>Important part of the terminator is to stop these GM species
*sigh*
From the Monsanto spokeswoman on the BBC.
The terminator was to be included in 3rd world countires to stop the farmers from re-planting seeds. The reason was to PROTECT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the Monsanto corporation, because in 3rd world places, IP rights are weak.
The 'sanity' is the defending of the rights of the company vs your rights as an individual.
>In fact, they`re more likely to become resistant with the organic growers applying it to the plants, as they have to use so much more of it.
Actually, do you know ANYTHING about organic farming and the usage of BT? BT is EXPENSIVE. (If it was CHEAP, then it would be the toxin of choice rather than your chlorpyrifos)
BT is used by organic farmers when normal crop rotation methods, soil management, and other methods have failed, and you have too high a population of worms. Given the high costs of BT, you don't want to use it more than 2 times a year, if at all.
In field usage data for 40 years of BT application have shown NO resistance buildup.
It is the effectiveness of BT that Monsanto trots out when they talk about the wonders of yieldmaster. *IF* worms become resistant/immune to BT, then the blame can be laid on Monsanto. But blame is useless, as the organic farmers will have lost the only effective tool they have.
(Of course the pesticide debate is moot when farmers deploy solar powered bug-hunting nannites)
Perhaps then it is time to formalize the GPL religion?
A NEW neo-pagan religion that says the creator GPLs: Written words Genetics one click buying (insert questionable patent here)
The new testiment version would cover how the ruination of all will come from Gates of Hell (where Hell is defined as, oh Microsoft) and there will be silicon and bad-code raining down on us all!
And to think, they already HAVE a ready-made enemy. The daemon-worshiping BSDers.
GNU/Linux is implemented to mostly follow standard SYS V AT&T Unix API's/system calls GNU/Linux has (almost) no AT&T code. GNU/Linux builds on the works of other coders. Based on these (what will be called facts for the sake of this posting) you refer to GNU/Linux as a CLONE.
4.4 BSD is implemented to mostly follow standard SYS V AT&T Unix API's/system calls 4.4 BSD lite has (almost) NO AT&T code. 4.4 BSD builds on works of other coders (These are facts) Therefore, using your own criteria, BSD is ALSO a CLONE. There is *NO LEGAL TRACE* of AT&T Unix left in present day BSD.
based on: http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/default. asp?String=derive.from*1%2B0&ACT=SELECT
Do you dispute this statement:
Gnu/Linux is/was formed by a process of derivation from existing AT&T Sys V system and userland programming specifications.
How about this one:
GNU/Linux was/is DERIVED from APIs created for use in AT&T SYS V Unix.
What about the shorter: GNU/Linux is derived from AT&T Sys V Unix
'Reality' in this case is where you decide to draw up your definitions. Its the OLD debate of is Unix a philosophy, (pipes, small tools linking together to make bigger tools), a set of API's (if you conform, you are Unix), a set of source code (if its not THAT code, its not Unix), or the registered trademark of AT&T/Novell/SCO/Open source group. Mr. Richie was attempting to get past the LEGAL "Unix is a registered trademark" issues by calling things that function overall like a Unix(tm) system "Unix Derived". Smacks of the newer debate of is 'Linux' a kernel, the kernel + 'userland', or a SPECIFIC distribution.
The older question that applies here is: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and when you eviscerate it - looks like a duck, is it a duck?" And, being that GNU/Linux has most of the features/attributes one 'expects to find on a Unix(tm) platform' *AND* can't be called Unix(tm) (because Unix(tm) is a registered trademark), not to mention the SOURCE of the API format, the SOURCE of the talent that writes GNU/Linux, and the reason Linus started this was to have a Unix of his own, calling GNU/Linux a derivative of Unix(tm) is a correct statement. There are too many links to a Unix(tm) past to deny the word derived.
I'm happy for that you Mr/Ms Sushi, that the world is so black and white, so clear cut, that the only reason GNU/Linux is not derived from Unix is something as simple as sourcecode.
>This is an interesting idea but ultimately flawed, I think. The only way to write the news is to write the news.
And Janes isn't NEWS. Janes is (supposed to be) in-depth analysis. Janes (obvoiusly) has no internal/on the payroll talent that was able to create a viable 'cyberterrorism' article, and they knew it...at least knew it enough to take what their 'expert' had written and had it reviewed here.
Janes *ALSO* had a small enough ego to determine that a 'peer' review was worthwhile. Kudos for them.
I personally am e-mailing Cringly and asking how what Janes did is ANY different than a beat reporter interviewing a group of people, then creating an article based on the interview.
Because all Janes did was to ask *US* to be interviewed, and we submitted. Janes ask some questions, and many people answered those questions. It only LOOKS different because the proccess was done out in the open, for all to see, rather than behind closed doors.
The article as written is rather vague, and in fact, it can be argued, all that was done is to take a stock terrorism article and add the word cyberterrorism. *yawn* Its too bad that the caliber of people who will read this, and then pound their fists on the table saying 'something must be done' , will ALSO be the people who find buying socks at K-mart an amazing experience because they had never seen a bar code reader.
>Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems?
First you must define CyberTerrorism. Is it a computer virus? A (wo)man with a sledgehammer, inspired to violence by using a Microsoft product? A shipping Microsoft product? An action/code with a 'terrorist message' attached to it? "Script Kiddies"?
>What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable?
Skill level: Do you have more than 2 neurons to rub together to generate heat? Teachable: Is the method easily reproducible. If so, no teaching is needed.
1) As the defender, you only have to screw up once. The attacker gets many, many tries. 2) Most attacks are inside jobs. 3) The simplest attack is a denial of service. Just keep the target constantly busy. (Not a lot of rocket science needed)
Cyberterrorism is cheap. A well written virus is a one man job. On a now sub $500 computer, or even computers picked out of dumpsters. This is on par with creation of (spelling) Phosgen, the popular World War One nerve agent. (And we were told how to make this in HIGH SCHOOL Chemistry. If you were paying attention to the off-hand comment of the teacher)
Keep this in mind: Dead bodies in your town will feel like terrorism. Crashing computers will be written off as Microsoft products. (We seem to accept this form of terror)
>Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT?
Yes, with tweaking. And Yes, without tweaking (see script kiddies)
>Which systems are actually attackable?
Any programmable machine can be subject to attack. If the machine is network aware, the attack vectors grow to the number of connections the machine has. Ideas like the government $500,000 grant for a radio based method for changing the code a machine is running will not work, not for the foreseeable future. It is easier to deliver code changes via more traditional methods, like a floppy or a porn download.
>Can a recovery be made from such attacks?
From a data perspective, yes. Restore from backups. From the lost productivity, no.
>Is it likely to improve/get worse?
Get worse.
>What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out?
Preventive measures? Common ones like
1) Know who your employees are. 2) provide traditional security for the machines/data. 3) Have a WORKING and WORKABLE disaster recovery plan. 4) A willingness to use the LAWS WE HAVE TODAY TO PROSICUTE 'crackers'
And, a bit of knowledge of the 'computer underground' wouldn't hurt 'law enforcement'. There are white, black and hats of grey out here. If 'law enforcement' wants to continue to make asses of themselves, then by all means, do not bother to educate yourselves, and go after Steve Jackson Games (GURPS Cyberpunks is a manual for "hacking") or, the case vs the original editor of PHRACK (massive financial damage claimed about the 'secret' 911 document, when for $29.95 + S&H and a credit card you too could get this 'secret ' 911 document)
Good Luck on creating a fair, reasonable document, that can be understood by policy wonks, and doesn't confuse hacker with cracker.
Will this, as the NEWS REPORTER said, be a boon like GNU/Linux for Sun. No.
Mozilla/Apple's Darwin are 2 example "riding the Linux wave" And they arn't 'riding that high'.
A possible reason why (that has nothing to do with the GPL...we can debate something else today) is The Human Desire to Create (and call it your own)
How do we see this? NIHS - Not Invented Here Syndrome The old BSD complaint that if you created code, you had to have it approved. (I am going to ignore other creative efforts and stop the list at this point, for a list like this can go on and on)
With things like Darwin or Mozilla, no one in the 'community at large' is the creator, they can influence the work, but not be the 'author'. And, for many, being the 'author' is #1, they don't want to be a part..however small.
The promise of NT 3.1 was that Micro$oft would ship a better Unix than Unix. ($250 for unlimited users....it WAS a threat to Unix.)
The KEY from the article was "This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine,"
Prediction:
Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.
To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)
And because the Linux Standard Bianry movement won't have its act together, the BSD variant, with Micro$oft 'extensions' will become the de-facto Linux compatiblity, only because of the large Windows sales volume.
Remember: Ya read it here 1st on/. News for Nerds, stuff that makes ya really scared.
How billion dollar software houses are there? (answer few)
How many billion dollar hardware houses are there? (answer many)
Now, how many of the billion dollar hardware companies do not add value to their product with software? (answer few)
Software is the big business.....most of them add some hardware to the software to add value.
So it is a NO BRAINER about how the future is embedded processors. (Like the 'market' for the Transmeta product) Writing for embedded environments is VERY BIG business.
Now, the embedded market is ripe with IP (Intellectual Property) With GNU/Linux you run the risk of having your IP released. Or, a torrent of flamage , like that heaped upon Corel.
Linus IS correct about the embedded market, but wrong about how GNU/Lunix will lead the charge. The BSD license is better suited for the embedded task.
Just like Apple suing anyone who sells a computer in blue/white translucent computers.
Or if Corel releases binaries of GPLed code. The GPL contract *MUST* be defended.
Otherwise, the contract becomes less enforceable. Just like the 'iMac look' or the phrase 'youve got mail'.
Face it: As the economy changes from physical things like steel formulation, tool design, etc la to electronic information and products are 'the same' (except for the brand on the box), these kinds of lawsuits will continue.
This is just one of the many problems of the electronic world we are forging. And, you, the consumer, are what give the brands power buy buying them and making them WORTH defending. So deal with it.
The palm's PRESENT handwriting engine is Graffitti. We were instructed by the lord-hi-masters of/. to write about where we believed the FUTURE of the Palm was. Hence, I picked a small part of thier overall future. Any new handwriting engine will be ADDITIONAL to graffitti, not a replacement. But, like the Windowing front end to NT vs the command prompt, most people will use real handwriting over Graffitti.
Graffitti was 1st released as a product for the Newton to make up for the sucky nature of Rosetta 1.0. I understand why the ship date for the Newton was met, but the product was not ready. Memory of the sucky 1.0 release, combined with being mired in Apple is what helped to keep the Newton to what it was.
The last release of NI (Newton Intelligence) was 2.1, and the rosetta code in there works QUITE well. Combined with the 161 Mhz StrongARM processor and the handwriting is as good as it gets....Well, ok as good as it got. No hesitation, it just worked.
When Jobs cancelled the Newton spin-off, a group of 30+ Newton Engineers and support staff all left for Palm.
Given the printing engine is Apple's IP, and if Palm were to come out with a print-engine for the Palm, Apple would sue based on the 'fact' that their code was now on the Palm. (The truth of such is not important. The money for the Lawyers is what matters)
So, if Apple does a palm-based machine, the quid-quo-pro will be the rights to the handwriting engine.
1) It lets you approve the construction designs of buildings over 50,000 square feet.
2) It lets you testify in a court of law as an expert.
Given that you have to get your ET before your PE, and you have to have 4 years of RL experience before your PE becomes active, the payoff is not right away.
If you get certified, and never use it...where is the harm in that?
You went to college, so little scraps of paper saying you know something matters. So, go for this scrap also.
>Unix world is coming together at last, in the form of Linux
It would be nice to think that. And the people who TRIED to bring at least the x86 op-code Unix together over at www.86open.org drink the same kool-aid
But, the 'one Linux binary' concept is a market FAILURE as of this time.
Why?
Because **YOU** the consumer of shrink-wrapped binaries are not asking for binaries that run ANY Linux implementation, but instead ask for a linux binary and then tell the company what distro they run. So the company makes the binary for RedHat. So, instead of being seen as part of one big happy world, "if you arn't running the same distro as I am running you are my enemy" is the attitude.
Each of the distro-vendors want thier product to make them money. And the users of distro X don't want their product of choice to go away. Hence the radical 'My distro is better than your distro' or, heaven forbid, you run Linux binaries on SCO, Solaris, or BSD.
As long as there are so many different distribution vendors, all wanting to have a makret difference, the LSB effort will continue to be a failure. For a working LSB makes the 100+ distros "the same" wrt 'linux binaries'.
If you are wanting 'world domination' for Linux, you had better START asking for shink-wrapped binaries that will run on SCO, Solaris, BSD AND ANY LINUX distro. **YOU** the binary consumer are in the driver seat. Until the concept of exclusion is changed to INCLUSION, this world domination shtick is a bust. BSD/SCO/SUN have met you 1/2 way. They have Linux binary modes. Why won't *YOU* as the consumer of shrink-wrapped binaries work to be sure *EVERYONE* is included. The world is everyone....enclude them!
Compaq has taken the OS provided them by Micro$oft and the CPU by Intel and made products.
From the DEC/Digital side, their Unix was not well accepted. The OEM mags were quoting that for every 10 users leaving VMS, only 2 stayed with Digital. (No one identified if it was DEC or its Unix as to why 80% left)
And, for Intel there are MANY Unixes, and a few non-Unix OSes. (PICK, THEOS, and some stuff from a company in Redmond) The Alpha choices are much less.
So, it does not suprise me to here that they are just going to keep working on what has already been developed...the Alpha product. Because without a market for the Alpha processor, Compaq has alot of IP they can't get a return on.
Transmeta has managed to keep the lid on quite tight.
And good for them.
I'm betting that the reason the lid is on tight is simple. Money.
There is a Bonus-payout on announcement date clause that the payout goes downhill the more information that is leaked.
So: If tounges don't wag, big money, big prizes. If the tounges DO wag, a sliding scale to zero. With a bouns on EACH check as a reminder that the phrase "Silence is Golden" has meaning)
Now play a new game....how much would you have to pay someone to talk:-) (Perhaps auto-magik/. moderation to level 5 would get them talk,,,,,)
Today there are 2 OSes. (Ok, There are more, but that is what the field is down to. If you lump them all together, the rest are a small group called OTHER)
Windows and Unix.
Both can do POSIX. Both can do OpenGL. Both have MOTIF/X. And the Unix side is working hard on Win32 compatiblity libs.
So there is no excuse for non-portable code. Unless you are lazy or pick Micro$oft tools to build with.
And, if SCO, Solaris, and BSD can figure out how to make 'Linux Compatible Binaries' run on thier platforms, there is no reason why Windows can't do the same, other than a lack of interest.
It is a converging world. Reconginze this and work to help *EVERYONE* in the convergance.
*ALL* OSes and *ALL* Processors won't happen. A combination of technology and politics.
At least not for a long time from now. (yes we have Java...no it is not fast enough. And P-code is a long time ago.)
The closest was the 86Open project, one binary for all X86 op-code Unixes. Technology-wise one binary has happened. Politically one-binary has *NOT* happened. 1) Market-share in-fighting 2) End users are not asking for 'linux compatible binaries'. The Linux COMMUNITY needs to express to vendors that there is value in running on ALL LINUX AND LINUX EMULATORS.
A 'linux standard binary' format exists....the emulator for Linux. Go to the BSD sites and look at what they have done. Declare the BSD emulator the standard, and avoid the politics of the LSB.
IBM is *ALSO* 'behind' BSD. Whistle Communications The Thin client IBM Sells.
Are 2 examples I am aware of. (Oh, and the Whistle division, like Apple have a history of giving BACK code to the BSD releases)
So is Intel. (they have given boxes to BSD *AND* Linux developers)
(And if you want some insight into Apple...read the BSD mailing lists and check out the comments from Apple. It looks like the Darwin decision was a hard fought one....(and given that most of what Darwin is is code that was already published...sorta a no-brainer))
>didn't the *bsd flavors of unix had what, 20 years to get their act togethe
Act together? Hrmmm, considering Sun (perhaps you have heard of them) BUILT their company on the back of BSD, it looks like the BSD act has been together for some time. OR how every major Unix has BSD compatibility libs?
Apple is using BSD in their Mac OS X. IBM is using BSD in thier thin client, and the InterJet. (are you willing to say that neither Apple nor IBM have their act together?)
And a bonus clue for your flamebait:
Linus is on record as saying that *IF* AT&T wasn't suing BSD, there would not be Linux...he would have been using BSD.
Back to the de-bunking:
>Then came linux and now the *bsd users have had it and are beginning to come around. I applaud them for selling and marketing and creating hype about there product which is what they should of done 20 years ago.
Repeat after me. BSD before 4.4 had AT&T licened code.
Do you UNDERSTAND what that means? It means that only ACEDEMICS could afford a AT&T source licence for AT&T. Do you grasp that to distribute the BSD code, you as the user would have to pay AT&T? And pay them a figure over $5,000. $5000 is a few dollars more than the cheapbytes price for the BSD release.
>Linux said that linux is made up of 30 full time and over 1,000 part time programmers who work on the kernel while freebsd has only 15 guys.
Errr and exactly WHERE are these numbers from?
>I believe the *bsd group should go gnu to compete with linux.
Hrmmmm. If that were to happen then Apple, IBM (Thin client, whitle and whomever else they have), the 3 man shop in Milwaukee imbedding BSD, and a whole host of others who work on the kernel and submit changes would all just go away. (Wow. When you Add in Apple and IBM it seems like a whole lot more than 15 people work on BSD. Are you getting the feeling that your 'reasons' are less and less reasonable?) Whatever happened to the idea that differences make the whole stronger?
But, from your post, the whole OpenSource community doesn't enter into your view of the world.
"Linus wrote the kernel" (or is the hi potentate of the lernel)
Then you will have 'factual errors' like the original article.
Now, Linus is on RECORD saying that the offical name is "GNU/Linux" and that "Linux is more than the kernel". Both are ignored in the partisan in-fighing of the various distrobutions and the siupporters thereof.
The 'unification of Unix' battles of the past are nothing like the moden "My Distro is better than your distro" battles of today. In the bad old days, there were not 107 versions of product.
*sigh*
When will you *ALL* come to the conclusion that "A rising tide can float all boats", and instead of running about drilling holes in the other boats, agree on what we all can agree on. That OpenSource is good, and getting vendors who wish to run on "OpenSource" OSes should write there code so it can run on *ALL* the OSes. (Hint: Think Linux compatible Binaries. )
Re:Little Bitty Brother?
on
Smart Dust
·
· Score: 2
Endust - Sure, a roll of sticky tape would stop them. Nanite Motel. Nanites check in, but they don't check out. Problem: Unless you are stupid, hard to get caught in a sticky tape roll.
Graphite powder - Any fine ground conductor would play havok on them. Problem: The fine powder wouldn't be healthy for you.
Diatomacious Earth - a personal favorite. It kills bugs by cutting them. The cuts do not kill, but the resulting dehydration DOES kill the bugs. Again, this dust is a health threat to humans. And I'm doubing the earth would be a real problem for the nanites.
You forgot radiation, electric shock or maganatisim as ways to affect them.
Given however that inhalation of this technology would not be healthy, the best 'citizen attack in the courts' would be a health threat.
Slashdot Mirror
>Important part of the terminator is to stop these GM species
*sigh*
From the Monsanto spokeswoman on the BBC.
The terminator was to be included in 3rd world countires to stop the farmers from re-planting seeds. The reason was to PROTECT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the Monsanto corporation, because in 3rd world places, IP rights are weak.
The 'sanity' is the defending of the rights of the company vs your rights as an individual.
>In fact, they`re more likely to become resistant with the organic growers applying it to the plants, as they have to use so much more of it.
Actually, do you know ANYTHING about organic farming and the usage of BT?
BT is EXPENSIVE. (If it was CHEAP, then it would be the toxin of choice rather than your chlorpyrifos)
BT is used by organic farmers when normal crop rotation methods, soil management, and other methods have failed, and you have too high a population of worms. Given the high costs of BT, you don't want to use it more than 2 times a year, if at all.
In field usage data for 40 years of BT application have shown NO resistance buildup.
It is the effectiveness of BT that Monsanto trots out when they talk about the wonders of yieldmaster. *IF* worms become resistant/immune to BT, then the blame can be laid on Monsanto. But blame is useless, as the organic farmers will have lost the only effective tool they have.
(Of course the pesticide debate is moot when farmers deploy solar powered bug-hunting nannites)
Perhaps then it is time to formalize the GPL religion?
A NEW neo-pagan religion that says the creator GPLs:
Written words
Genetics
one click buying
(insert questionable patent here)
The new testiment version would cover how the ruination of all will come from Gates of Hell (where Hell is defined as, oh Microsoft) and there will be silicon and bad-code raining down on us all!
And to think, they already HAVE a ready-made enemy. The daemon-worshiping BSDers.
GNU/Linux is implemented to mostly follow standard SYS V AT&T Unix API's/system calls
. asp?String=derive.from*1%2B0&ACT=SELECT
GNU/Linux has (almost) no AT&T code.
GNU/Linux builds on the works of other coders.
Based on these (what will be called facts for the sake of this posting) you refer to GNU/Linux as a CLONE.
4.4 BSD is implemented to mostly follow standard SYS V AT&T Unix API's/system calls
4.4 BSD lite has (almost) NO AT&T code.
4.4 BSD builds on works of other coders
(These are facts)
Therefore, using your own criteria, BSD is ALSO a CLONE. There is *NO LEGAL TRACE* of AT&T Unix left in present day BSD.
based on:
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/default
Do you dispute this statement:
Gnu/Linux is/was formed by a process of derivation from existing AT&T Sys V system and userland programming specifications.
How about this one:
GNU/Linux was/is DERIVED from APIs created for use in AT&T SYS V Unix.
What about the shorter:
GNU/Linux is derived from AT&T Sys V Unix
'Reality' in this case is where you decide to draw up your definitions. Its the OLD debate of is Unix a philosophy, (pipes, small tools linking together to make bigger tools), a set of API's (if you conform, you are Unix), a set of source code (if its not THAT code, its not Unix), or the registered trademark of AT&T/Novell/SCO/Open source group. Mr. Richie was attempting to get past the LEGAL "Unix is a registered trademark" issues by calling things that function overall like a Unix(tm) system "Unix Derived". Smacks of the newer debate of is 'Linux' a kernel, the kernel + 'userland', or a SPECIFIC distribution.
The older question that applies here is:
"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and when you eviscerate it - looks like a duck, is it a duck?"
And, being that GNU/Linux has most of the features/attributes one 'expects to find on a Unix(tm) platform' *AND* can't be called Unix(tm) (because Unix(tm) is a registered trademark), not to mention the SOURCE of the API format, the SOURCE of the talent that writes GNU/Linux, and the reason Linus started this was to have a Unix of his own, calling GNU/Linux a derivative of Unix(tm) is a correct statement. There are too many links to a Unix(tm) past to deny the word derived.
I'm happy for that you Mr/Ms Sushi, that the world is so black and white, so clear cut, that the only reason GNU/Linux is not derived from Unix is something as simple as sourcecode.
>This is an interesting idea but ultimately flawed, I think. The only way to write the news is to write the news.
And Janes isn't NEWS.
Janes is (supposed to be) in-depth analysis. Janes (obvoiusly) has no internal/on the payroll talent that was able to create a viable 'cyberterrorism' article, and they knew it...at least knew it enough to take what their 'expert' had written and had it reviewed here.
Janes *ALSO* had a small enough ego to determine that a 'peer' review was worthwhile. Kudos for them.
I personally am e-mailing Cringly and asking how what Janes did is ANY different than a beat reporter interviewing a group of people, then creating an article based on the interview.
Because all Janes did was to ask *US* to be interviewed, and we submitted. Janes ask some questions, and many people answered those questions. It only LOOKS different because the proccess was done out in the open, for all to see, rather than behind closed doors.
The article as written is rather vague, and in fact, it can be argued, all that was done is to take a stock terrorism article and add the word cyberterrorism. *yawn* Its too bad that the caliber of people who will read this, and then pound their fists on the table saying 'something must be done' , will ALSO be the people who find buying socks at K-mart an amazing experience because they had never seen a bar code reader.
>Using CT, how easy or otherwise is it to bring down or attack vital systems?
First you must define CyberTerrorism. Is it a computer virus? A (wo)man with a sledgehammer, inspired to violence by using a Microsoft product? A shipping Microsoft product? An action/code with a 'terrorist message' attached to it? "Script Kiddies"?
>What sort of skills would be needed to do so, and are they common/teachable?
Skill level: Do you have more than 2 neurons to rub together to generate heat?
Teachable: Is the method easily reproducible. If so, no teaching is needed.
1) As the defender, you only have to screw up once. The attacker gets many, many tries.
2) Most attacks are inside jobs.
3) The simplest attack is a denial of service. Just keep the target constantly busy. (Not a lot of rocket science needed)
Cyberterrorism is cheap. A well written virus is a one man job. On a now sub $500 computer, or even computers picked out of dumpsters. This is on par with creation of (spelling) Phosgen, the popular World War One nerve agent. (And we were told how to make this in HIGH SCHOOL Chemistry. If you were paying attention to the off-hand comment of the teacher)
Keep this in mind:
Dead bodies in your town will feel like terrorism.
Crashing computers will be written off as Microsoft products. (We seem to accept this form of terror)
>Commercial-off-the-shelf software: can it really do CT?
Yes, with tweaking. And Yes, without tweaking (see script kiddies)
>Which systems are actually attackable?
Any programmable machine can be subject to attack. If the machine is network aware, the attack vectors grow to the number of connections the machine has. Ideas like the government $500,000 grant for a radio based method for changing the code a machine is running will not work, not for the foreseeable future. It is easier to deliver code changes via more traditional methods, like a floppy or a porn download.
>Can a recovery be made from such attacks?
From a data perspective, yes. Restore from backups. From the lost productivity, no.
>Is it likely to improve/get worse?
Get worse.
>What sort of preventitive work would you recommend them to carry out?
Preventive measures? Common ones like
1) Know who your employees are.
2) provide traditional security for the machines/data.
3) Have a WORKING and WORKABLE disaster recovery plan.
4) A willingness to use the LAWS WE HAVE TODAY TO PROSICUTE 'crackers'
And, a bit of knowledge of the 'computer underground' wouldn't hurt 'law enforcement'. There are white, black and hats of grey out here. If 'law enforcement' wants to continue to make asses of themselves, then by all means, do not bother to educate yourselves, and go after Steve Jackson Games (GURPS Cyberpunks is a manual for "hacking") or, the case vs the original editor of PHRACK (massive financial damage claimed about the 'secret' 911 document, when for $29.95 + S&H and a credit card you too could get this 'secret ' 911 document)
Good Luck on creating a fair, reasonable document, that can be understood by policy wonks, and doesn't confuse hacker with cracker.
Will this help Sun?
Yes.
Will this, as the NEWS REPORTER said, be a boon like GNU/Linux for Sun. No.
Mozilla/Apple's Darwin are 2 example "riding the Linux wave" And they arn't 'riding that high'.
A possible reason why (that has nothing to do with the GPL...we can debate something else today) is The Human Desire to Create (and call it your own)
How do we see this?
NIHS - Not Invented Here Syndrome
The old BSD complaint that if you created code, you had to have it approved.
(I am going to ignore other creative efforts and stop the list at this point, for a list like this can go on and on)
With things like Darwin or Mozilla, no one in the 'community at large' is the creator, they can influence the work, but not be the 'author'. And, for many, being the 'author' is #1, they don't want to be a part..however small.
Remember Windows NT 3.1?
/. News for Nerds, stuff that makes ya really scared.
The promise of NT 3.1 was that Micro$oft would ship a better Unix than Unix. ($250 for unlimited users....it WAS a threat to Unix.)
The KEY from the article was "This acquisition will help us provide a subsystem in Windows that will let you run native Unix applications on the same machine,"
Prediction:
Micro$oft will offer Linux binary compatibility.
To achieve this, they will use BSD code. (Unless what they bought already has a Linux mode...)
And because the Linux Standard Bianry movement won't have its act together, the BSD variant, with Micro$oft 'extensions' will become the de-facto Linux compatiblity, only because of the large Windows sales volume.
Remember: Ya read it here 1st on
And AGAIN, the original Tandy was a Newton OMP...from the software end.
How billion dollar software houses are there?
(answer few)
How many billion dollar hardware houses are there?
(answer many)
Now, how many of the billion dollar hardware companies do not add value to their product with software?
(answer few)
Software is the big business.....most of them add some hardware to the software to add value.
So it is a NO BRAINER about how the future is embedded processors. (Like the 'market' for the Transmeta product) Writing for embedded environments is VERY BIG business.
Now, the embedded market is ripe with IP (Intellectual Property) With GNU/Linux you run the risk of having your IP released. Or, a torrent of flamage , like that heaped upon Corel.
Linus IS correct about the embedded market, but wrong about how GNU/Lunix will lead the charge. The BSD license is better suited for the embedded task.
This suit is about brand protection.
Just like Apple suing anyone who sells a computer in blue/white translucent computers.
Or if Corel releases binaries of GPLed code. The GPL contract *MUST* be defended.
Otherwise, the contract becomes less enforceable. Just like the 'iMac look' or the phrase 'youve got mail'.
Face it: As the economy changes from physical things like steel formulation, tool design, etc la to electronic information and products are 'the same' (except for the brand on the box), these kinds of lawsuits will continue.
This is just one of the many problems of the electronic world we are forging. And, you, the consumer, are what give the brands power buy buying them and making them WORTH defending. So deal with it.
The palm's PRESENT handwriting engine is Graffitti. We were instructed by the lord-hi-masters of /. to write about where we believed the FUTURE of the Palm was. Hence, I picked a small part of thier overall future. Any new handwriting engine will be ADDITIONAL to graffitti, not a replacement. But, like the Windowing front end to NT vs the command prompt, most people will use real handwriting over Graffitti.
Graffitti was 1st released as a product for the Newton to make up for the sucky nature of Rosetta 1.0. I understand why the ship date for the Newton was met, but the product was not ready. Memory of the sucky 1.0 release, combined with being mired in Apple is what helped to keep the Newton to what it was.
The last release of NI (Newton Intelligence) was 2.1, and the rosetta code in there works QUITE well. Combined with the 161 Mhz StrongARM processor and the handwriting is as good as it gets....Well, ok as good as it got. No hesitation, it just worked.
When Jobs cancelled the Newton spin-off, a group of 30+ Newton Engineers and support staff all left for Palm.
Given the printing engine is Apple's IP, and if Palm were to come out with a print-engine for the Palm, Apple would sue based on the 'fact' that their code was now on the Palm. (The truth of such is not important. The money for the Lawyers is what matters)
So, if Apple does a palm-based machine, the quid-quo-pro will be the rights to the handwriting engine.
The Second thing on tap....a faster dragonball
had told me.....
1) It lets you approve the construction designs of buildings over 50,000 square feet.
2) It lets you testify in a court of law as an expert.
Given that you have to get your ET before your PE, and you have to have 4 years of RL experience before your PE becomes active, the payoff is not right away.
If you get certified, and never use it...where is the harm in that?
You went to college, so little scraps of paper saying you know something matters. So, go for this scrap also.
>Unix world is coming together at last, in the form of Linux
It would be nice to think that. And the people who TRIED to bring at least the x86 op-code Unix together over at www.86open.org drink the same kool-aid
But, the 'one Linux binary' concept is a market FAILURE as of this time.
Why?
Because **YOU** the consumer of shrink-wrapped binaries are not asking for binaries that run ANY Linux implementation, but instead ask for a linux binary and then tell the company what distro they run. So the company makes the binary for RedHat. So, instead of being seen as part of one big happy world, "if you arn't running the same distro as I am running you are my enemy" is the attitude.
Each of the distro-vendors want thier product to make them money. And the users of distro X don't want their product of choice to go away. Hence the radical 'My distro is better than your distro' or, heaven forbid, you run Linux binaries on SCO, Solaris, or BSD.
As long as there are so many different distribution vendors, all wanting to have a makret difference, the LSB effort will continue to be a failure. For a working LSB makes the 100+ distros "the same" wrt 'linux binaries'.
If you are wanting 'world domination' for Linux, you had better START asking for shink-wrapped binaries that will run on SCO, Solaris, BSD AND ANY LINUX distro. **YOU** the binary consumer are in the driver seat. Until the concept of exclusion is changed to INCLUSION, this world domination shtick is a bust. BSD/SCO/SUN have met you 1/2 way. They have Linux binary modes. Why won't *YOU* as the consumer of shrink-wrapped binaries work to be sure *EVERYONE* is included. The world is everyone....enclude them!
Mr. Harris is correct.
The 'defection of digital clients' was the big concern.
If Digital/DEC was the "best" company to deal with, then why 80% of people who had a choice to pick ANY Unix vendor did NOT pick DEC?
Was is DEC's Unix or DEC that blew chunks.
Either way, the OpenSource Unix is a better economic choice. And that will make things rough to compete with a new product.
Or chip development.
Compaq has taken the OS provided them by Micro$oft and the CPU by Intel and made products.
From the DEC/Digital side, their Unix was not well accepted. The OEM mags were quoting that for every 10 users leaving VMS, only 2 stayed with Digital. (No one identified if it was DEC or its Unix as to why 80% left)
And, for Intel there are MANY Unixes, and a few non-Unix OSes. (PICK, THEOS, and some stuff from a company in Redmond) The Alpha choices are much less.
So, it does not suprise me to here that they are just going to keep working on what has already been developed...the Alpha product.
Because without a market for the Alpha processor, Compaq has alot of IP they can't get a return on.
Transmeta has managed to keep the lid on quite tight.
:-) /. moderation to level 5 would get them talk,,,,,)
And good for them.
I'm betting that the reason the lid is on tight is simple. Money.
There is a Bonus-payout on announcement date clause that the payout goes downhill the more information that is leaked.
So:
If tounges don't wag, big money, big prizes.
If the tounges DO wag, a sliding scale to zero.
With a bouns on EACH check as a reminder that the phrase "Silence is Golden" has meaning)
Now play a new game....how much would you have to pay someone to talk
(Perhaps auto-magik
Here's the thing:
Today there are 2 OSes. (Ok, There are more, but that is what the field is down to. If you lump them all together, the rest are a small group called OTHER)
Windows and Unix.
Both can do POSIX. Both can do OpenGL. Both have MOTIF/X. And the Unix side is working hard on Win32 compatiblity libs.
So there is no excuse for non-portable code. Unless you are lazy or pick Micro$oft tools to build with.
And, if SCO, Solaris, and BSD can figure out how to make 'Linux Compatible Binaries' run on thier platforms, there is no reason why Windows can't do the same, other than a lack of interest.
It is a converging world. Reconginze this and work to help *EVERYONE* in the convergance.
*ALL* OSes and *ALL* Processors won't happen. A combination of technology and politics.
At least not for a long time from now.
(yes we have Java...no it is not fast enough. And P-code is a long time ago.)
The closest was the 86Open project, one binary for all X86 op-code Unixes.
Technology-wise one binary has happened.
Politically one-binary has *NOT* happened.
1) Market-share in-fighting
2) End users are not asking for 'linux compatible binaries'. The Linux COMMUNITY needs to express to vendors that there is value in running on ALL LINUX AND LINUX EMULATORS.
A 'linux standard binary' format exists....the emulator for Linux. Go to the BSD sites and look at what they have done. Declare the BSD emulator the standard, and avoid the politics of the LSB.
Minor points:
IBM is *ALSO* 'behind' BSD.
Whistle Communications
The Thin client IBM Sells.
Are 2 examples I am aware of. (Oh, and the Whistle division, like Apple have a history of giving BACK code to the BSD releases)
So is Intel. (they have given boxes to BSD *AND* Linux developers)
(And if you want some insight into Apple...read the BSD mailing lists and check out the comments from Apple. It looks like the Darwin decision was a hard fought one....(and given that most of what Darwin is is code that was already published...sorta a no-brainer))
>didn't the *bsd flavors of unix had what, 20 years to get their act togethe
Act together? Hrmmm, considering Sun (perhaps you have heard of them) BUILT their company on the back of BSD, it looks like the BSD act has been together for some time.
OR how every major Unix has BSD compatibility libs?
Apple is using BSD in their Mac OS X.
IBM is using BSD in thier thin client, and the InterJet.
(are you willing to say that neither Apple nor IBM have their act together?)
And a bonus clue for your flamebait:
Linus is on record as saying that *IF* AT&T wasn't suing BSD, there would not be Linux...he would have been using BSD.
Back to the de-bunking:
>Then came linux and now the *bsd users have had it and are beginning to come around. I applaud
them for selling and marketing and creating hype about there product which is what they should of
done 20 years ago.
Repeat after me.
BSD before 4.4 had AT&T licened code.
Do you UNDERSTAND what that means? It means that only ACEDEMICS could afford a AT&T source licence for AT&T.
Do you grasp that to distribute the BSD code, you as the user would have to pay AT&T? And pay them a figure over $5,000. $5000 is a few dollars more than the cheapbytes price for the BSD release.
>Linux said that linux is made up of 30 full time and
over 1,000 part time programmers who work on the kernel while freebsd has only 15 guys.
Errr and exactly WHERE are these numbers from?
>I believe the *bsd
group should go gnu to compete with linux.
Hrmmmm. If that were to happen then Apple, IBM (Thin client, whitle and whomever else they have), the 3 man shop in Milwaukee imbedding BSD, and a whole host of others who work on the kernel and submit changes would all just go away. (Wow. When you Add in Apple and IBM it seems like a whole lot more than 15 people work on BSD. Are you getting the feeling that your 'reasons' are less and less reasonable?)
Whatever happened to the idea that differences make the whole stronger?
But, from your post, the whole OpenSource community doesn't enter into your view of the world.
So long as there are people who claim
"Linux is the kernel"
And
"Linus wrote the kernel" (or is the hi potentate of the lernel)
Then you will have 'factual errors' like the original article.
Now, Linus is on RECORD saying that the offical name is "GNU/Linux" and that "Linux is more than the kernel".
Both are ignored in the partisan in-fighing of the various distrobutions and the siupporters thereof.
The 'unification of Unix' battles of the past are nothing like the moden "My Distro is better than your distro" battles of today. In the bad old days, there were not 107 versions of product.
*sigh*
When will you *ALL* come to the conclusion that "A rising tide can float all boats", and instead of running about drilling holes in the other boats, agree on what we all can agree on. That OpenSource is good, and getting vendors who wish to run on "OpenSource" OSes should write there code so it can run on *ALL* the OSes. (Hint: Think Linux compatible Binaries. )
Endust - Sure, a roll of sticky tape would stop them. Nanite Motel. Nanites check in, but they don't check out. Problem: Unless you are stupid, hard to get caught in a sticky tape roll.
Graphite powder - Any fine ground conductor would play havok on them. Problem: The fine powder wouldn't be healthy for you.
Diatomacious Earth - a personal favorite. It kills bugs by cutting them. The cuts do not kill, but the resulting dehydration DOES kill the bugs.
Again, this dust is a health threat to humans. And I'm doubing the earth would be a real problem for the nanites.
You forgot radiation, electric shock or maganatisim as ways to affect them.
Given however that inhalation of this technology would not be healthy, the best 'citizen attack in the courts' would be a health threat.