qmail has bugs, just no bugs that affect security. But they are bugs nonetheless.
One bug is to do with insufficient checking of a counter, so it wraps at 2GB. The worst case here is that the program crashes, I believe. I don't think it is exploitable.
Another bug is a crash on parsing a slightly weird.qmail file. I can't remember the exact details of that.
Then there are various other things that you could consider bugs. qmail doesn't comply with the current Internet standards. If you restrict bugs to mean "doesn't function as originally designed", then these are not bugs. But I think they would be considered bugs by most people, since they affect qmail's interaction with other mail software.
I don't know why more stuff doesn't use S/MIME early on. PGP/GPG and the others are not really standard and don't work off-the-shelf with a lot of big software (Mozilla and Outlook being two of them).
Have you looked at the OpenPGP standard? It's an IETF standard (RFC 2440) - a Proposed Standard. I have no idea whether Mozilla or Outlook support it, but I think mutt does.
We used to have a similar problem at my old work, where 64.0.0.0/8 was used as a test network. Unfortunately this address range was then assigned, which meant that several websites, notably Hotmail, where unaccessible. It was a right PITA and no-one seemed bothered about fixing it. Fortunately it did get fixed, when we renumbered our entire network. That was relatively painless, but then there were only about 100 boxen to renumber.
The gcc team are within their rights releasing something that isn't known to compile a package as important as gcc.
Part of the staged gcc build process is to build gcc with gcc. So every release of gcc should be able to build itself. I think you meant KDE in this part of the comment.
I think the whole thing with gcc 2.96 could have been handled a lot better. But I think RedHat helped out the gcc people a lot by getting a pre-release of gcc 3.0 out there.
gcc 3.0 was OK for compiling C code. For C++: well, what is it they say about using.0 versions? 8)
One thing I read recently (perhaps in The Big Issue) was about people in London parking their mopeds & motorbikes on the pavements (aka sidewalks for the USians around). It's illegal to park anywhere other than marked spaces. But people are getting round it by covering up their mopeds & bikes (and hence registration plates) with cloths. Traffic wardens are not allowed to tamper with the bikes, so they can't remove the cloths, to see the registration plates. Sneaky, huh?
You are right in a way, but bear in mind that tux-racer uses the cygwin api (the windows version even includes cygwin.dll!)
So, what's your point? Think of Cygwin as a "Unix [class] library". It's no different than using MFC or any portable library. Using Cygwin doesn't make TuxRacer any less of a Windows program. It's like saying that a game compiled with DJGPP & Allegro isn't a DOS program.
If it bothers you that it uses Cygwin, why not try compiling it with Mingw instead? Then it wouldn't need cygwin.dll, just the C DLLs that Microsoft distributes with Windows.
Re:Get your mainframe!! Mainframes here!!
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 1
User mode Linux == Mainframe-like functionality?
Isn't this sort of thing that the S390s do? So couldn't we now start running mad-crazy numbers of VMs on straight up PC hardware? So if I were an ISP, I could give each of my clients their own host, yes?
IIRC S390s are designed to support VMs in hardware - they have special instructions. It's likely that there will be a larger performance hit running multiple user-mode Linuces on PC hardware than running multiple "normal" Linuces on an S390.
Anyway, can't you effectively give all your clients their own host by using chroot'd servers and virtual hosting? Probably better than running n virtual copies of Linux!
Each ISP could fit its entire dialup range of IPv4 addresses within a properly assigned IPv6 space, and utilise a NAT facility at the router or firewall level to remap addresses.
In this way, we could transform the entire backbone into IPv6, and allow each ISP to offer a much increased range of IPv4 addresses to subscribers.
Then, we can leave all those 'stable' OSs alone to continue supporting IPv4, which lets face it, works fine at the moment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Unforunately NAT breaks the end-to-end transparency of the Internet protocols. Each protocol (on top of IP) that embeds IP addresses in its packets will break with NAT. FTP is an example. NAT gateways have to rewrite the FTP packets. So, this are a bit broken right now. IMHO NAT is a quick hack and not really a long-term solution. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.
IPv6's larger addresses provide a way of regaining end-to-end transparency again. The ugly NAT hack will no longer be needed.
You can get routers that do this in hardware at wire-speed, i.e. there is no slowdown. Admittedly these routers are much more expensive, but I think the big ISPs use them in the centre of their switching fabric.
Slashdot Mirror
qmail has bugs, just no bugs that affect security. But they are bugs nonetheless.
.qmail file. I can't remember the exact details of that.
One bug is to do with insufficient checking of a counter, so it wraps at 2GB. The worst case here is that the program crashes, I believe. I don't think it is exploitable.
Another bug is a crash on parsing a slightly weird
Then there are various other things that you could consider bugs. qmail doesn't comply with the current Internet standards. If you restrict bugs to mean "doesn't function as originally designed", then these are not bugs. But I think they would be considered bugs by most people, since they affect qmail's interaction with other mail software.
Have you looked at the OpenPGP standard? It's an IETF standard (RFC 2440) - a Proposed Standard. I have no idea whether Mozilla or Outlook support it, but I think mutt does.
That must have an exciting changelog.
We used to have a similar problem at my old work, where 64.0.0.0/8 was used as a test network. Unfortunately this address range was then assigned, which meant that several websites, notably Hotmail, where unaccessible. It was a right PITA and no-one seemed bothered about fixing it. Fortunately it did get fixed, when we renumbered our entire network. That was relatively painless, but then there were only about 100 boxen to renumber.
The gcc team are within their rights releasing something that isn't known to compile a package as important as gcc.
.0 versions? 8)
Part of the staged gcc build process is to build gcc with gcc. So every release of gcc should be able to build itself. I think you meant KDE in this part of the comment.
I think the whole thing with gcc 2.96 could have been handled a lot better. But I think RedHat helped out the gcc people a lot by getting a pre-release of gcc 3.0 out there.
gcc 3.0 was OK for compiling C code. For C++: well, what is it they say about using
One thing I read recently (perhaps in The Big Issue) was about people in London parking their mopeds & motorbikes on the pavements (aka sidewalks for the USians around). It's illegal to park anywhere other than marked spaces. But people are getting round it by covering up their mopeds & bikes (and hence registration plates) with cloths. Traffic wardens are not allowed to tamper with the bikes, so they can't remove the cloths, to see the registration plates. Sneaky, huh?
So, what's your point? Think of Cygwin as a "Unix [class] library". It's no different than using MFC or any portable library. Using Cygwin doesn't make TuxRacer any less of a Windows program. It's like saying that a game compiled with DJGPP & Allegro isn't a DOS program.
If it bothers you that it uses Cygwin, why not try compiling it with Mingw instead? Then it wouldn't need cygwin.dll, just the C DLLs that Microsoft distributes with Windows.
IIRC S390s are designed to support VMs in hardware - they have special instructions. It's likely that there will be a larger performance hit running multiple user-mode Linuces on PC hardware than running multiple "normal" Linuces on an S390.
Anyway, can't you effectively give all your clients their own host by using chroot'd servers and virtual hosting? Probably better than running n virtual copies of Linux!
Aye, it certainly is.
They're interesting reads, if you're interested in how NAT breaks end-to-end transparency and its place in the Internet of now & the future.
Unforunately NAT breaks the end-to-end transparency of the Internet protocols. Each protocol (on top of IP) that embeds IP addresses in its packets will break with NAT. FTP is an example. NAT gateways have to rewrite the FTP packets. So, this are a bit broken right now. IMHO NAT is a quick hack and not really a long-term solution. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.
IPv6's larger addresses provide a way of regaining end-to-end transparency again. The ugly NAT hack will no longer be needed.
You can get routers that do this in hardware at wire-speed, i.e. there is no slowdown. Admittedly these routers are much more expensive, but I think the big ISPs use them in the centre of their switching fabric.
Hmmm, fancy having a go next Tuesday?
So globalisation and corporatism are exclusively American ideas are they? Please get off this America = the world trip - it's starting to get boring.