I was thinking more along the lines of WSL/Cygwin/POSIX Subsystem for Windows.
The fact that (near) POSIX compliance is offered by Cygwin's libraries doesn't make it emulated, any more than OSX implementing (emulating?) pselect inside of libc on top of the kernel's select.
My name is not directly in the kernel sources, I do however have a CVE for a Linux kernel exploit, a bionic userspace exploit, and my name is on several jailbreaks of the early iPhones, and I am, AFAIK, the first person to ever break the firmware RSA signature protection on a cell phone (V3 RAZR), though I don't suspect any of that makes me more qualified as to what seems to be a largely philosophical question.
Perhaps we just have different perspectives on what's truly foreign.
I definitely agree that a kernel that was designed to be mostly POSIX compliant (*BSD, Linux, etc.) requires far less lifting from its libc to reach full compliance, but I will argue that just because a Kernel that doesn't natively support POSIX certain POSIX functionalities (Let's say, for example, named pipes) that implementing them in a libc is any less native.
This is the case in just about every *nix, even OSX.
In OSX, for example, pselect() is implemented on top of select().
So yeah, they understand. They just probably dont give a shit about what you want.
Oh, totally. Cows have actually completely solved the problem of quantum gravity. They probably just don't want us to find more advanced ways to slaughter them.
I can sum your post up as:
This should be obvious to anyone who shares my subjective feelings on cats, because they respond how they should respond when I interpret, subjectively, that they may want to do so. No confirmation bias in this equation.
Of course my lack of cat ownership and the facts that cats arent anywhere near as social might have something to do with my own observations.
It also means you're free of the subjective delusions that a lot of cat owners (like my girlfriend) love to engage in.
I do live with cats. The reason you've never seen them do something a dog can't do, is because they don't.
Cat owners see them do it, but no one else does. For shit like this, we have science.
LOL.
I assure you cats can be bothered with such simplistic behavior for treats. Mine come running en masse and all try to climb and paw at me whenever I stop near the treat cupboard.
They're just too stupid to learn the tricks. Cats are just stupid in general. They're capable of moments of genius, but totally incapable of making even rudimentary steps to expand upon it.
A great example from above- A cat will sometimes learn to open a door from a position where he can reach the door knob.
But he'll never learn he can just jump and open any door.
A cat will sit there and paw under your couch for something just out of reach until it dies of starvation. A dog will get your attention knowing it can't reach it.
Beyond this, the intelligence of dogs vs. cats is highly settled. The encephalization quotient of dogs is higher, suggesting higher intelligence. The amount of words a dog can learn and demonstrate knowledge of is massively higher.
And you know another thing a dog will learn? Not to stick its nose in a stove burner. Cats? Fucking never.
I love cats. But people who assign some kind of higher intelligence to them are delusional. They're seeing what they want to see.
Yes. And Christians know that their god intervenes in the affairs of mortals to make miracles happen.
It's not ironic that crazy cat ladies knew more than scientists. It's false. It's ironic that you think that.
Nonsense.
The article said that cats respond, at some level (though as a group score of all recognized possible reactions, not at all) differently when exposed to their own name (but only when spoken by their owner) after dehabituation.
It did not address my hypothesis that they simply recognize the word as a call to attention.
In the instance of calling the cats name after a final dehabitualization step of calling another cohabitating cats name, their response was identical to the first word uttered to them- a random noun. The fact that it was higher than the final dehabitualization step does nothing to disprove my assertion.
If your girlfriends cats all come running to every name-sound, that is easily explained: you and your girlfriend are not consistent in rewarding them if-and-only-if the correct cat reacts to the name.
Yes, it's also easily explained by the explanation I gave. I've spent a long time formulating that explanation, and I've never seen a single shred of evidence that it's wrong, and believe me, I've looked. Every single person I know who has claimed that cat knows its name will simply sit there and look confused and make excuses when the effect is demonstrated. I get it. We love our cats. Doesn't excuse inventing fairy tales for their behavior.
There's so much wrong with your claims that I don't know how it doesn't embarrass you.
You actually claimed that a VPS takes less resources than shared hosting. That's literally the stupidest fucking thing I've read today.
Please, go on, enamor us with your wizardly computer science knowledge.
I'll take baseless claims for 100, Alex. Being you have already argued that 99.anything% of the virtualized hosting market is of the VPS model, you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified to opine than you are. I have already written a POC for this exploit. I have my own CVE.
If you've read slashdot long enough, you've actually read about it.
I was splitting hairs, I was correcting a very incorrect assertion on your part.
LOL.
Ah yes, only people who live with one cat build a bond strong enough that causes the cat to learn its name.
That makes far more sense.
Delusional Cat Owner Syndrome is what you have.
People board their cats with us precisely because of the fact that *I* bond with them so well.
A few months with me will turn the most asocial cat into a social critter.
I love cats. There's simply no good evidence that they associate their name with any sense of personal identity. And this article didn't refute that.
It simply showed that they respond, at some level, to hearing their name.
A dog will eventually learn it's name. You can call your dog while it is playing with a pack of other dogs, and your dog will come.
Cats do not replicate this behavior.
So what do I mean? I mean I there's no evidence that they tie that name to *themselves*.
The fact that they respond to a word that they can distinguish does not mean they consider it their identity.
I don't know. My girlfriend breeds them (Russian Blues)
We also have various other cats "boarded" at our place for periods of time due to her CFA connections.
I'm literally exposed to 10-11 cats a year, though never 3 or so at a time, for varying lengths of time. I.e., I have a *lot* of experience cohabitating with cats. A diverse selection of cats.
While cats certainly recognize words, I have seen little evidence that they're aware of their name.
If I call a cat by the treats, every cat that wants a treat comes running.
If I call a cat while on the couch, every cat that wants pets will come running.
If I call a cat while I'm in the bathroom, our one cat that fucking loves the shower will come running.
You could argue that as "they know I'm calling someone, but they don't give a fuck that it's not them"
But I read the article too, and they didn't discount for the possibility that they are simply recognizing that you're calling attention to yourself, which they may or may not be interested in, depending on the context, as opposed to making random noises.
In short, I think learn to interpret "names" as some cat meowing loudly because he wants something, which also depending on context, will send various other cats running toward it.
Less than half of the spec deals with the *kernel*
Technically speaking, the SUSv3, which OSX on Intel procs conforms to, doesn't specify kernel functionality at all. It does specify "system interfaces", but they can be handled by an entirely user-space libc layer.
This is why Linux kernel based operating systems have been SUSv3 certified as well.
This bug does not require a user account on the server at all. It does however require a second bug to work, as in an exploit in PHP or some other module that allows modifying the shared memory segment between the workers and the master.
It's a pretty difficult vulnerability to exploit, really. It requires:
1) some badly written php or something else that will either allow you to eval() client submitted code, or write it to disk and then request it.
2) an exploit within the php (or equivalent) interpreter itself to allowed direct memory modification of Apache worker IPC shared data segment (Scoreboard).
3) an eventual graceful restart of apache (probably next time logrotate runs)
Your logic that you're using to justify this false claim isn't bad logic, it's just incomplete.
Why do people take shared hosting over a VPS? Simply because the control panel is simpler to operate.
Our shared hosting customers are often people with some family website or other personal website.
Besides the security implications, it's also inefficient to check every folder for the file when it is browsed.
:|
I don't know what else to say to that.
Of the dozens of syscalls that are performed on a single request, the fstat(.htaccess) for the path components aren't the painful ones. particularly because those dnodes are likely cached by the VFS.
Better to redirect to a different webserver for 404s that can lookup the URL for broken links and send you back to the right URL, then create hundreds or thousands of.htaccess files.
Ya, that's one pretty egregious example of using the wrong tool. I agree you shouldn't use a.htaccess where a.htaccess isn't well suited.
You probably shouldn't also assume that all scenarios suffer the pitfalls of the worst-case.
It apparently really didn't.
Though to be fair, we hire lots of people who work in our datacenters who don't know the word root from the holes in their asses.
Someone's gotta sweep the floors.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking more along the lines of WSL/Cygwin/POSIX Subsystem for Windows.
The fact that (near) POSIX compliance is offered by Cygwin's libraries doesn't make it emulated, any more than OSX implementing (emulating?) pselect inside of libc on top of the kernel's select.
My name is not directly in the kernel sources, I do however have a CVE for a Linux kernel exploit, a bionic userspace exploit, and my name is on several jailbreaks of the early iPhones, and I am, AFAIK, the first person to ever break the firmware RSA signature protection on a cell phone (V3 RAZR), though I don't suspect any of that makes me more qualified as to what seems to be a largely philosophical question.
Perhaps we just have different perspectives on what's truly foreign.
I definitely agree that a kernel that was designed to be mostly POSIX compliant (*BSD, Linux, etc.) requires far less lifting from its libc to reach full compliance, but I will argue that just because a Kernel that doesn't natively support POSIX certain POSIX functionalities (Let's say, for example, named pipes) that implementing them in a libc is any less native.
This is the case in just about every *nix, even OSX.
In OSX, for example, pselect() is implemented on top of select().
Bad analogy.
Do I respond better to my SO calling my name over the sound of the oven timer saying dinner's ready?
Yes, I do.
Don't you?
So yeah, they understand. They just probably dont give a shit about what you want.
Oh, totally. Cows have actually completely solved the problem of quantum gravity. They probably just don't want us to find more advanced ways to slaughter them.
I can sum your post up as:
This should be obvious to anyone who shares my subjective feelings on cats, because they respond how they should respond when I interpret, subjectively, that they may want to do so. No confirmation bias in this equation.
Excellent logic.
Of course my lack of cat ownership and the facts that cats arent anywhere near as social might have something to do with my own observations.
It also means you're free of the subjective delusions that a lot of cat owners (like my girlfriend) love to engage in.
I do live with cats. The reason you've never seen them do something a dog can't do, is because they don't.
Cat owners see them do it, but no one else does. For shit like this, we have science.
LOL.
I assure you cats can be bothered with such simplistic behavior for treats. Mine come running en masse and all try to climb and paw at me whenever I stop near the treat cupboard.
They're just too stupid to learn the tricks. Cats are just stupid in general. They're capable of moments of genius, but totally incapable of making even rudimentary steps to expand upon it.
A great example from above- A cat will sometimes learn to open a door from a position where he can reach the door knob.
But he'll never learn he can just jump and open any door.
A cat will sit there and paw under your couch for something just out of reach until it dies of starvation. A dog will get your attention knowing it can't reach it.
Beyond this, the intelligence of dogs vs. cats is highly settled. The encephalization quotient of dogs is higher, suggesting higher intelligence. The amount of words a dog can learn and demonstrate knowledge of is massively higher.
And you know another thing a dog will learn? Not to stick its nose in a stove burner. Cats? Fucking never.
I love cats. But people who assign some kind of higher intelligence to them are delusional. They're seeing what they want to see.
Yes. And Christians know that their god intervenes in the affairs of mortals to make miracles happen.
It's not ironic that crazy cat ladies knew more than scientists. It's false. It's ironic that you think that.
Nonsense.
The article said that cats respond, at some level (though as a group score of all recognized possible reactions, not at all) differently when exposed to their own name (but only when spoken by their owner) after dehabituation.
It did not address my hypothesis that they simply recognize the word as a call to attention.
In the instance of calling the cats name after a final dehabitualization step of calling another cohabitating cats name, their response was identical to the first word uttered to them- a random noun. The fact that it was higher than the final dehabitualization step does nothing to disprove my assertion.
Clearly....
Care to back up that assertion?
Yes, that must be it ;)
If your girlfriends cats all come running to every name-sound, that is easily explained: you and your girlfriend are not consistent in rewarding them if-and-only-if the correct cat reacts to the name.
Yes, it's also easily explained by the explanation I gave. I've spent a long time formulating that explanation, and I've never seen a single shred of evidence that it's wrong, and believe me, I've looked. Every single person I know who has claimed that cat knows its name will simply sit there and look confused and make excuses when the effect is demonstrated. I get it. We love our cats. Doesn't excuse inventing fairy tales for their behavior.
I don't think you know what the word shill means.
There's so much wrong with your claims that I don't know how it doesn't embarrass you.
You actually claimed that a VPS takes less resources than shared hosting. That's literally the stupidest fucking thing I've read today.
Please, go on, enamor us with your wizardly computer science knowledge.
You're a fucking idiot.
I'll take baseless claims for 100, Alex. Being you have already argued that 99.anything% of the virtualized hosting market is of the VPS model, you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified to opine than you are. I have already written a POC for this exploit. I have my own CVE.
If you've read slashdot long enough, you've actually read about it.
I was splitting hairs, I was correcting a very incorrect assertion on your part.
LOL.
Ah yes, only people who live with one cat build a bond strong enough that causes the cat to learn its name.
That makes far more sense.
Delusional Cat Owner Syndrome is what you have.
People board their cats with us precisely because of the fact that *I* bond with them so well.
A few months with me will turn the most asocial cat into a social critter.
I love cats. There's simply no good evidence that they associate their name with any sense of personal identity. And this article didn't refute that.
It simply showed that they respond, at some level, to hearing their name.
A dog will eventually learn it's name. You can call your dog while it is playing with a pack of other dogs, and your dog will come.
Cats do not replicate this behavior.
So what do I mean? I mean I there's no evidence that they tie that name to *themselves*.
The fact that they respond to a word that they can distinguish does not mean they consider it their identity.
I don't know. My girlfriend breeds them (Russian Blues)
We also have various other cats "boarded" at our place for periods of time due to her CFA connections.
I'm literally exposed to 10-11 cats a year, though never 3 or so at a time, for varying lengths of time. I.e., I have a *lot* of experience cohabitating with cats. A diverse selection of cats.
While cats certainly recognize words, I have seen little evidence that they're aware of their name.
If I call a cat by the treats, every cat that wants a treat comes running.
If I call a cat while on the couch, every cat that wants pets will come running.
If I call a cat while I'm in the bathroom, our one cat that fucking loves the shower will come running.
You could argue that as "they know I'm calling someone, but they don't give a fuck that it's not them"
But I read the article too, and they didn't discount for the possibility that they are simply recognizing that you're calling attention to yourself, which they may or may not be interested in, depending on the context, as opposed to making random noises.
In short, I think learn to interpret "names" as some cat meowing loudly because he wants something, which also depending on context, will send various other cats running toward it.
Less than half of the spec deals with the *kernel*
Technically speaking, the SUSv3, which OSX on Intel procs conforms to, doesn't specify kernel functionality at all. It does specify "system interfaces", but they can be handled by an entirely user-space libc layer.
This is why Linux kernel based operating systems have been SUSv3 certified as well.
Linux is very close to a UNIX.
Deployed actual UNIX systems that run apache are irrelevant, statistically.
They meant *nix.
This bug does not require a user account on the server at all. It does however require a second bug to work, as in an exploit in PHP or some other module that allows modifying the shared memory segment between the workers and the master.
It's a pretty difficult vulnerability to exploit, really. It requires:
1) some badly written php or something else that will either allow you to eval() client submitted code, or write it to disk and then request it.
2) an exploit within the php (or equivalent) interpreter itself to allowed direct memory modification of Apache worker IPC shared data segment (Scoreboard).
3) an eventual graceful restart of apache (probably next time logrotate runs)
Quit saying this. It simply isn't true.
Your logic that you're using to justify this false claim isn't bad logic, it's just incomplete.
Why do people take shared hosting over a VPS? Simply because the control panel is simpler to operate.
Our shared hosting customers are often people with some family website or other personal website.
The shared-hosting market is fucking *huge*.
Besides the security implications, it's also inefficient to check every folder for the file when it is browsed.
:|
I don't know what else to say to that. Of the dozens of syscalls that are performed on a single request, the fstat(.htaccess) for the path components aren't the painful ones. particularly because those dnodes are likely cached by the VFS.
Better to redirect to a different webserver for 404s that can lookup the URL for broken links and send you back to the right URL, then create hundreds or thousands of .htaccess files.
Ya, that's one pretty egregious example of using the wrong tool. I agree you shouldn't use a .htaccess where a .htaccess isn't well suited.
You probably shouldn't also assume that all scenarios suffer the pitfalls of the worst-case.
Is systems administration dying?
Well, they use it as a really fast proxy to a web server that doesn't suck, yes.
That doesn't really address this problem, though.
Wait, are you telling me he didn't just prove that there's no reason for ports to be privileged?! /sarcasm.
It apparently really didn't.
Though to be fair, we hire lots of people who work in our datacenters who don't know the word root from the holes in their asses.
Someone's gotta sweep the floors.