maybe they should say "upgrade to linux for the security" (or macOS X)...
If security is a concern perhaps one should be a bit vary of Linux due to the big changes (ripping out core components) in the Linux kernel that happens quite often. Even
deciding on a 802.11 stack seems difficult:
It's high time that Linux get a serious effort going on a generic 802.11 stack, as it seems we are in danger of having every new wireless driver invent one if we do not.
Linux put great emphasis on performance, not stability nor security, and this is well known. Offering a stable (i.e. usable) Linux kernel is up to the various distributions.
"Security" is in vogue, but it appears to be mostly market speech with little, if any, content.
My bet the problem is in BIOS, and not EFI. Since this affects only XP computers and those require bios to function. BIOS with ACPI has always been a poor hack.
Yeah, listen to what OpenBSD developers implementing ACPI support thinks about
ACPI
Also the ACPI spec blows other specs out of the water when it comes to unreadability. It's a classical spec in the sense that someone was bribed to go to Honolulu to "talk the spec over" and "reach a compromise". They don't even use spec language like shall and optional! It's deliberately vague so that everyone involved could agree. So Marco's engineering assessment is ACPI is a pile of camel pooh.
In the past I've restricted my sleep to as little as three hours a night for several weeks without ill effects, but I've never tried the Uberman sleep schedule. Now that I'm older, I seem to need my sleep much more desperately than I used to (I get physically ill if I get less than five hours sleep per night), so I doubt I'll be trying it anytime soon.
No wonder that you get ill with so little sleep for prolonged periods. It's not without reason that sleep deprivation is a torture method.
I don't watch Fox News or hardly any television at all, but it's typical for ultra-lefties to automatically assume I do and try to dismiss my opinion by telling me to stop watching it. You can't debate my facts, so you resort to that.
What facts? That anyone left of Atila the Hun is an ultra-leftie Godless commie?
Nothing new. From the propaganda side, we've been doing this type of stuff for years - Voice of America, for radio, etc... This is just a new medium. From the disruption of service side, we've also been doing this for years, most recently we debated weather to knock down Al Jazeera.
Nothin new abroad, but now it is very concievable that the US public is the target for these lies and deceit.
I find it amusing that Microsoft happily bundles all bug reports for all distributions of Linux under the heading "Linux" but in question 12 he quickly disclaims that they had 11 vulnerability counts for Windows but oh one of those was for office and one for exchange so that's really only 9 for Windows itself. Can you say double-standard? I bet if you looked at just the OpenBSD kernel itself and not all the applications you can install on it, you'd come up with a number a lot smaller than 9, too.
Bear in mind that his answers to Slashdot is mostly marketing, and shows the common factor of marketeting: deceit. Often the lies and deceit comes very obvious when you compare statements made in different contexts.
"Unfortunately the planet takes ten years to circle the red dwarf and has a surface temperature estimated at -220 C which means it's just a larger version of Pluto so the chance of finding life on this planet is essentially zero."
Come on, read a few posts on Slashdot on Intelligent Design and you will know that there is no chance involved here. Absense or precense of life is by design and only those not graced by Kansas education falsly believes otherwise.
Your attitude is depressingly common. Making the victim responsible is a commonly done, in particular if it's a rape case. Wearing a mini-skirt or beeing black appears to be a crime in it self.
the LAPD may have been the bad guys, but i'd hardly call Rodney King the good guy.
So, if a police officer feels a man/woman is bad they can do whatever they like?
Re:Obligatory Troll...
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Of course most of those security problems (with IE or Moz) required the user to do something stupid such as allow a malicious ActiveX install or go to a malicious website. That's still the case today.
The whole point of using a web browser is to browse the web, and that seems to be forgotten when someone is talking about how stupid it is to browse malicious sites. How are you to determine that a site is malicious? Use Google and click on more links to unknown sites? However, a browser that you only can use to browse "safe" sites is basically non-functional.
All those viruses and exploits use OS-specific techniques. So if you want real security through obscurity, get it by browsing the web using an OS no virus-writer has ever heard of, let alone would be tempted to spend time writing a virus for. I might have a copy of BeOS 4.5 around still if you'd like to use it...;^)
Yeah, try Plan9, though it has no full-featured web browser;-) A non-x86 CPU would help as well. Or one could just use OpenBSD.
But some exploits are targetted at applications (say Firefox) and would work on most OS.
The goal of an operating system is to manage the resources of a computer, which includes providing a console for the user (modern systems use GUIs) to start and stop and interact with running programs, allocating memory and time to running programs, providing necessary intercommunication systems with different programs and subsystems, etc.
Whatever gave you the idea that a modern system necessarily use a GUI for administration?
There are plenty of systems that are managed by serial console only, and quite a few of then does not even have VGA available (the Sun Netra serie, for instance, where even power on/off can be done from serial console).
Is it going to be able to run with root privileges or just as a user?
Not directly, unless you run as root. On the other hand, local
root kernel vulnerabilities may be exploited, and the Linux
kernel has new ones discovered frequently.
But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.
Which treaty you looking at?
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article VI (just follow the link you gave yourself), but just in case you can't find it:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Disarmament is one of the foundations of the treaty. The existing nuclear states (at the time of signing) should take steps towards effective disarmament with a goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. With US going forward with new types of nuclear devices, it hardly seems that they intend to remove all nuclear weapons.
The signatories have the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, as long as they follow some restrictions/rules where inspections are the main tool for assuring compliance. This includes Iran. That thay may be in violation is another matter.
Your reading comprehension skills needs to be improved.
Iran may or may not attempt to get nuclear weapons, it's sure understandable that they want. However, Iran is allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.
From the article: "Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression."
... Or do you mean North-Korea or Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries?
With the current US administrations ultra-hardline "we're gonna wipe you off the map" stance, it's very understandable that they want nuclear weapons. This attitude, that US allies despise, has made the world less safe. It's is quite counter-productive. North-Korea is very afraid of USA, and Iran is certainly very apprehensive. The Iraq war, and the events leading up to it, has shown that they must negotiate from a position of strength. Very afraid enemies with nuclear weapons is something to fear.
BSD license folks like to pick on the GPL because it is getting so complicated. They forget that the BSD license has its own problems.
What, like a license that is understandable and free?
If you don't understand what the problems with the BSD license are, you can't understand what the GPL is intended to do, nor can you be convinced to use it.
Gee, you didn't even bother to say what those supposed problems are. Please educate me.
Hint about BSD's problems: MS Windows has a good portion of BSD code in the Windows kernel. They spend a great deal of time modifying and adapting the code and then turning around and selling it, without allowing people the same rights they had.
The license allows this: Free for any purpose. It's intended to be like that, it's not a problem. If even simple licenses like the BSD/MIT/ICS license confuse you, what do you think about GPL complexity?
Imagine if I took the Linux Kernel, made it better, then turned around and started selling it for profit, without allowing people to see the changes, nor giving them an opportunity to do the same.
That is against the license the Linux kernel use.
The GPL forbids this, and it has been a perfect solution up 'til now.
Exactly, the GPL forbids it, but it's hardly perfect by any standard. But then again, BSD/MIT/ISC is not GPL, got that?
Slashdot Mirror
If security is a concern perhaps one should be a bit vary of Linux due to the big changes (ripping out core components) in the Linux kernel that happens quite often. Even deciding on a 802.11 stack seems difficult:
Linux put great emphasis on performance, not stability nor security, and this is well known. Offering a stable (i.e. usable) Linux kernel is up to the various distributions.
"Security" is in vogue, but it appears to be mostly market speech with little, if any, content.
Yeah, listen to what OpenBSD developers implementing ACPI support thinks about ACPI
No wonder that you get ill with so little sleep for prolonged periods. It's not without reason that sleep deprivation is a torture method.
What facts? That anyone left of Atila the Hun is an ultra-leftie Godless commie?
Oh My God, you should watch something else than Fox "News".
Yeah, Iraqi civilians knows very, very well that collateral damage is "Perfectly acceptable".
but will there be any questions about Halliburton and Iraqi "reconstruction"?
Nothin new abroad, but now it is very concievable that the US public is the target for these lies and deceit.
Bear in mind that his answers to Slashdot is mostly marketing, and shows the common factor of marketeting: deceit. Often the lies and deceit comes very obvious when you compare statements made in different contexts.
Come on, read a few posts on Slashdot on Intelligent Design and you will know that there is no chance involved here. Absense or precense of life is by design and only those not graced by Kansas education falsly believes otherwise.
Your attitude is depressingly common. Making the victim responsible is a commonly done, in particular if it's a rape case. Wearing a mini-skirt or beeing black appears to be a crime in it self.
So, if a police officer feels a man/woman is bad they can do whatever they like?
The whole point of using a web browser is to browse the web, and that seems to be forgotten when someone is talking about how stupid it is to browse malicious sites. How are you to determine that a site is malicious? Use Google and click on more links to unknown sites? However, a browser that you only can use to browse "safe" sites is basically non-functional.
Yeah, try Plan9, though it has no full-featured web browser ;-) A non-x86 CPU would help as well. Or one could just use OpenBSD.
But some exploits are targetted at applications (say Firefox) and would work on most OS.
Whatever gave you the idea that a modern system necessarily use a GUI for administration? There are plenty of systems that are managed by serial console only, and quite a few of then does not even have VGA available (the Sun Netra serie, for instance, where even power on/off can be done from serial console).
Are you so stupid that you can't go to a Linux distro site and check for security updates?
Not directly, unless you run as root. On the other hand, local root kernel vulnerabilities may be exploited, and the Linux kernel has new ones discovered frequently.
"Defy us and we'll plant false stories to punish you." Actually, this is common practice with the current administration.
Article VI (just follow the link you gave yourself), but just in case you can't find it:
The signatories have the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, as long as they follow some restrictions/rules where inspections are the main tool for assuring compliance. This includes Iran. That thay may be in violation is another matter.
Your reading comprehension skills needs to be improved.
Iran may or may not attempt to get nuclear weapons, it's sure understandable that they want. However, Iran is allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But in the same treaty those states that have nuclear weapons are required to dispose of them, so USA is breaking that treaty.
With the current US administrations ultra-hardline "we're gonna wipe you off the map" stance, it's very understandable that they want nuclear weapons. This attitude, that US allies despise, has made the world less safe. It's is quite counter-productive. North-Korea is very afraid of USA, and Iran is certainly very apprehensive. The Iraq war, and the events leading up to it, has shown that they must negotiate from a position of strength. Very afraid enemies with nuclear weapons is something to fear.
What, like a license that is understandable and free?
If you don't understand what the problems with the BSD license are, you can't understand what the GPL is intended to do, nor can you be convinced to use it.
Gee, you didn't even bother to say what those supposed problems are. Please educate me.
Hint about BSD's problems: MS Windows has a good portion of BSD code in the Windows kernel. They spend a great deal of time modifying and adapting the code and then turning around and selling it, without allowing people the same rights they had.
The license allows this: Free for any purpose. It's intended to be like that, it's not a problem. If even simple licenses like the BSD/MIT/ICS license confuse you, what do you think about GPL complexity?
Imagine if I took the Linux Kernel, made it better, then turned around and started selling it for profit, without allowing people to see the changes, nor giving them an opportunity to do the same.
That is against the license the Linux kernel use.
The GPL forbids this, and it has been a perfect solution up 'til now.
Exactly, the GPL forbids it, but it's hardly perfect by any standard. But then again, BSD/MIT/ISC is not GPL, got that?
Only GPL is "Free Software", nevermind that they add more restrictions? How pretensious.
Google is your friend, but just in case: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#4.3