There was an attempt at a women's professional football league a couple of years ago. They got as far as hiring players after tryouts, but I don't know if any of the games were played before it went bellyup.
That would be so cool! It could be like flag football, but the flag is their tops:P
But it seems I spoke too soon. It appears there actually is a Women's Football League. They even have videos. I was hoping for something a little more.... provocotive. This just looks like what the WNBA did; the same thing, but uhh "more about strategy or better fundamentals" or whatever the PC term is. Maybe there is something unique I'm missing (besides the women, of course), but it just seems like the NFL's younger brother...
I had kind of forgotten how irritating the constant harassment could be.
"Oh sorry, I'm busy eating dinner right now. Can I have your name and phone number to call you at your house later? Oh, you don't want to be bothered at home? Now you know how I feel." [click]
There is nothing personality-wise that isn't shared by both genders.
PMS. Stop kidding yourself, men and women have different levels of testosterone and estrogen, which not only has a great effect on our physical appearance but also our mental state (which is part of our personality, btw). Of course everyone can act the same; that's not the issue at all. The issue is that, in the common case, men and women will have different personalities. There are exceptions.
What about the military? What about professional football? Have you ever talked to a girl that actually wanted to play professional football? Do you honestly think it is because us men won't let them play? I think that would be GREAT to watch. Screw the XFL, I want the WNFL.
If sudo isn't installed, you can't run programs that require root without first logging in as root.
Exactly, so why can't the attacker just get the root password and login as root totally disregarding the fact that there are other users on the system? That sounds like one password to me, thus making his statement false even if there are some cases where you would need 2 passwords. Granted, SSH and others are usually setup to not allow root logins by default. However, it's a moot point because SSH and others aren't even setup by default to allow ANYONE to connect. Hence, it's secure no matter how you do it, and this guy writing the article has no clue, and his picture is funny too.
I just see this alot; people thinking they found these "security holes" with sudo. I saw one person post that there is a security hole in sudo because someone could put an executable in your home directory called sudo that would steal the password when the person typed it in. Uh, if someone is putting files in your home directory, that's the security hole.... Just like if someone knows your password, that's the security hole, not sudo...
There are some perfectly valid reasons to be suspicious of any one country administering the TLD list. Retiring zombie TLDs isn't one of them. Just set up a grace period. After 3 years don't process any more new domain applications. After 5 years no domain renewals. After 15 years no TLD.
I really don't understand the problem at all. What is the problem? Is there something inherently evil about sites using outdated TLDs? Have the UN take over the TLDs for this? Is this a joke? Some people must have it real easy if they are focusing on issues like this, either that or they're just batty.
If that idea doesn't suit you, then I think you need a different distro. Dont go raining on ubuntu because its executing its plan well. (And by the way, that plan is exactly what the general population want/need).
Red Herring. I think you took my comment the wrong way. Being able to choose different packages at installation time is not even something I particularly want. If it's a live-CD installation, then I only want one CD, not 6 containing every package available. However, other Linux OS' do allow you to do this, such as Fedora. That is why it's a big deal. Why shouldn't we accommodate other peoples needs? It doesn't even have to interfere with the regular flow of the installation. Heck, it would be really cool to be able to apt-get/synaptic stuff while using the live-CD that will install stuff on your new OS without even rebooting. Please don't take it as as me "raining on Ubuntu", I only want to make it better and I hate to break it to you but your needs/opinions are not everyones (even if they are the majority).
The author has some very interesting ideas about "security"
TFA:
This [not being able to choose additional packages at installation] lack is not only frustrating, but violates a main principle of security. After all, you can hardly secure a system if you do not know what is going on it.
it [sudo] means that an intruder only needs one often-used password instead of two to gain control of the system.
Ok, not being able to install additional packages at installation is a big deal, but calling it a "security issue" is a little silly. No ports are listening on a default Ubuntu install. It doesn't need to be "secured".
I don't understand how not having sudo means the attacker has to gain control of two passwords. Does that even make any sense? They only need ONE password either time, the root password, or the password for a user that has sudo privs.
I'm glad someone is really giving a critical eye towards Ubuntu (which can only result in further improvements), but talking out of your ass isn't going to get anything done.
Interesting. I was under the impression that Steve Jobs thought Apple was a hardware company, if so, why would he care about something that could make him sell more hardware? Oh I see, they lure you in with the hardware and then lock you down with the software!
...a storage device that'll run at bus speed. What use is 4.8GBit if the attached drive bursts at 150MBit? Or is the USB RAID stack waiting in the wings?
2015? I think not. That thing must be unbearably slow w/ USB 2...
Yes, you are correct, but you're missing the point. The Linux kernel is made to provide maximum throughput at the expense of responsiveness. Throughput is great for a server, responsiveness is great for a desktop. There is a trade-off.
Wait a second, did I just have to correct everything you just said? Listen bud, it's one thing not to know, it's another thing to act like you do know (when you don't) and be condescending about it. I thought I could get some answers on why people like you believe in RMS' ideals, maybe you haven't really thought about and maybe you follow him blindly, but one thing is very clear: I'm not going to get anything from you kids on teh slashdots. Maybe you should do more reading and less writing? I am atleast very curious about this, and I want to know. I have read RMS' stuff, but he's not the easiest person to get a hold of and ask questions to(being as he's homeless and stuff). You, you are arrogant, condescending, and at the same time ignorant to the details. Again, as I said to the parent, I really don't expect anything more.
Sweet, you met my personal attack with your own! Yes, I have read the history and the first part of RMS' book. He founded GNU because he was denied the source code to fix a printer problem. It was common at the time to be able to get the source code. Maybe you should do some reading, GNU is not a license at all (you must have meant GPL, I'll excuse you arrogant ignorance for now). Linus did not write Linux so that he could use the GNU tools in Minix, atleast he said as much in his book Just for Fun. Did you happen to read that one? You know, something actually written by the man instead of a bunch of hear-say on the internet. Linux started its life as a terminal emulator and was never even meant to become a kernel, it just evolved into that. The GNU project is not even why he did it, but he did use the GNU C Compiler, and he realized that the GNU tools would work well. Again, please don't give RMS all of the credit for making those tools available, unless you're willing to site specific examples of course. RMS' code contribution has been minimal compared.
And yet again, another person avoids the questions I ask. You didn't even really respond to anything I stated. Awesome, you RMS zealots are a fun lot.
Please, please pry your mouth off of RMS' cock for just two seconds. Socio-economic model for collaborative software development? It's a fucking software license... I really wish he would come up with a good economic model. You act as if RMS wasn't here, someone else wouldn't have come along and done the exact same thing. So many people are behind the FSF, it's a shame their contributions (you know, the software, not the talk talk talk) are overshadowed by RMS and other individuals who want to force their ideologies on people.
Linus is challenging the establishment, he's just doing so in a different way(with the software, not with the talk talk talk). You know we're talking about software right? None of which would have any merit, or even be worth talking about, if all that happened was talk talk talk. I justify this in the understanding that Linus got further in a few years than RMS did in over a decade. As I said, alot of people (most?) use this software because it's better, not because the license prevents "tivoisation". People develop this software because they need it, not because they get some warm fuzzy feeling from sharing.
I have made so many replies in this topic, to people like you who admire RMS (to put it lightly). I ask them how we are to make money, why closed source software is morally wrong, etc. I haven't gotten an answer yet, just replies about how dumb I am for not absolutely loving RMS and hanging onto every word he says. I really must be missing something here, and I am trying very desperately to find out what it is. I think I missed the page where he explains the rational behind his ideas.
I'm just having a very hard time imagining a world in which there is only F/OSS. I assume you know, because you and others are the ones following his ideas.
So, bash RMS if you will, but progress is never made by "reasonable" people, "reasonable" people are the "frogs on a hotplate," they don't see the danger until it is too late.
No seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Progress is never made by reasonable people? What exactly do you base this on? The GPL is fine, but it is turning less and less into a practical license and more and more into what RMS defines as morally correct. I'll take the license but not RMS' very radical ideas on free software. He is out to destroy all proprietary software, but he hasn't offered any reasonable ideas on how the millions of people out there right now making money off of proprietary software will make money doing it (I do realize you can make money off of free software, but these businesses are not in a position to do so, or even in a position to want to do so). Alot of people, myself included, use and release free software for a number of very practical reasons, none of which have anything to do with our morals. There is no reason why they can't coexist and work with each other. Competition, after all, does bring progress.
No, the goal being to develop good software. RMS thinks there can be only one [way] and that you shouldn't be able to make money directly from selling software. He dances around this issue constantly. It's obvious that he thinks that you should not be able to make money off of software, but when asked directly about it he starts mumbling crap about selling "hand holding" and starting up some government tax to support free software projects (WTF?!). I think you can still have good software that costs money and/or is close-source (or even open-source). Furthermore, I don't see how these two ideas can't coexist or how they constitute as moral issues. His followers seem to think so, but all I can get out of them is name calling... Do you have any idea why they can't coexist or why everyone should think it's a moral issue?
And btw, stop kidding yourself, there are many, many other businesses selling proprietary software than MS. They're actually the majority...
You are correct, I'm not arguing about how free BSD code is or the similarities between the restrictions of commercial, closed-source licenses and the restrictions of the GPL. My point simply was that the GPL is viral because if someone releases something under the GPL, it has to stay that way (if the original author wants to incorporate those changes into his code, you know, one of the advantages of free software) even if it was previously released under another, more free, license.
Wrong, it is only viral in the sense that if you choose to modify or copy GPL code into your software, and *choose* to distribute, then you have to release your code too.
Create a new work that doesn't reuse GPL code and you can release it under any license you want.
Well, what if I choose to release my code under the BSD license and someone modifies/patches it and then releases it under GPL? Guess what license I will have to use in order to incorporate those changes. Oh ya, and viral in the sense you mentioned. Great.
Slashdot Mirror
But it seems I spoke too soon. It appears there actually is a Women's Football League. They even have videos. I was hoping for something a little more.... provocotive. This just looks like what the WNBA did; the same thing, but uhh "more about strategy or better fundamentals" or whatever the PC term is. Maybe there is something unique I'm missing (besides the women, of course), but it just seems like the NFL's younger brother...
What about the military? What about professional football? Have you ever talked to a girl that actually wanted to play professional football? Do you honestly think it is because us men won't let them play? I think that would be GREAT to watch. Screw the XFL, I want the WNFL.
I just see this alot; people thinking they found these "security holes" with sudo. I saw one person post that there is a security hole in sudo because someone could put an executable in your home directory called sudo that would steal the password when the person typed it in. Uh, if someone is putting files in your home directory, that's the security hole.... Just like if someone knows your password, that's the security hole, not sudo...
Oh I like where this analogy is going, pretty soon the FSF will be boycotting Coca-Cola until they open-source their formula :)
[flame]You are right, Open Source wasn't written by anti-commerce hippies, the GPL was. [/flame]
TFA:
Ok, not being able to install additional packages at installation is a big deal, but calling it a "security issue" is a little silly. No ports are listening on a default Ubuntu install. It doesn't need to be "secured".
I don't understand how not having sudo means the attacker has to gain control of two passwords. Does that even make any sense? They only need ONE password either time, the root password, or the password for a user that has sudo privs.
I'm glad someone is really giving a critical eye towards Ubuntu (which can only result in further improvements), but talking out of your ass isn't going to get anything done.
Interesting. I was under the impression that Steve Jobs thought Apple was a hardware company, if so, why would he care about something that could make him sell more hardware? Oh I see, they lure you in with the hardware and then lock you down with the software!
Yes, you are correct, but you're missing the point. The Linux kernel is made to provide maximum throughput at the expense of responsiveness. Throughput is great for a server, responsiveness is great for a desktop. There is a trade-off.
Wait a second, did I just have to correct everything you just said? Listen bud, it's one thing not to know, it's another thing to act like you do know (when you don't) and be condescending about it. I thought I could get some answers on why people like you believe in RMS' ideals, maybe you haven't really thought about and maybe you follow him blindly, but one thing is very clear: I'm not going to get anything from you kids on teh slashdots. Maybe you should do more reading and less writing? I am atleast very curious about this, and I want to know. I have read RMS' stuff, but he's not the easiest person to get a hold of and ask questions to(being as he's homeless and stuff). You, you are arrogant, condescending, and at the same time ignorant to the details. Again, as I said to the parent, I really don't expect anything more.
You RMS guys sure have PR down!
Sweet, you met my personal attack with your own! Yes, I have read the history and the first part of RMS' book. He founded GNU because he was denied the source code to fix a printer problem. It was common at the time to be able to get the source code. Maybe you should do some reading, GNU is not a license at all (you must have meant GPL, I'll excuse you arrogant ignorance for now). Linus did not write Linux so that he could use the GNU tools in Minix, atleast he said as much in his book Just for Fun. Did you happen to read that one? You know, something actually written by the man instead of a bunch of hear-say on the internet. Linux started its life as a terminal emulator and was never even meant to become a kernel, it just evolved into that. The GNU project is not even why he did it, but he did use the GNU C Compiler, and he realized that the GNU tools would work well. Again, please don't give RMS all of the credit for making those tools available, unless you're willing to site specific examples of course. RMS' code contribution has been minimal compared.
And yet again, another person avoids the questions I ask. You didn't even really respond to anything I stated. Awesome, you RMS zealots are a fun lot.
Please, please pry your mouth off of RMS' cock for just two seconds. Socio-economic model for collaborative software development? It's a fucking software license... I really wish he would come up with a good economic model. You act as if RMS wasn't here, someone else wouldn't have come along and done the exact same thing. So many people are behind the FSF, it's a shame their contributions (you know, the software, not the talk talk talk) are overshadowed by RMS and other individuals who want to force their ideologies on people.
Linus is challenging the establishment, he's just doing so in a different way(with the software, not with the talk talk talk). You know we're talking about software right? None of which would have any merit, or even be worth talking about, if all that happened was talk talk talk. I justify this in the understanding that Linus got further in a few years than RMS did in over a decade. As I said, alot of people (most?) use this software because it's better, not because the license prevents "tivoisation". People develop this software because they need it, not because they get some warm fuzzy feeling from sharing.
I have made so many replies in this topic, to people like you who admire RMS (to put it lightly). I ask them how we are to make money, why closed source software is morally wrong, etc. I haven't gotten an answer yet, just replies about how dumb I am for not absolutely loving RMS and hanging onto every word he says. I really must be missing something here, and I am trying very desperately to find out what it is. I think I missed the page where he explains the rational behind his ideas.
I'm just having a very hard time imagining a world in which there is only F/OSS. I assume you know, because you and others are the ones following his ideas.
No, the goal being to develop good software. RMS thinks there can be only one [way] and that you shouldn't be able to make money directly from selling software. He dances around this issue constantly. It's obvious that he thinks that you should not be able to make money off of software, but when asked directly about it he starts mumbling crap about selling "hand holding" and starting up some government tax to support free software projects (WTF?!). I think you can still have good software that costs money and/or is close-source (or even open-source). Furthermore, I don't see how these two ideas can't coexist or how they constitute as moral issues. His followers seem to think so, but all I can get out of them is name calling... Do you have any idea why they can't coexist or why everyone should think it's a moral issue?
And btw, stop kidding yourself, there are many, many other businesses selling proprietary software than MS. They're actually the majority...
You are correct, I'm not arguing about how free BSD code is or the similarities between the restrictions of commercial, closed-source licenses and the restrictions of the GPL. My point simply was that the GPL is viral because if someone releases something under the GPL, it has to stay that way (if the original author wants to incorporate those changes into his code, you know, one of the advantages of free software) even if it was previously released under another, more free, license.