> What offends me (not to mention the 6000+ innocent dead and their grieving families) most
> about this story is, the terrorists made use of these kinds of communist open source tools to
> plan, communicate, and carry out their attack.
And they used "Microsoft Flight Simulator" for training.
It really offends me that millions of people are still using Microsoft products after this tragedy.
I remember quite well that a few years ago a German an an US plane collided west of Namibia over the south atlantic because the German plane flew at the wrong altitude.
Imagine that: They were probably the only two planes in an area of 1000s of square miles - and they collided.
> Yeah, I can see it now. A small, fast Chinese
> satellite of questionable commercial value is
> "struck" by a slow moving and very expensive U.S.
> Spy satellite. The Chinese demand an apology for
> our malicious act.
And they are right, the US *MUST* apologise and even more: The US of A should pay for the destroyed satellite and its launch cost and to the UN for lying to them.
If the US provides wrong orbital data and a (very unlikely) collision happens it's *THEIR* fault and not of others.
> China is more likely to have missiles tasked on Russia who they share
> a massive land border with, and with whome they have had far from ideal relations.
This is wrong - you are talking about the Soviet Union and China. Actually China and Russia signed a "friendship agreement" recently:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/16/mi ss ile.treaty/index.html
I thing this is one of the first results of US playing "Star Wars".
> a) A single nuke in a suitcase is a minor attack. While it might kill
> hundreds of millions, it won't wipe out the country.
Same is true for a single ICBM.
>b) We have defenses in place for that kind of attack. Everything from
> FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on, all investigate any suspicious activity.
1. Well, I guess you don't know about the special rights of diplomats in foreign countries ("immunity"). So it's no problem to get larger ammounts of material for nuclear, biological or chemical warfare into "your" country and distribute them to the (say) 100 largest cities.
2. "You" have defenses in place against drugs as well and still hundreds of tons of them get into your country.
BTW, there are a few other (more realistic than "rouge country fires ICBM" or "rouge country sends agent with suitcase") ways to deploy a nuke or chemical or biological warhead:
a) commercial ships. There's much space in ships, they can come easily very close to large cities on the east or west coast of the US of A. Heck, you could even put it into a container and the ship's crew will never know...
b) commercial airplanes - yes, even "rouge countries" sometimes do have airlines.
Well, containers exist for airplanes as well. It has the additional advantage of flying high in the athmosphere so you can contaminate large areas with a single bomb.
c) cruise missiles - there are a few examples of small unpiloted aircraft flying low and across oceans which are hard to detect.
"This should tide the PC world over until the 2TB
(terabytes of 2^40) limit is reached, which is the maximum number of sectors a 32-bit OS can address -- i.e. 2^32 sector * 512 bytes/sector = 2TB."
Well, you make some wrong assumptions here, a 32-bit OS can do 64 bit arithmetics quite well.
(many do so for file accesses e.g.).
Re:Sun Micro forced to make native jave for FreeBS
on
USENIX Reports
·
· Score: 1
> Because Sun wants to force all VMs to be 100% compatible with the specs. With an open source VM,
> who knows what kind of changes people might make?
And when they start implementing their VMs from scratch, because they have no reference implementation (see kaffe), this will not happen, yeah right!
Remember: It has worked for TCP/IP (4.2BSD), it would have worked for Java too. A missed chance IMHO.
Re:Sun Micro forced to make native jave for FreeBS
on
USENIX Reports
·
· Score: 1
Not for FreeBSD, but for NetBSD:
"native port of the Sun JVM in progress"
NB: I still wonder, why Sun doesn't release a "reference" open source implementation of a JVM if they want "the Java platform" to become a wildly adopted standard...
Some time ago I've written a small perl script that can parse the NetBSD dmesg (of all architectures! - well, I tried it on 10) and create a device tree from it. Try that with linux!
BTW: Here's an example (actually this is the shortest dmesg of all my machines):
NetBSD 1.5W (XXX) #36: Sat Jun 9 22:48:54 MEST 2001
XXX@XXX:/usr/src/sys/arch/vax/compile/XXX
>> Frankly, from a security perspective, having a public-facing daemon running in kernel space is
>> utterly frightening.
> Maybe, but that's exactly what NFS does...
* Actually, on "real" NFS implementations the kernel does some suport for serving NFS, but the daemons still run in user space.
* You don't serve NFS to clients you don`t trust - so it's not public facing (unless you are doing something wrong)
* NFS is only "static content".
* NFS is usually served over fast LAN connections (Fast Ethernet Full-Duplex or Gigabit Ethernet) even with moderate machines (e.g. I'm doing NFS with a K6@350 with IDE discs over 100MBit/s-FDX)---and even more important---the clients usually suck (and push) data at the same rate.
Absolutely nobody who has to serve web stuff that fast will do only static pages and not have the money to buy better additional hardware.
Summa summarum: Putting some parts of NFS server code in kernel space does make sense, putting an entire web server into kernel not - except for some embedded applications maybe (or beating others in benchmarks).
I see Tux as a "because-we-can" thing without real use.
Actually, reliablity doesn't seem to be an important point for those benchmarkers. Or why are they using EXT2FS in its default configuration (asynchronous)?!? This is not much better than using a RAM disk for spool files...
> The only part that I will have to agree with is that EXT2 fs is very fast.
It's fast because it doesn't do synchronous updates of metadata as default.
BTW - if you want a reliable mailserver you *NEED* synchronous metadata updates. So if they had wanted a realistic and fair benchmark they should have mounted EXT2FS synchrounusly or used a different filesystem (e.g. reiserfs).
I can't get through to the site as well ("slashdotted", see other posts), but since I see Cydonia in the URL I doubt to see something really new there.
Cydonia is the region of the famous "mars face" (which doesn't look like a face anymore on pictures with higher resolutions---thanks to Mars Global Surveyor) and there have been plenty of reports about the mars face and the other "artifical" structures around ("city", "pyramid" and so on.)
See here for an example:
http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html
Here's a mirror in Germany (if that's slashdotted also:-)
http://home.t-online.de/home/zimmert/marshpge.ht m
Slashdot Mirror
> If you have no idea what you're talking about, please don't post.
This is *always* a good idea...
> Are you trying to claim that Solaris has a faster context switch than any x86 based OS? That's
> ridiculous at best...
No, it's not. SPARC CPUs/MMUs have special features that x86 CPUs don't have (e.g. context switches, register files).
No. Netcraft is not using nmap.
1. Nmap needs access to one open and one closed tcp port for OS identification, Netcraft does all with a single "Head / HTTP/1.0" on port 80.
Try it for yourself with two of your boxen if you don't believe me.
2. Nmap can distinguish between NetBSD and OpenBSD, Netcraft not.
Nmap www.netbsd.org and then "netcraft" www.netbsd.org if you don't believe me.
[I usually don't answer cut'n paste trolls...]
> What offends me (not to mention the 6000+ innocent dead and their grieving families) most
> about this story is, the terrorists made use of these kinds of communist open source tools to
> plan, communicate, and carry out their attack.
And they used "Microsoft Flight Simulator" for training.
It really offends me that millions of people are still using Microsoft products after this tragedy.
WTF is XWINDOWS or XWindows?
Sorry, I'm a UNIX guy, I don't know all this windows stuff, all I have is the X Window System...
> Why are they launching the rocket from the Kodiak islands?
> Don't you need a more powerful rocket the farther away you get from the equator?
Not if you want to launch a satellite into polar orbit.
Even unlikely events happen from time to time.
I remember quite well that a few years ago a German an an US plane collided west of Namibia over the south atlantic because the German plane flew at the wrong altitude.
Imagine that: They were probably the only two planes in an area of 1000s of square miles - and they collided.
> Yeah, I can see it now. A small, fast Chinese
> satellite of questionable commercial value is
> "struck" by a slow moving and very expensive U.S.
> Spy satellite. The Chinese demand an apology for
> our malicious act.
And they are right, the US *MUST* apologise and even more: The US of A should pay for the destroyed satellite and its launch cost and to the UN for lying to them.
If the US provides wrong orbital data and a (very unlikely) collision happens it's *THEIR* fault and not of others.
> China is more likely to have missiles tasked on Russia who they share
i ss ile.treaty/index.html
> a massive land border with, and with whome they have had far from ideal relations.
This is wrong - you are talking about the Soviet Union and China. Actually China and Russia signed a "friendship agreement" recently:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/16/m
I thing this is one of the first results of US playing "Star Wars".
> Israel - Short/Intermediate range delivery only and these weapons were made with major US help
They have the "Shavit" launch system derived from an MRGBM capable of putting 160kg into a 366km Orbit.
And I doubt it was built with "major US help" since it's basically identical to South Africa's RSA-3.
Read here for more about it:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shavit.htm
BTW: You've forgotten North Korea's Taepodong 1 (not successful so far)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/taedong1.htm
and Brazil wich also has it's own launchers
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vls.htm
Both countrys should be able to built nuclear warheads if they really try (brazil) or hat the economic power (north korea).
Oh and let's not forget Japan...
> a) A single nuke in a suitcase is a minor attack. While it might kill
> hundreds of millions, it won't wipe out the country.
Same is true for a single ICBM.
>b) We have defenses in place for that kind of attack. Everything from
> FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on, all investigate any suspicious activity.
1. Well, I guess you don't know about the special rights of diplomats in foreign countries ("immunity"). So it's no problem to get larger ammounts of material for nuclear, biological or chemical warfare into "your" country and distribute them to the (say) 100 largest cities.
2. "You" have defenses in place against drugs as well and still hundreds of tons of them get into your country.
BTW, there are a few other (more realistic than "rouge country fires ICBM" or "rouge country sends agent with suitcase") ways to deploy a nuke or chemical or biological warhead:
a) commercial ships. There's much space in ships, they can come easily very close to large cities on the east or west coast of the US of A. Heck, you could even put it into a container and the ship's crew will never know...
b) commercial airplanes - yes, even "rouge countries" sometimes do have airlines.
Well, containers exist for airplanes as well. It has the additional advantage of flying high in the athmosphere so you can contaminate large areas with a single bomb.
c) cruise missiles - there are a few examples of small unpiloted aircraft flying low and across oceans which are hard to detect.
FYI securelevels/fileflags were invented by 4.4BSD - not FreeBSD - and *every* "still living" BSD does have them.
"This should tide the PC world over until the 2TB
(terabytes of 2^40) limit is reached, which is the maximum number of sectors a 32-bit OS can address -- i.e. 2^32 sector * 512 bytes/sector = 2TB."
Well, you make some wrong assumptions here, a 32-bit OS can do 64 bit arithmetics quite well.
(many do so for file accesses e.g.).
> Because Sun wants to force all VMs to be 100% compatible with the specs. With an open source VM,
> who knows what kind of changes people might make?
And when they start implementing their VMs from scratch, because they have no reference implementation (see kaffe), this will not happen, yeah right!
Remember: It has worked for TCP/IP (4.2BSD), it would have worked for Java too. A missed chance IMHO.
Not for FreeBSD, but for NetBSD:
"native port of the Sun JVM in progress"
NB: I still wonder, why Sun doesn't release a "reference" open source implementation of a JVM if they want "the Java platform" to become a wildly adopted standard...
Exactly!
Some time ago I've written a small perl script that can parse the NetBSD dmesg (of all architectures! - well, I tried it on 10) and create a device tree from it. Try that with linux!
BTW: Here's an example (actually this is the shortest dmesg of all my machines):
NetBSD 1.5W (XXX) #36: Sat Jun 9 22:48:54 MEST 2001
XXX@XXX:/usr/src/sys/arch/vax/compile/XXX
VAXstation 3100/m{30,40}
cpu: KA41/42
cpu: Enabling primary cache, secondary cache
total memory = 8076 KB
avail memory = 5732 KB
using 126 buffers containing 504 KB of memory
mainbus0 (root)
vsbus0 at mainbus0
vsbus0: interrupt mask 8
le0 at vsbus0 csr 0x200e0000 vec 120 ipl 14 maskbit 5 buf 0x254000-0x263fff
le0: address 08:00:2b:16:d8:1c
le0: 32 receive buffers, 8 transmit buffers
dz0 at vsbus0 csr 0x200a0000 vec 304 ipl 14 maskbit 6
dz0: 4 lines
boot device: le0
root on le0
nfs_boot: trying DHCP/BOOTP
nfs_boot: DHCP next-server: 10.0.0.1
nfs_boot: my_name=XXX
nfs_boot: my_domain=XXX
nfs_boot: my_addr=10.0.0.10
nfs_boot: my_mask=255.255.255.0
nfs_boot: gateway=10.0.0.1
root on XXX:/XXX/XXX
root file system type: nfs
parsed you get a tree like this:
+root
|VAXstation 3100/m{30,40}
+cpu
|KA41/42
|Enabling primary cache, secondary cache
+ram
|8076 KB
+mainbus0
+vsbus0
|interrupt mask 8
+le0 csr 0x200e0000 vec 120 ipl 14 maskbit 5 buf 0x254000-0x263fff
|address 08:00:2b:16:d8:1c
|32 receive buffers, 8 transmit buffers
+dz0 csr 0x200a0000 vec 304 ipl 14 maskbit 6
|4 lines
>> Frankly, from a security perspective, having a public-facing daemon running in kernel space is
>> utterly frightening.
> Maybe, but that's exactly what NFS does...
* Actually, on "real" NFS implementations the kernel does some suport for serving NFS, but the daemons still run in user space.
* You don't serve NFS to clients you don`t trust - so it's not public facing (unless you are doing something wrong)
* NFS is only "static content".
* NFS is usually served over fast LAN connections (Fast Ethernet Full-Duplex or Gigabit Ethernet) even with moderate machines (e.g. I'm doing NFS with a K6@350 with IDE discs over 100MBit/s-FDX)---and even more important---the clients usually suck (and push) data at the same rate.
Absolutely nobody who has to serve web stuff that fast will do only static pages and not have the money to buy better additional hardware.
Summa summarum: Putting some parts of NFS server code in kernel space does make sense, putting an entire web server into kernel not - except for some embedded applications maybe (or beating others in benchmarks).
I see Tux as a "because-we-can" thing without real use.
Actually, reliablity doesn't seem to be an important point for those benchmarkers. Or why are they using EXT2FS in its default configuration (asynchronous)?!? This is not much better than using a RAM disk for spool files...
> The only part that I will have to agree with is that EXT2 fs is very fast.
It's fast because it doesn't do synchronous updates of metadata as default.
BTW - if you want a reliable mailserver you *NEED* synchronous metadata updates. So if they had wanted a realistic and fair benchmark they should have mounted EXT2FS synchrounusly or used a different filesystem (e.g. reiserfs).
Please define "down" in a microgravity environment.
> Actually, the version you saw on the news was ran through a high pass filter before it was released to the public.
What makes you think I referred to that picture?
Well, not for me.
For me the unfiltered imagage show just a hill, not much more.
Ok. I'm one of these guys, that don't see the man in the moon (or face in the moon) either...
I can't get through to the site as well ("slashdotted", see other posts), but since I see Cydonia in the URL I doubt to see something really new there.
:-)
t m
Cydonia is the region of the famous "mars face" (which doesn't look like a face anymore on pictures with higher resolutions---thanks to Mars Global Surveyor) and there have been plenty of reports about the mars face and the other "artifical" structures around ("city", "pyramid" and so on.)
See here for an example:
http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html
Here's a mirror in Germany (if that's slashdotted also
http://home.t-online.de/home/zimmert/marshpge.h
No, actually it was German Titow (Vostok 2), since Gagarin did no complete orbit.
> So, what do you do with the shielding? Ground it?
Yes, of course!
> To what?
Ground.
You ground them with patchpanels. To "ground". Or "earth" if you like. With yellow-green cables, you know.
(On the ISS I would use the metall frame of the space station.)
> So, it seems, the LAN is using thinnet. Makes sense -- it's shielded.
So is 10BaseT or 100BaseTX (usually).
At least here in Europe you have a hard time finding cat>=5 cables (including patch cables) that are *not* shielded...
Except for Lucent *nobody* sells UTP here...