> Around here, we call that "logrotate."
logrotate is mentioned explicitely in the README file of the software.
Some operating systems come with preinstalled log-rotation software.
However, the log-rotation software provided by an operating system
vendor is normally -- at best -- able to recognize and rotate logs
created by vendor-provided software. If you have installed third-party
application software, or software you have written or compiled yourself,
it may keep logs completely outside the notice of log rotators.
Here are some of the questions system administrators can ask themselves
to ensure that their data retention policies are followed as
faithfully as possible.
Does my operating system have a log rotation utility such as logrotate?
Is the log rotation utility enabled and functioning? Does it run
automatically at predetermined intervals?
Does the configuration of the log rotation software match my logging and
data retention policy?
Do I have any third-party application software or user-developed software
that keeps logs? If so, is the log rotation software aware of them?
Are there any logs that might exist in an unexpected place, such as a
user's home directory? (For example, Unix sites that use procmail for
e-mail delivery often have ~/.procmail/log files on a per-user basis,
in parallel to and often redundant with systemwide e-mail log files.
Similarly, a site with multiple virtually-hosted web sites may have
separate site-by-site web transaction logging -- or logs from user-created
CGI scripts -- within individual user home directories. These logs can
be difficult to observe with a utility such as lsof, because they are
usually not held open by the software that creates them, and may be
updated relatively infrequently. Therefore, merely looking for open
files or recently updated files may not unearth these sorts of logs.)
Do I have application software that logs into a relational database
table, such as an Oracle or MySQL database? (For extremely large logs,
or logs that are intended to be routinely machine-readable, logging
into a database is more likely than logging into a text file.) If so,
are the records in the table allowed to persist forever, or are they
periodically purged?
Do I have applications that are configured to log over a network to a
remote machine, using a facility such as syslog's loghost feature?
(This is especially common in clusters and in centrally-administered
networks.) If so, what is that machine doing with the log data it
receives over the network?
Do I have logs in binary formats (such as Unix wtmp/utmp or the Windows
registry) that might be difficult to recognize as logs on sight?
If my data retention policy calls for secure deletion of log files, is
my log rotation software or other software that implements the policy
using an appropriate secure deletion utility? (Files that are deleted
but not overwritten might be undeletable in whole or in part. Some
experts have also recommended means of multiply-overwriting files to
reduce the chance that usable information might remain on magnetic media
even after a single overwriting.)
Haha, good point. There was some allusion to them being a replacement for current computer paradigms there at the moment, which is (to my understanding of it) simply not true, at least with what we know of them at present.
Well, I don't pay for AntiViral, AntiSpyWare stuff. I don't need them, (generally speaking) with linux. In 8 years of running linux, I've seen one box rootkitted, we rebooted it, installed the fix, and cleaned it up, its next reboot was 9 months later when a power outage outlasted the ups. And I do use a firewall, and I do make backups every night.
All that is needed for this sort of exploit is user-level access (once they're remotely accessing your browser saved passwords, it's essentially all over, although what you were thinking saving passwords for online banking is completely beyond me, although a keylogger could theoretically achieve a similar result). I use Windows (and Linux, but my primary box is Windows) because certain software I use is only available for Windows, and I can tell you that it can be easily secured. There are free antivirus systems - although most sensible users won't ever need to use one. It's people who don't know what they're doing that are the real risk. It is trivially as easy to write a "trojan horse"-style system for Linux as for Windows, and although it won't get root access (which is a damned saviour, and a shining example of the better security architecture of Linux), it could get enough access to initiate this type of scam.
Since most viruses are not of this type, and there is a more experienced and less numerous userbase on Linux, it's simply not beneficial to write this sort of system for Linux. I suspect it'll be something that we'll be seeing more and more of as Linux moves to being a viable (then popular) desktop system, though. Shrugging off security concerns such as this with "it's never happened to me"s helps no-one. I've used Windows since I was about 13, and it's never happened to me, either.
3 news stories and none of them explains what the patent really is about.
Does anybody know?
I'm interested in this too. There are literally thousands (or more) of programs infringing this patent if it's as generic as the news post makes it sound.
On the other hand, though, if they continue to try integrating Apple's changes, they may reach the quandary of never being finished, which screws up the practicality angle. Seperate "core" and "Apple extended" branches seems almost necessary here, for consistency. But then, that could be going too far in itself.
Hurd's architecture is a great deal more modern than that of Linux. It's just never been properly finished. Real Soon Now.
As for the OpenStep/GNUSTEP thing, I assume simply because it's an open standard that was decided to be part of the "GNU System". It's also, as someone pointed out, a frozen standard - it's not going to change like KDE/GNOME could.
I seem to doubt that the interviewer actually said "double-quote bill space gates space is space the space devil double-quote". Don't get real (correct) punctuation mixed up with what's actually being described.
I thought this was interesting because, as far as I can tell, all I need to do in order to keep my Macintosh functioning securely is to make sure software update is on, and that at a time convenient to me I run it and update my system.
Windows patches are so frequent and their consequences so probematical that I can see a reason to keep legions of people around to fix them. But I've never had trouble with my Mac's security updates (knock on aluminum).
Windows patches are no more frequent than any other OS I know (certainly no more frequent than those for my Linux box!). "Automatic updates" (now) works fine, and as it should. The main caveat to Windows patches, that I've found, is that they more frequently require restart than those for other systems - and even then, I believe that the "server" flavours are less affected by this.
the quotes may have been added for grammatical reasons in the final product. He might not have specified them during the interview, leading Big Bill to say that.
May have? I think your parent post forgot what it was like to communicate in real life, to be completely honest. There's too many bits of real speech in the interview for me to think it was carried out online.
Besides, no-one wants to interview someone over MSN Messenger...
With this system, everything is a key frame. If you have corruption in an inter-frame compressed system, it lasts until the next keyframe - with a system such as this one, you only lose quality on the frame where the loss is.
Seriously though - a lack of age-restriction on purchases somewhat reduces a parent's ability to give their child freedoms, no? Say you want to bring your child up without giving them violent videogames until they're in their teens or whatever - without legislation banning the selling of these to children, you'd have to stop them going to shops to give them this sort of parenting. If you know they can't "under your nose" grab them from shops, you can let them go out.
I'm not from the US, though, so I don't really know the ins and outs of this situation. I don't see why pornography should be different, however.
Most people who complain about speed, complains about start-up times, which isn't a problem on Linux, since you can start all the applications you need and leave them running forever. There is no need to quit an application - just switch desktops.
If you use Linux, then you should think Linux - if you use Linux in single tasking mode as if it is a MS Winblows machine and is forever starting and quitting programs, then you deserve to suffer...
So your suggestion for getting Linux accepted as a desktop system is that people should change their natural way of using a desktop system, because this way "works better"? Surely you're blaming the user for a fault of the system?
I think I alluded to that in the original post, but yeah. It just seemed the poster was trying to use 9/11 as a flimsy excuse to follow up a political agenda, which is just not on.
There was a time when I would agree with you, but now I find myself frustrated, yelling at my IMAP server to support a "labels" system. It's a more logical mapping of categorisation to a mail system.
After all, 9/11 is Clinton's fault. He had a chance to take out osama bin-laden..but he was too busy "not having sexual relations" in the whitehouse.
Please tell me that was a joke. His sexual indiscretions had no effect on his actual effectiveness as a leader. Unless you're talking about the media circus surrounding it, in which case I agree - blowing up a huge fuss over something which did not effect his leadership was, in effect, undermining has ability to run the United States.
If he failed to capture Bin Laden because of a decision he made, it has precisely nothing to do with the Lewinsky affair. And if he actually ordered people not to capture Bin Laden, I suspect that the issues surrounding the situation were a great deal more complex than you're letting on.
I'm not trying to directly defend Clinton here, being a foreign national I don't really care. But by blaming something with the magnitude of 9/11 on a BS reason like that is just foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
As some other comments already beat me to saying, the people with something to hide are already hiding it.
Oh, I'm not arguing that Quantum computers aren't useful, they're just not useful for most traditional roles.
At least, that's what I meant to say!
Haha, good point. There was some allusion to them being a replacement for current computer paradigms there at the moment, which is (to my understanding of it) simply not true, at least with what we know of them at present.
Now if only we could something useful for it to do! (other than crypotgraphy)
Something tells me that the result would be similar to this comic...
Since most viruses are not of this type, and there is a more experienced and less numerous userbase on Linux, it's simply not beneficial to write this sort of system for Linux. I suspect it'll be something that we'll be seeing more and more of as Linux moves to being a viable (then popular) desktop system, though. Shrugging off security concerns such as this with "it's never happened to me"s helps no-one. I've used Windows since I was about 13, and it's never happened to me, either.
On the other hand, though, if they continue to try integrating Apple's changes, they may reach the quandary of never being finished, which screws up the practicality angle. Seperate "core" and "Apple extended" branches seems almost necessary here, for consistency. But then, that could be going too far in itself.
I've never had a problem with it, other than that I have to manually sign on to the friends thing.
Who knows?
It appears to continue to be the case that I'm the only person in the world to have not had a problem with Steam...
Hurd's architecture is a great deal more modern than that of Linux. It's just never been properly finished. Real Soon Now.
As for the OpenStep/GNUSTEP thing, I assume simply because it's an open standard that was decided to be part of the "GNU System". It's also, as someone pointed out, a frozen standard - it's not going to change like KDE/GNOME could.
I seem to doubt that the interviewer actually said "double-quote bill space gates space is space the space devil double-quote". Don't get real (correct) punctuation mixed up with what's actually being described.
Besides, no-one wants to interview someone over MSN Messenger...
With this system, everything is a key frame. If you have corruption in an inter-frame compressed system, it lasts until the next keyframe - with a system such as this one, you only lose quality on the frame where the loss is.
I think you're confusing effect with cause, here...
Adding some XPCOM libraries would make it possible to build a Mozilla-based Office suite, though. Would be an interesting thing to see.
If only there was an operating system without thousands of undiscovered security holes...
Of course! AmigaOS!
Hahaha, good point.
Seriously though - a lack of age-restriction on purchases somewhat reduces a parent's ability to give their child freedoms, no? Say you want to bring your child up without giving them violent videogames until they're in their teens or whatever - without legislation banning the selling of these to children, you'd have to stop them going to shops to give them this sort of parenting. If you know they can't "under your nose" grab them from shops, you can let them go out.
I'm not from the US, though, so I don't really know the ins and outs of this situation. I don't see why pornography should be different, however.
I agree - I just don't see how this can be construed to be a bad thing. Isn't this what "parental guidance" is supposed to entail?
I think I alluded to that in the original post, but yeah. It just seemed the poster was trying to use 9/11 as a flimsy excuse to follow up a political agenda, which is just not on.
There was a time when I would agree with you, but now I find myself frustrated, yelling at my IMAP server to support a "labels" system. It's a more logical mapping of categorisation to a mail system.
If he failed to capture Bin Laden because of a decision he made, it has precisely nothing to do with the Lewinsky affair. And if he actually ordered people not to capture Bin Laden, I suspect that the issues surrounding the situation were a great deal more complex than you're letting on.
I'm not trying to directly defend Clinton here, being a foreign national I don't really care. But by blaming something with the magnitude of 9/11 on a BS reason like that is just foolish.