If he had paid attention to any of the hooplah surrounding this case, he would have known 2 things:
The RCU code, which is one of SCOs contested points, was implemented in a clean-room manner. IBM's kernel hackers used the patent, not the code.
The only code that (we know) managed to "migrate" was already shown to have originated from BSD. And IBM has already stated that their coders never saw SysV code.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I choose settings X,Y,Z in KDE, I will then have to configure them again in Mozilla. Some settings may not even be available.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I want to use an HTML rendering engine inside of a KDE app, I'd have to devise a hacked up way to connect it to Mozilla.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. I'd have to load yet another 70 MB on my system. Not only is it wasteful, but it also takes more time to start up. And if I'm lucky, I may even get to deal with dependency issues.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. Have you ever tried to use it as a file manager? If not, consider yourself lucky.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. The Konq sidebar allows the application to be much more flexible than mozilla... such as the ability to browse my media (amaroK module), folder heirarchy, etc. not just my history.
Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. All of the widgets rendered flow nicely with the rest of KDE, and perform the same way. For instance, all of my text boxes are spell-checked by default.
And then there are a few other things that don't matter quite as much (Like integration;) ).
Bitch all you want, but Dave Hyatt's changes to WebCore stand a good chance of finding their way back into KHTML
Do you even RTFA? Hell, do you even read the headline? It's written by one of the KHTML Developers.
If you had RTFA, you would have noted that he's not complaning about Apple. He's complaining about you and your uninformed comments. He's asking you, in a more polite way than I will, to shut the fuck up. Because most of Apple's code is completely unusable to KHTML.
Well, I'd be annoyed if they did the same thing to me. Then again, I don't know if the KDE team asked Apple for the CVS/etc either. Either way, I hope that the new KHTML code makes it into Konq... I'd love to not use Mozilla anymore. (Great browser, but no KDE integration;) )
I think that organizing your menu via function is much better than by "Manufacturer/producer of program". Furthermore, the KDE team is really pumping up the usability of their system. It won't be perfect overnight, but they do realize their faults. You have just offered constructive criticism for the project, ybut if you don't offer it through the proper channels, how do you expect it to change?
I have always found it amazing that when you approach people about a problem, they actually listen.
I have done stage 1 every time I installed Gentoo. However, that's only because I can't ever get stage 2 or 3 to work. There be some strangety to that.
Note: I should have said packet filtering router, not packet filter. I apologize for that. The rest of this post is based off the assumption that I communicated properly in the parent.
But these two firewalls would actually be one firewall on most systems I was assuming that Mr Paranoid was a jackass, and considered each/packet filter/ to be a firewall. If he is an actual security expert, then that assumption is invalid. But I have no clue why a person would actually set up 3 firewalls in their house. I was going for a "plausible" explanation of his behavior.
One way is to have a proxy server with three network cards: one for internet, one for intranet, and one for DMZ This behavior is shunned in the circles I travel. Something along the lines of "dual homed hosts are naughty", combined with a "combining your internal and external packet filtering routers is completely fucking retarded". Basically, it creates a single point of failure. If they crack your external router, they can now bypass your DMZ, because it is controlled by the same box.
it would also not be as safe...meaning if your DMZ is hacked a convenient packet sniffer can read all internet-intranet traffic without detection. If an attacker compromises the external router, they can monitor all intranet-internet traffic anyway.
The problem seems to be that you misinterpret the purpose of a DMZ. It should be mainly used to *slow down* the attacker. That way, your Intrusion Detection System (IDS) has a greater chance of detecting "suspicious" activity, and you can handle the issue in a timely manner.
Just in case you are curious, the configuration I was talking about is something like the following:
External Packet Filtering Router (PFR) connects to proxies.
External PFR connects to Internal PFR
Internal PFR connects to all intranet devices.
The way the packets move is:
Host > Internal PFR
Internal PFR > External PFR
External PFR > Proxy (if one exists)
Proxy (if one exists) > External PFR
External PFR > Internet
Any packets which try to go out without visiting a proxy first are denied (given that a proxy exists to handle them).
Also, the proxy and both PFRs can drop any other packet they "don't like". All logging on the DMZ and both routers would be sent to a separate logging box, which would probably reside behind the internal PFR. An IDS would run on the logging box. It would check all of the logs to make sure that nothing "was up". If it suspected something, it would alert me (email, high pitched wine, whatever), and I would investigate further. The whole thing (both PFRs, any proxies, the IDS, and the logging box) would be considered 1 firewall.
"and it's not just because I miss a decent command line"
Speaking of which... Just yesterday I had a friend who was being "the zealot" for windows... and in the middle of the conv, he started going on about how the WinCL is better than bash... heh.
Then he wanted a command line on the bottom line of explorer... I smiled inwardly at that one. He's always trying to prove how much OSS sucks, but doesn't really understand how much has changed since he stopped using it.
As for why I spread the good word... I like to keep people informed. I am interested in it, and so when something cool happens, I like to talk about it with other people. And it just so happens that almost noone I know runs OSS.
He could easily have 3 "firewalls" set up. In this case, I take 'firewall' to mean 'packet filter', as I doubt he means 3 true firewalls. Take this example:
1 firewall on each box (ZoneAlarm, Windows Firewall; leads to Intranet)
an internal packet filter (leads from intranet to DMZ, where you have your torrents, wireless networks, and proxies set up. Granted, the wireless network may be behind a different firewall.)
an external packet filter (leads from DMZ to internet)
This, of course, assumes that he is as much a jackass as the rest of the posts imply. I'd call that all 1 solution/firewall. And as several other posts imply, he didn't go over any type of technical detail... such as logging, proxies, IDS, etc.
Other than the packet filtering on hosts, I plan on doing something rather similar to what I described above in the near future. (Mostly as a learning experience, mind you). Of course, it'll have CBQ to throttle the gaming packets over everything else;P
But things like interoperability and early announcements are illegal. Hopefully you mean arn't.
Also, part of the reason why they are a monopoly is because their software *isn't* interoperable. They make their software only able to interact with itself, thus eliminating competition (esp. since their market share is so large). This is why (after the DOJ suits) you began to see MS Apps appear for the Mac.
That's intresting, I wasn't aware that they had to answered to the public. The US Government (in its entirety) has to answer to the public. Unfortunately, the public either doesn't know, or doesn't care.
I was also unaware that they helped regular people find and prosecute malicous users,
Actually, you can report malicious use of a system or network to the DOJ. They will be happy to hear from you.
tried to pass legistation that would force an ISP to cooperate with users who had a valid log/evidence of wrong-doing 1) That would place too much of a burden on the ISPs. They would have to investigate the validity of claims, as to prevent abuse of the system. A much better solution is to report misuse to the appropriate angency, and have them investigate it. (They can then sequester the ISP for the neccesary information, via a warrant).
2) The government alreay passes far to many laws on its own initiatives. The DOJ should not go about inventing more. It violates checks and balances.
3) It clutters the system with even more beurocratic bullshit, not to mention makes internet access more expensive.
instead of, say, ignoring you because they don't want to lose a customer
The way I see it, if they are not willing to cooperate, they're losing a customer either way.
This sounds like a GREAT solution Well, I wouldn't call it great, but hey. I'll compromise. It sounds like A solution.
Slashdot Mirror
"Its not uncommon for these to give 100% speedup over GCC"
So that's how the KDE developers plan to solve bloat. Sweet.
Note: I use KDE. It was a joke
What the hell does KDE have to do with OSX or Safari? He was asking why they used KHTML for Safari instead of Gecko
The post I replied to never mentioned gecko or OSX. It did mention firefox, though. So, who missed the point?
The /. main page is (-1 Troll) more often than not these days. ;).
Don't forget (-1 Redundant), too
Strange. I was running at 1152x864, and it looked proper to me.
And how many of those readers came from /. do you suppose?
$ echo "dream" | su congress -c 'chmod 444 open\ source'
done. what next?
I just always wanted to say that. ;)
If he had paid attention to any of the hooplah surrounding this case, he would have known 2 things:
And now to be modded Offtopic.
It displays correctly in my version of internet explorer... MS Explorer 6.0.2800.1106 (SP1) on win2k.
Few reasons.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I choose settings X,Y,Z in KDE, I will then have to configure them again in Mozilla. Some settings may not even be available.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. If I want to use an HTML rendering engine inside of a KDE app, I'd have to devise a hacked up way to connect it to Mozilla.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. I'd have to load yet another 70 MB on my system. Not only is it wasteful, but it also takes more time to start up. And if I'm lucky, I may even get to deal with dependency issues.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. Have you ever tried to use it as a file manager? If not, consider yourself lucky.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. The Konq sidebar allows the application to be much more flexible than mozilla... such as the ability to browse my media (amaroK module), folder heirarchy, etc. not just my history.
- Mozilla doesn't integrate into KDE. All of the widgets rendered flow nicely with the rest of KDE, and perform the same way. For instance, all of my text boxes are spell-checked by default.
And then there are a few other things that don't matter quite as much (Like integrationNot that you have to like it. I, however, do.
Heh. sorry about that. Apparently that post got modded into oblivion, as I didn't see it.
They are just getting criticised because some developer wants them to do more.
Read this, as I don't feel like typing it again.
You are clueless... You haven't even bothered to read the article...? Typical Slashdot attitude.
Bitch all you want, but Dave Hyatt's changes to WebCore stand a good chance of finding their way back into KHTML
Do you even RTFA? Hell, do you even read the headline? It's written by one of the KHTML Developers.
If you had RTFA, you would have noted that he's not complaning about Apple. He's complaining about you and your uninformed comments. He's asking you, in a more polite way than I will, to shut the fuck up. Because most of Apple's code is completely unusable to KHTML.
I looked at the link... those appear to be Safari patches... are they actually for just the KHTML subsystem? (Not much knowledge of these things).
Well, I'd be annoyed if they did the same thing to me. Then again, I don't know if the KDE team asked Apple for the CVS/etc either. Either way, I hope that the new KHTML code makes it into Konq... I'd love to not use Mozilla anymore. (Great browser, but no KDE integration ;) )
I think that organizing your menu via function is much better than by "Manufacturer/producer of program". Furthermore, the KDE team is really pumping up the usability of their system. It won't be perfect overnight, but they do realize their faults. You have just offered constructive criticism for the project, ybut if you don't offer it through the proper channels, how do you expect it to change?
I have always found it amazing that when you approach people about a problem, they actually listen.
Women who aren't afraid of tech are sexy as hell
I agree that women capable of technical feats are attractive.
a 19 year old female who installs gentoo and posts on /.?
It's the father who made that post on /. There arn't any guarentees she will ;)
I have done stage 1 every time I installed Gentoo. However, that's only because I can't ever get stage 2 or 3 to work. There be some strangety to that.
Note: I should have said packet filtering router, not packet filter. I apologize for that. The rest of this post is based off the assumption that I communicated properly in the parent.
I was assuming that Mr Paranoid was a jackass, and considered each
This behavior is shunned in the circles I travel. Something along the lines of "dual homed hosts are naughty", combined with a "combining your internal and external packet filtering routers is completely fucking retarded". Basically, it creates a single point of failure. If they crack your external router, they can now bypass your DMZ, because it is controlled by the same box.
If an attacker compromises the external router, they can monitor all intranet-internet traffic anyway.
The problem seems to be that you misinterpret the purpose of a DMZ. It should be mainly used to *slow down* the attacker. That way, your Intrusion Detection System (IDS) has a greater chance of detecting "suspicious" activity, and you can handle the issue in a timely manner.
Just in case you are curious, the configuration I was talking about is something like the following:
- External Packet Filtering Router (PFR) connects to proxies.
- External PFR connects to Internal PFR
- Internal PFR connects to all intranet devices.
The way the packets move is:- Host > Internal PFR
- Internal PFR > External PFR
- External PFR > Proxy (if one exists)
- Proxy (if one exists) > External PFR
- External PFR > Internet
Any packets which try to go out without visiting a proxy first are denied (given that a proxy exists to handle them).Also, the proxy and both PFRs can drop any other packet they "don't like". All logging on the DMZ and both routers would be sent to a separate logging box, which would probably reside behind the internal PFR. An IDS would run on the logging box. It would check all of the logs to make sure that nothing "was up". If it suspected something, it would alert me (email, high pitched wine, whatever), and I would investigate further. The whole thing (both PFRs, any proxies, the IDS, and the logging box) would be considered 1 firewall.
Speaking of which... Just yesterday I had a friend who was being "the zealot" for windows... and in the middle of the conv, he started going on about how the WinCL is better than bash... heh.
Then he wanted a command line on the bottom line of explorer... I smiled inwardly at that one. He's always trying to prove how much OSS sucks, but doesn't really understand how much has changed since he stopped using it.
As for why I spread the good word... I like to keep people informed. I am interested in it, and so when something cool happens, I like to talk about it with other people. And it just so happens that almost noone I know runs OSS.
He could easily have 3 "firewalls" set up. In this case, I take 'firewall' to mean 'packet filter', as I doubt he means 3 true firewalls. Take this example:
This, of course, assumes that he is as much a jackass as the rest of the posts imply. I'd call that all 1 solution/firewall. And as several other posts imply, he didn't go over any type of technical detail... such as logging, proxies, IDS, etc.
Other than the packet filtering on hosts, I plan on doing something rather similar to what I described above in the near future. (Mostly as a learning experience, mind you). Of course, it'll have CBQ to throttle the gaming packets over everything else ;P
But things like interoperability and early announcements are illegal.
Hopefully you mean arn't.
Also, part of the reason why they are a monopoly is because their software *isn't* interoperable. They make their software only able to interact with itself, thus eliminating competition (esp. since their market share is so large). This is why (after the DOJ suits) you began to see MS Apps appear for the Mac.
That's intresting, I wasn't aware that they had to answered to the public.
The US Government (in its entirety) has to answer to the public. Unfortunately, the public either doesn't know, or doesn't care.
I was also unaware that they helped regular people find and prosecute malicous users,
Actually, you can report malicious use of a system or network to the DOJ. They will be happy to hear from you.
tried to pass legistation that would force an ISP to cooperate with users who had a valid log/evidence of wrong-doing
1) That would place too much of a burden on the ISPs. They would have to investigate the validity of claims, as to prevent abuse of the system. A much better solution is to report misuse to the appropriate angency, and have them investigate it. (They can then sequester the ISP for the neccesary information, via a warrant).
2) The government alreay passes far to many laws on its own initiatives. The DOJ should not go about inventing more. It violates checks and balances.
3) It clutters the system with even more beurocratic bullshit, not to mention makes internet access more expensive.
instead of, say, ignoring you because they don't want to lose a customer
The way I see it, if they are not willing to cooperate, they're losing a customer either way.
This sounds like a GREAT solution
Well, I wouldn't call it great, but hey. I'll compromise. It sounds like A solution.
link: http://www.cybercrime.gov/