Linux is not a Unix. The proper term is "Unix-like". Same for QNX and some others. Unix-like OSes are not "based" on Unix, they do not share source with Unix. They do have a compatible API though. And that is really the success-story here: The Unix kernel API (and the GNU tools that use it). Lean and mean without the bloat and > 1000 API calls (most redundant) that the Windows kernel comes with.
Linux is the kernel. The GNU software is not Linux. (And no, it is not GNU/Linux and has never been. It is Linux kernel with GNU user-space, i.e. at best GNU + Linux.)
Indeed. And the rot has set in, for example with systemd. The kernel is still clean though, so maybe it is time for another Linux distro that is specifically targeted at people with a clue and that uses things that are well established and are known to work well, instead of the commercial hype of the day. Debian used to be that distro, but not anymore.
The next step is, of course, to dispense with the need for forensic "evidence" on people's computers and do this fully with "intercepted" communications. And here is the real danger of a surveillance-state: They can send anybody, any time to prison for as long as they desire, and there is no possibility to defend yourself unless they screwed up massively (as they did in the case at hand).
Fascinating. A new level of ignorance and stupidity is reached. Ever heard about known vulnerabilities that get not fixed for a long, long time in closed-source software? And ever heard about the same thing in open source software? Well, with the fuzziness of your thinking, you probably have heard of the second and not the first, but that has not even a distant relation to actual reality.
The ignorant here is you and massively so. First, this is about what to do once a vulnerability is known. You, know, the time when it becomes really, really dangerous to leave it unfixed because all the script-kiddies start attacking it. And then, whoever said anything about you having to come up with patch yourself? That is the closed-source mind-set where every modification of software is almost a criminal act, to be committed in solitude and secrecy. Yes, somebody has to come up with a patch, and there are people out there that have a lot better skills at this than you (and yes, I mean you specifically) and can do it, and that still do not work for the vendor. If any one of them publishes a patch, the worst you have to do is verify it solves the problem, but even that is in basically all cases replaced by peer-review among those that have the required skills. This process works and has worked for decades. It is the main reason Linux exists.
Your hostility towards open source does one thing: It makes you look very, very stupid. It also makes you look like somebody that enjoys being at the mercy of a vendor, like a good little follower that submits to authority because that obviously is how one must live.
Requiring people to regularly change their passwords is an utter fail. Competent security experts have known that for ages. Stupid "security" administrators are still ignorant of the fact.
The claim is that a) it is significantly easier to lock Linux down and b) the result is far better. With an incompetent admin, Linux is not more secure. No argument there. But this is also not a surprise. In actual fact, a networked computing device will be insecure, unless competently configured and administrated. Eventually, this may change, but not anytime soon.
The other thing is that admins that are actually competent often consider Windows to be an insult, because of how hard it makes good system administration.
That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means. Fact is, this is not about terrorism at all, this is about getting the public used to Big Brother.
Democracy will not get those people into power, the purveyors of simple recipes make it every time, due to fundamental stupidity of most voters. Now, despite being an atrociously bad and dangerous system of government, Democracy is still the best known one. Which basically shows that the human race as a whole is not much more advanced better than cave-men.
I am not even sure that it is possible to determine what they actually want to do that is worthwhile under all the buzzword-camouflage. I am sure however that they will find enough idiots to give them money for it.
Indeed. Games are the only reason to have a native Windows installation. The only other thing, MS Office, runs nicely in a VM or apparently even with CrossOver. I have been seriously thinking about making my Windows machine gaming-only, no email, minimal browsing and getting a second machine with Linux for browsing, email and work.
I have seen that too. Cannot be installed via Windows Update, but can be downloaded. Apparently they still have some misgivings and will not start to rape Win7/8 users regularly as they do Win10 users.
The finding is not the main thing. The main difference is that once you know you have a problem, with OSS you can do something about it, while with closed source you can only hope the vendor will.
Quite a bit of the world's banking infrastructure, including customer-facing sites run on Linux. That alone shows the utter cluelessness of morons like you.
Of course, an incompetent Linux admin (for example a former incompetent Windows admin) can configure Linux to be insecure and install insecure versions of applications.
The other thing is that you can only do professional work with people that know how to communicate and behave in a professional way. Asking people to guess emotions or even bringing significant emotion into a "professional" exchange is hugely unprofessional.
My guess is she just wants to play to an audience and finds herself unable to do so using text-based communication. Likely she also has nothing worthwhile to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is not a Unix. The proper term is "Unix-like". Same for QNX and some others. Unix-like OSes are not "based" on Unix, they do not share source with Unix. They do have a compatible API though. And that is really the success-story here: The Unix kernel API (and the GNU tools that use it). Lean and mean without the bloat and > 1000 API calls (most redundant) that the Windows kernel comes with.
Linux is the kernel. The GNU software is not Linux. (And no, it is not GNU/Linux and has never been. It is Linux kernel with GNU user-space, i.e. at best GNU + Linux.)
Indeed. And the rot has set in, for example with systemd. The kernel is still clean though, so maybe it is time for another Linux distro that is specifically targeted at people with a clue and that uses things that are well established and are known to work well, instead of the commercial hype of the day. Debian used to be that distro, but not anymore.
The next step is, of course, to dispense with the need for forensic "evidence" on people's computers and do this fully with "intercepted" communications. And here is the real danger of a surveillance-state: They can send anybody, any time to prison for as long as they desire, and there is no possibility to defend yourself unless they screwed up massively (as they did in the case at hand).
Fascinating. A new level of ignorance and stupidity is reached. Ever heard about known vulnerabilities that get not fixed for a long, long time in closed-source software? And ever heard about the same thing in open source software? Well, with the fuzziness of your thinking, you probably have heard of the second and not the first, but that has not even a distant relation to actual reality.
The ignorant here is you and massively so. First, this is about what to do once a vulnerability is known. You, know, the time when it becomes really, really dangerous to leave it unfixed because all the script-kiddies start attacking it. And then, whoever said anything about you having to come up with patch yourself? That is the closed-source mind-set where every modification of software is almost a criminal act, to be committed in solitude and secrecy. Yes, somebody has to come up with a patch, and there are people out there that have a lot better skills at this than you (and yes, I mean you specifically) and can do it, and that still do not work for the vendor. If any one of them publishes a patch, the worst you have to do is verify it solves the problem, but even that is in basically all cases replaced by peer-review among those that have the required skills. This process works and has worked for decades. It is the main reason Linux exists.
Your hostility towards open source does one thing: It makes you look very, very stupid. It also makes you look like somebody that enjoys being at the mercy of a vendor, like a good little follower that submits to authority because that obviously is how one must live.
Poettering said USB does not work. Anybody else did not have a problem. Until now...
That's funny, I read the blog post and I didn't see anything anywhere about USB not working.
Fundamental engineering principle: If it is not broken, do not fix it. Hence either it was broken, or Poettering is even more incompetent.
Got a reference for that? If true, I hope they gave the systemd cretins the finger.
Poettering said USB does not work. Anybody else did not have a problem. Until now...
Same quality-level as the rest of this malware...
The part of the Linuxers cheering on systemd come from Windows. They think this is the way things are supposed to be done...
Requiring people to regularly change their passwords is an utter fail. Competent security experts have known that for ages. Stupid "security" administrators are still ignorant of the fact.
The claim is that a) it is significantly easier to lock Linux down and b) the result is far better. With an incompetent admin, Linux is not more secure. No argument there. But this is also not a surprise. In actual fact, a networked computing device will be insecure, unless competently configured and administrated. Eventually, this may change, but not anytime soon.
The other thing is that admins that are actually competent often consider Windows to be an insult, because of how hard it makes good system administration.
As everybody is a terror suspect these days, your condition is acceptable.
That is not actually a problem. Because if they actually knew what terror-suspects look like, they could get them by other means. Fact is, this is not about terrorism at all, this is about getting the public used to Big Brother.
Democracy will not get those people into power, the purveyors of simple recipes make it every time, due to fundamental stupidity of most voters. Now, despite being an atrociously bad and dangerous system of government, Democracy is still the best known one. Which basically shows that the human race as a whole is not much more advanced better than cave-men.
I am not even sure that it is possible to determine what they actually want to do that is worthwhile under all the buzzword-camouflage. I am sure however that they will find enough idiots to give them money for it.
Indeed. Games are the only reason to have a native Windows installation. The only other thing, MS Office, runs nicely in a VM or apparently even with CrossOver. I have been seriously thinking about making my Windows machine gaming-only, no email, minimal browsing and getting a second machine with Linux for browsing, email and work.
I have seen that too. Cannot be installed via Windows Update, but can be downloaded. Apparently they still have some misgivings and will not start to rape Win7/8 users regularly as they do Win10 users.
The finding is not the main thing. The main difference is that once you know you have a problem, with OSS you can do something about it, while with closed source you can only hope the vendor will.
Quite a bit of the world's banking infrastructure, including customer-facing sites run on Linux. That alone shows the utter cluelessness of morons like you.
Of course, an incompetent Linux admin (for example a former incompetent Windows admin) can configure Linux to be insecure and install insecure versions of applications.
The other thing is that you can only do professional work with people that know how to communicate and behave in a professional way. Asking people to guess emotions or even bringing significant emotion into a "professional" exchange is hugely unprofessional.
My guess is she just wants to play to an audience and finds herself unable to do so using text-based communication. Likely she also has nothing worthwhile to say.
I do expect my boss to be literate, otherwise he will not be/stay my boss.
That does not even deserve a reply. Arrogant and incompetent is the friendlies thing I can say.
Well, yes, it may well be that I badly overestimate the sanity of an "average" person.