It's called cell phones with a data cable/Bluetooth/infrared.
Wrong... Wrong. Just wrong. Everything you said is absolutely and utterly wrong.
Computers are hard because people with your attitude develop software for them. Me, I like computers being difficult -- I don't think of computers as tools, but as sources of entertainment, as puzzles of sorts. Some people solve crossword puzzles, I set up secure IP tunnels.
But market forces will prove you wrong. The supplier should conform to the user or risk losing out to a competitor. See the preference of MacOS X to KDE/GNOME, and see the recent Slashdot articles regarding a move from OSS to Mac.
Hahaha... People like me. Don't label me as J. Random Whiner. If I don't contribute code, I at least contribute precise bug reports. I never complain. The products that I think are beyond repair, I stop using. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
In any case, these high and mighty developers of which you speak need to reconsider their motives. If they just want to code useful tools for themselves and release the code because they're benevolent, then your argument stands. But if developers gain happiness/utility from their products have more market share, then THEY'RE the ones that need to shut up and put out, not the users. The whining is a sign that competition is needed, and the developers will be left high and dry when it arrives and all the whiners switch to the better product. For example, affluent OSS users are supposedly switching to OS X. No surprise there -- KDE/GNOME failed to provide a compelling product, thanks to your anti-user sentiment, and so the rich guys jumped ship to Mac. Hell, I used to use Linux on my desktop until Windows 2000 offered a useful alternative (though I still use Linux on my servers).
But nobody listens. KDE and GNOME will get more features each version. GNOME will rewrite everything in C# and provide more and more bloat. Meanwhile they're continue to create bad copies of Windows. And users will continue to jump ship. Linux on the desktop is doomed to failure.
"We need to make a push to make the users understand that they are not buying a product. They are joining a worldwide effort and they help is needed."
Uh, I'm sorry, but you must have Open Source confused with Free Software.
I frankly don't give a damn about your "worldwide effort," and if that's the official position of OSS, then I don't want any part of it. I want the most cost effective software that does what I want. If OSS can provide that, so be it. If I have the urge to contribute to something that lacks features, I will do so. But I certainly do not feel compelled to design a UI for someone's pet project.
But you say I'm not allowed to complain unless I fix it myself. I have always disagreed with this idea. Let analyze it:
Situation 1: you're a developer creating a public good work as a pet project. You're not particular devoted to some "worldwide effort." I complain. If you're interested in making your project appealing to others, you will fix it. If not, no problem. I might switch to another product, but you don't really care.
Situation 2: you're a developer creating a public work as part of the "worldwide effort." I complain, despite cries that I should not. Now, if you really believe in the worldwide effort, you (or someone in the effort) will fix it because you're trying to get more people on board. But if you really just want to be self-important, you'll insist that I fix your bugs because to be in your little worldwide effort, I have to take part. You're no longer really creating public works. Instead, you've got your Eric Raymond "gift economy," in which, if you had it your way, a non-contributor would not even be allowed to use the Free Software.
Situation 2 is why the average user will hate Linux.
(That being said, I do contribute to projects from time to time. But not because I'm obligated to.)
I can't say I agree with you. Floppy disks are slowly being eliminated because it's very hard to make floppies backward compatible and because no new software comes out on floppies. It seems that 680MB is enough for most software packages and operating systems these days, so they continue to stick around years after their introduction and are only recently starting to be replaced by DVDs on some larger software packages. Furthermore, music comes out on CDs and will probably continue to do so until there arises a very good reason to switch to something better, and given the happiness of most people with CD quality, there is no good reason to "upgrade" from the CD.
Finally, new optical standards continue to support CDs as the baseline. You've already got the caddy thing, the motor, and the laser arm thingy (technical terms). It's not that hard to throw a laser and detector for a CD on there too.
CDs will be around for a long time.
Ah, but chances are better than even that you'll be able to find drives capable of reading CDs for many, many years.
I predict that new drives will continue to be backward compatible with CDs until non-optical technologies become too compelling to ignore.
Ahem.
You rarely get the best bang for the buck with proprietary hardware. Apple and Sun hardware performs worse than x86 hardware, though Apple's can come close (their G5 comparisons have been shown to be against benchmarking standards, if not intentionally flawed). However, both these products cost much more. Commodity hardware provides the best bang for the buck except in niche markets. Please don't spread x86 FUD; Apple does a good enough job without you.
On the other hand, no one has created an extremely compelling operating system for x86. I would say that most people just use what they see as the worst of the evils, whether that be Windows, Linux, *BSD, etc.
To pull this back ontopic, this product will fail. Consumers will not buy this drive because they do not see the need for backups. Prosumers will not buy this because it is proprietary and cost inefficient; DVD burners and external HDs fill in the gaps much easier. Companies will not buy this because 35GB is nothing these days.
Reliability numbers are very difficult to predict, as you imply. But shelf life numbers are much easier to predict since we know the properties of each material in the drive. The real question is whether or not you'll have equipment that will be able to access the drive in 30 years when you go to restore your ancient data. Or the desire to do so, for that matter. A 30-year shelf life is not a real selling point for a non-enterprise product, I think.
I was just curious. I wasn't trying to one-up you or anything.
Yeah, they're really happy until the backdoor username and password leaks and their network is hacked.
There is no justification for this. If I bought ANY program with a backdoor that I could not disable, I would be outraged. What's the point of any security if an immoral employee can break right through it? Or more importantly, if my competetors/hackers/the government can break right through it after bribing said immoral employee.
Ridiculous.
Do you mean TFTP aka trivial FTP? SFTP usually refers to the file transfer protocol over SSHv2.
But then again, I don't know much about Cisco products.
Yeah, that's the story submitter for you. The article on CNN has the title "Smart cars to warn drowsy-drivers."
I think he's saying that the wealthy people should be expected to pay for superior health care and safer cars for everyone because if they don't, they're greedy.
At least, that's the typical Slashdot attitude.