This analyst did understand it:
So the answer to the question in the title of this piece is: CentOS stings Red Hat just a little, but it doesn't hurt them badly enough to make them want to change the way they do business. Even better, it helps them hold the heads of the competing Linux server distros under water. The real victims of the roaring success of CentOS are Novell's SLES, Ubuntu Server and Larry Ellison's own RHEL-cloned Unbreakable Linux.
The MS haters feel dealing with MS is dealing with the devil.
Consider Microsoft's past. Then, consider Microsoft's most recent behaviour, which would be considered criminal elections fraud in any nominally democratic country, had it been in a political election instead of the ISO process.
At this point, you should be able to see why people would consider it unethical to support Microsoft in any way.
It basically comes down to laziness, one of the primary virtues in hackerdom.
Laziness isn't a virtue, despite what the previous generation of programmers told you. Laziness is why we still have exploitable buffer-overflow bugs in newly-written code.
Efficiently using your limited resources (which these days are your programmers) may be a virtue, but "laziness" causes all sorts of problems.
Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects
So how does this protect me as a business owner who wants the freedom to hire whomever I want to maintain my in-house software? Oh, it doesn't? Great!
Theo de Raadt argues that it's more secure to put applications on separate machines than to consolidate them into a single machine.
L. V. Lammert very inarticulately argues that having a VM provides more security, because otherwise, you're not going to put applications on separate machines, because it's too expensive.
as long as you can credibly claim that writing that backup batch job is something that has to take a month or two, simply by claiming that you have to make dead sure that those dreaded... let's see, what's the latest hype... right, that dreaded trojans can't harm the backup, because it is oh so critical and that can't be rushed
It really does take that long. Building a batch backup system that will actually work reliably, including providing integrity assurance, takes forever, because there are a ton of existing backup tools to evaluate, and they all suck in an adversarial environment.
No. That's a one-time password generator. It's still subject to interception and unauthorized use by a man in the middle. This would be more like a debit card PIN pad, which displays the requested transaction and asks for authorization, except it would actually be cryptographically secure (unlike said PIN pads).
I helped write software, for certifying a palm pilot for space use.
Cool!
FYI, it passed, but the DOD killed the project (or so I was told, who knows) near the end (was for the MIR). The biggest deal is that a hit was un-predictable, if I recall it was like a 20% chance of a hit within 3 months, for the size of the palm pilot.
I thought it happened more often than that, but I guess, like you say, it's not so much that there are lots of failures than that those failures tend to be catastrophic.
That's why you build your Sputnik's outer casing out of two stainless steel pet bowls soldered together. A millimeter or so of steel will knock the incoming radiation way down, and will incidentally shield the insides from electromagnetic fields and solar wind.
Eh? Read the rest of the paper:
Shielding is usually used to reduce the
ionization dose. Aluminum shields can effectively attenuate electrons and low-energy
protons. However, high-energy protons (> 30 MeV) cannot be shielded.
What you would need is a USB key with a processor to do the signing/challenge response internally.
And a built-in user interface that lets you know what challenge you're providing a response to.
Electronics vs. Radiation in space
on
Make Your Own Sputnik
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The BBC quotes an electronics hobbyist: "Technology now is way ahead of what was available in 1957, and making your own fully functional Sputnik would now be very simple indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if you could build one in a container smaller than a matchbox, weighing about as much as a wristwatch. The components, including a transmitter, battery and the sensors you'd need would probably cost less than 50 pounds [about 100 US dollars]. It really shouldn't be a problem to build and program the whole thing in under a day."
Oh, that old meme.
Trivia: What is the probability that off-the-shelf microelectronics (like wireless routers) will work in space? Answer: Roughly zero.
The radiation sources discussed are hazardous to electronics since energetic particles
can deposit energy inside microelectronic circuitry and disrupt their proper operation.
Energy deposition in electronics is measured in rads(M) where M is a specific material
being considered (1 rad = 100 ergs/gm). Energy deposition can be in the form of
ionization or atomic displacements, which can permanently damage electronics, or it can
be in the form of single events, which can cause transient or permanent damages
depending on the severity of the event.
NASA doesn't ship Xeon processors into space, not because of budget cuts, but because they don't work reliably (if at all) in space.
You could do it by providing a bloom filter the browser, and then when there is a match, the browser could download a certain subset of the blacklist to verify that the match is not a false positive.
US civil cases have only one remedy - monetary damages.
Apparently you've never heard of a permanent injunction.
If GPL developers are not charging for the software it makes it difficult to show actual damages, unlike commercial software which loses revenue to infringement.
There is no "GPL-commercial" dichotomy. Much GPL-covered software is of a commercial nature.
I believe that the way they get around this is to say they are losing the value of the modifications made by the copyright infringers which they have rights to under the license.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it that in order for a file format to be accepted as an ISO standard there has to be at least a couple of independent working implementations?
Slashdot Mirror
I beg your pardon? Intelligent students don't need to cheat.
Fixed that for you.
So, any of them?
K&R C didn't have function prototypes or a lot of other important things. ISO C99 was a massive improvement in standardization over ISO C90.
C++ and C# are not incremental updates of C, they're different languages.
That sounds like sarcasm, but I don't understand why you think it wouldn't work just fine.
The notion that Apple (or any software vendor) has any say in this whatsoever is disgusting.
Gasp!
Consider Microsoft's past. Then, consider Microsoft's most recent behaviour, which would be considered criminal elections fraud in any nominally democratic country, had it been in a political election instead of the ISO process.
At this point, you should be able to see why people would consider it unethical to support Microsoft in any way.
Laziness isn't a virtue, despite what the previous generation of programmers told you. Laziness is why we still have exploitable buffer-overflow bugs in newly-written code.
Efficiently using your limited resources (which these days are your programmers) may be a virtue, but "laziness" causes all sorts of problems.
So how does this protect me as a business owner who wants the freedom to hire whomever I want to maintain my in-house software? Oh, it doesn't? Great!
Theo de Raadt argues that it's more secure to put applications on separate machines than to consolidate them into a single machine.
L. V. Lammert very inarticulately argues that having a VM provides more security, because otherwise, you're not going to put applications on separate machines, because it's too expensive.
It really does take that long. Building a batch backup system that will actually work reliably, including providing integrity assurance, takes forever, because there are a ton of existing backup tools to evaluate, and they all suck in an adversarial environment.
So piss off.
No. That's a one-time password generator. It's still subject to interception and unauthorized use by a man in the middle. This would be more like a debit card PIN pad, which displays the requested transaction and asks for authorization, except it would actually be cryptographically secure (unlike said PIN pads).
Cool!
FYI, it passed, but the DOD killed the project (or so I was told, who knows) near the end (was for the MIR). The biggest deal is that a hit was un-predictable, if I recall it was like a 20% chance of a hit within 3 months, for the size of the palm pilot.I thought it happened more often than that, but I guess, like you say, it's not so much that there are lots of failures than that those failures tend to be catastrophic.
Eh? Read the rest of the paper:
Shielding is usually used to reduce the ionization dose. Aluminum shields can effectively attenuate electrons and low-energy protons. However, high-energy protons (> 30 MeV) cannot be shielded.And a built-in user interface that lets you know what challenge you're providing a response to.
Oh, that old meme.
Trivia: What is the probability that off-the-shelf microelectronics (like wireless routers) will work in space? Answer: Roughly zero.
Why? Look at the information starting at page 23 on this document: Spacecraft Charging and Hazards to Electronics in Space:
3. Radiation Effects on Spacecraft ElectronicsThe radiation sources discussed are hazardous to electronics since energetic particles can deposit energy inside microelectronic circuitry and disrupt their proper operation. Energy deposition in electronics is measured in rads(M) where M is a specific material being considered (1 rad = 100 ergs/gm). Energy deposition can be in the form of ionization or atomic displacements, which can permanently damage electronics, or it can be in the form of single events, which can cause transient or permanent damages depending on the severity of the event.
NASA doesn't ship Xeon processors into space, not because of budget cuts, but because they don't work reliably (if at all) in space.
Um. Freedom helps the corporate bottom line of everyone except perhaps the more inefficient mass-market proprietary software vendors.
Hmm. Wouldn't it be cool if the headline was actually "Chicago Developing 'Superstitious Behavior' Monitoring System"?
You could do it by providing a bloom filter the browser, and then when there is a match, the browser could download a certain subset of the blacklist to verify that the match is not a false positive.
Apparently you've never heard of a permanent injunction.
If GPL developers are not charging for the software it makes it difficult to show actual damages, unlike commercial software which loses revenue to infringement.There is no "GPL-commercial" dichotomy. Much GPL-covered software is of a commercial nature.
I believe that the way they get around this is to say they are losing the value of the modifications made by the copyright infringers which they have rights to under the license.Yeah, that's the argument I've heard before.
I think you're confusing the ISO process with the IETF Standards Process.
Only if your theory is deficient.
If he had been an attentive father, then his daughter wouldn't have been running around the stage.