still not quite there as I only have to get your login name, secuid key chain and guess what your 4 digit pin is.
Unless you've also limited failled login attempts to , say, 5, before the account is disabled. Then unless the pin is *really* stupid (say 1234), you're good to go.
I found Linux firewalls to be a real PITA. Getting XFree86 3.3.6 working on my Thinkpad 760XL was a lot easier.
The reference to XFree86 3.3.6 makes me wonder if you were using the older ipchains instead of iptables. iptables, being stateful with good connection tracking for various protocols, is much easier.
Clients will take delivery of the first ALLERCA kittens in 2007.
From the first hit on Google searching for cat gestation:
"Cats generally have pregnancies lasting from 58 to 65 days".
So the fact that the first one won't "ship" until 2007 is a bad sign. Anybody sending these folks money now, *please* contact me for a great deal on a bridge.
after reading just part of the article, I could not help but to ask "WTF?". Lots of rambling, offtopic, bouncing back and forth and non-sense. I gave up. And I LOVE Perl (the only language I can actually do some work with).
I agree. Larry Wall is a good guy I'm sure, having given us Perl which is a fabulous tool and is free in all senses. But IMO his "State of the Onion" speeches are seldom if ever worth the effort. I framkly pass on reading them in full now, once I'm sure that a given one is the same as the rest.
OpenLinux was the first distro with a graphical installer and a hardware autodetect that actually worked great.
The graphical installer worked if you had the right video card. Mine worked (with tweaking) once linux was up but did not work for the graphical installer.
The text install I had to fall back to failed to properly install the "atd" daemon and the "innd" daemon. Days of tweaking would not get innd to to work.
The Redhat and Suse installers of the same era (versions that came out within weeks of OpenLinux 2.2) while not graphical, did every bit as good a job of detecting my hardware and a better job of installing services.
However, as he's not dropping the current lawsuits, there's no good reason to believe him on this change in strategy.
It's not a change of strategy. It's a rout. The suit based on copyrights (SCO v AutoZone) was stayed in favor of the original IBM suit and copyright counterclaims - as was Redhat v SCO - so it's clear that any other copyright-based suit will get the same treatment, making the filing worthless, even as intimidation. The other customer suit (SCO v Diamler ) was a joke that was almost entirley dismissed. There's probalby not enough left for any action.
So it's not a change of strategy, it's a smackdown, one of many they will endure, tho not necessarily quickly.
Because Sun is bought and paid for by MS. It is in fact MS money that puts Sun's balance sheet in this position in the first place.
If Sun buys Novell, will Novell continue to maintain their position that the SCO Group does not own UNIX copyrights? Not if MS has anything to say about it.
If Sun buys Novell, will Novell continue to waive the license issues as the SCO group tries to bring them up? Not if MS has anything to say about it.
One line on perl typically does a lot more than one line of C code (even without absurd "golf" tricks). The same is true of other high level languages. So even leaving out issues of programmer quality, what does this really mean?
Also, from the linked article:
Reasons why these results are meaningless:
Most importantly, I've told SLOCCount all of CPAN is one project, which is probably inflating the numbers significantly. When I get more time, I may run SLOCCount per-distribution, then sum the totals. However, SLOCCount appears to have bugs handling this many sub-projects, so I will need to run them separately and manually sum the results.
mini-cpan.pl doesn't actually find only the latest versions of everything, some dists are duplicated and some may be ignored.
There's probably plenty of generated code not being identified correctly.
There's probably plenty of code downloadable from CPAN that wasn't written for CPAN, and so probably shouldn't be counted.
All the usual reasons why code metrics based on numbers of lines of source code are meaningless.
And here's another: CPAN includes perl itself - which is probably a *lot* of lines of C code.
Copying and pasting the linked Sourceforge page into a file, then sortting yelds the following highest project numbers:
Perl 5254 projects PHP 9010 projects Java 12210 projects C 13069 projects C++ 13255 projects
So perl is behind only 4 others. Given that much Perl project work probably ends up in CPAN instead of sourceforge, this is actually pretty high. Did the poster mean he'd expect higher without CPAN?
There is likely a higher statistical probability that the use of Microsoft products would create "future legal headaches."
3 words: Timeline v. Microssoft.
A real case where a real court found that real users were infringing Timeline's copyrights and/or licenses because they used code they recieved from Microsoft the way Microsoft told them to. Not bulls*** like the SCO "cases".
Many Network Management workstations were Sun boxes. People did in fact sit at them.
Timeview, used to manage Timeplex's T1/T3 Multiplexers, comes to mind. And Cabletron had a product called Spectrum, used to manage their hubs, or whatever other stuff you were running, also ran on solaris on Sparc.
This was done solely to make it easier (and cheaper) for OEMs to count how many licenses they have to pay for.
No, because MS did so-called "per-CPU" licensing" where the OEM payed per computer shipped, whether it had the MS product on it or not. Nice try, though, next time just have at least *one* fact right.
Oh and the idea that dell couldn't count which PCs shipped with which OS unless they were different models is just too silly for words. YOu don't even lie well.
1. Is it possible to crack/etc/shadow file in linux with time-memory trade-off technique?
No, you can't. Linux use salt to randomize the hash, which is originally designed to defend this kind of attack. However, any hash with salt is resistant to time-memory trade-off attack, while hashes without salt aren't.
plausible reason why someone would try to make the link between Minix and Linux in the first place
No, because the guy who made this link, Ken Brown, intentionally ignored multiple sources of information that Linux was *not* derived from Linux. It was totally untrue, and he knew it because:
Tanenbaum, who wrote Minix, told him so.
The guy Ken Brown hired to find where Linux took from Minix told him that it had not in fact happened, after analysing the code.
There never was *any* plausible support for Brown's case and he knew it *befire* making PR announcements, but he went ahead anyhow.
We spend a lot of time convincing customers to "recycle" about 1/3 of their PC hardware per year so that all of their hardware is covered under warranty
With thin client systems, just have an extra around as a spare. They are so cheap, much cheaper than trying to fix.
Having part of the office on Windows XP, part on Windows NT 4, and part on Windows 95, and half under warranty and half not covered under warranty just increases support and management costs.
With thin client everyonbe runs the same software becuse... uh, everyone is running the *same* software.
Slashdot Mirror
JUST KIDDING!
Isn't the idea of perl poetry that it is supposed to complile in perl? Your example fails that test. Of course, it fails most other tests, too.
Unless you've also limited failled login attempts to , say, 5, before the account is disabled. Then unless the pin is *really* stupid (say 1234), you're good to go.
The reference to XFree86 3.3.6 makes me wonder if you were using the older ipchains instead of iptables. iptables, being stateful with good connection tracking for various protocols, is much easier.
Just like their court case.
From the first hit on Google searching for cat gestation:
"Cats generally have pregnancies lasting from 58 to 65 days".
So the fact that the first one won't "ship" until 2007 is a bad sign. Anybody sending these folks money now, *please* contact me for a great deal on a bridge.
There were 2 folks there who reported to Groklaw what happened. They also report that Maureen O'Gara was *not* at the hearing.
See: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200410231 53851359
So instead of there being 9 out of 10 tracks on the CD that I'd never think of paying for, there will be 10 out of 11. I'm thrilled.
I agree. Larry Wall is a good guy I'm sure, having given us Perl which is a fabulous tool and is free in all senses. But IMO his "State of the Onion" speeches are seldom if ever worth the effort. I framkly pass on reading them in full now, once I'm sure that a given one is the same as the rest.
The graphical installer worked if you had the right video card. Mine worked (with tweaking) once linux was up but did not work for the graphical installer.
The text install I had to fall back to failed to properly install the "atd" daemon and the "innd" daemon. Days of tweaking would not get innd to to work.
The Redhat and Suse installers of the same era (versions that came out within weeks of OpenLinux 2.2) while not graphical, did every bit as good a job of detecting my hardware and a better job of installing services.
It's not a change of strategy. It's a rout. The suit based on copyrights (SCO v AutoZone) was stayed in favor of the original IBM suit and copyright counterclaims - as was Redhat v SCO - so it's clear that any other copyright-based suit will get the same treatment, making the filing worthless, even as intimidation. The other customer suit (SCO v Diamler ) was a joke that was almost entirley dismissed. There's probalby not enough left for any action.
So it's not a change of strategy, it's a smackdown, one of many they will endure, tho not necessarily quickly.
Because Sun is bought and paid for by MS. It is in fact MS money that puts Sun's balance sheet in this position in the first place.
If Sun buys Novell, will Novell continue to maintain their position that the SCO Group does not own UNIX copyrights? Not if MS has anything to say about it.
If Sun buys Novell, will Novell continue to waive the license issues as the SCO group tries to bring them up? Not if MS has anything to say about it.
Also, from the linked article:
And here's another: CPAN includes perl itself - which is probably a *lot* of lines of C code.So perl is behind only 4 others. Given that much Perl project work probably ends up in CPAN instead of sourceforge, this is actually pretty high. Did the poster mean he'd expect higher without CPAN?
3 words: Timeline v. Microssoft.
A real case where a real court found that real users were infringing Timeline's copyrights and/or licenses because they used code they recieved from Microsoft the way Microsoft told them to. Not bulls*** like the SCO "cases".
I think I did that once. the 'x' and the 'c' keys are right next to each other......ouch
Many Network Management workstations were Sun boxes. People did in fact sit at them.
Timeview, used to manage Timeplex's T1/T3 Multiplexers, comes to mind. And Cabletron had a product called Spectrum, used to manage their hubs, or whatever other stuff you were running, also ran on solaris on Sparc.
This was done solely to make it easier (and cheaper) for OEMs to count how many licenses they have to pay for.
No, because MS did so-called "per-CPU" licensing" where the OEM payed per computer shipped, whether it had the MS product on it or not. Nice try, though, next time just have at least *one* fact right.
Oh and the idea that dell couldn't count which PCs shipped with which OS unless they were different models is just too silly for words. YOu don't even lie well.
Not that's wrong too. Tanenbaum wrote Minix form scratch.
No, because the guy who made this link, Ken Brown, intentionally ignored multiple sources of information that Linux was *not* derived from Linux. It was totally untrue, and he knew it because:
-
Tanenbaum, who wrote Minix, told him so.
-
The guy Ken Brown hired to find where Linux took from Minix told him that it had not in fact happened, after analysing the code.
There never was *any* plausible support for Brown's case and he knew it *befire* making PR announcements, but he went ahead anyhow.With thin client systems, just have an extra around as a spare. They are so cheap, much cheaper than trying to fix.
Having part of the office on Windows XP, part on Windows NT 4, and part on Windows 95, and half under warranty and half not covered under warranty just increases support and management costs.
With thin client everyonbe runs the same software becuse ... uh, everyone is running the *same* software.
Glad I'm not one of your customers.
Novell is in no way owned by Canopy. Canopy does involve Ray Noorda, who was (I think) CEO of Novell, but that's not the same thing, especially now.
Already got them - they're called Windows.
Have you any idea at all what you are talking about? what in the world are "token-ring ethernet adapters"? It's one or the other.