Ironic that the more expensive model will run slower than the cheaper model, will feature more restrictive licensing and the user will not be able to tweak it as much as the cheaper version...
Wow, I did not even think they had that much market share...
I sense a snake in the grass - no way Blu-Ray is gonna up sales to that levels without either a massive price cut or other sneaky tactics - like no longer making regular DVD drives - but that would be stupid...
Windows XP comes with Windows Remote Desktop, which can do exactly that, just as easily. So... not much of an argument there. No no. XDMCP is a lot different, than remote desktop - remote desktop is more like VNC
I might be sticking my foot in it, but remote desktop lets one control a remote computer via your own. That is what VNC does.
XDMCP lets you run a session hosted by a server on your own pc as if the operating system was installed on your own. The big difference between XDMCP and VNC (and Windows remote desktop as I understand it) is that with VNC the user on the remote pc needs to be logged in, and you use their programs whereas with XDMCP you can have multiple users using the same pc simultaneously and independantly from each other. A thin client network, if you will.
And seriously, you use right-click to select copy and paste and you're calling me a newb? Learn the keyboard shortcuts.:P Haha, you got me. I also prefer the shortcuts when working in documents, but I like the clickety-click when I work with files...
But there you have it - good and bad in both areas. As for my "nightmare" scenario, I am either getting rusty with XP or something - but I always struggle to get the XP computers to work on our network. That said we do not have a dhcp host here, there might be the problem. Thanks I will be looking into it.
Yeah, you might have a point there... The only thing that I think might stop that is that shell scripts are not made executable by default, it will just open a text file.
For an executable program it might be a different story... it might just work.
I was thinking hard hacking from the outside rather than a user executed action...
Good point.
Now, the beauty of OSS, let's figure out how one would prevent that from happening.
From a default install I would say anything system related is safe, unless $user "root" has clicked an executable while running as root, or the user blindly enters their password when the prompt pops up.
1) We could default all executables from mail to have privileges that do not allow deleting/changing files. 2) An online database of harmful executables that is kept updated whenever you go online.
For (1) there might be a problem with legitimate programs wanting to create ./.$folder in/home/$USER in order to work.
that makes me think of
3) Do not allow any programs to be run via clicking from a mail attachment. If user decides to run, he must manually move the file to a folder, and run it from there. Also, and this might be a major hassle with some programs, do not allow that program to write anything outside that folder it is installed in. 4) In addition to (3) one might require the user to manually make the file executable, but users might complain about having to jump through so many hoops...
And, what would you have done if someone had brought in a computer with Linux on it and wanted a brand new, top of the line video card installed in it? Would you have installed it at all? Would have installed the hardware and then tell the customer they would have to install the drivers? The jokes on you. I installed a Geforce 8800gtx for a guy on PCLOS just the other day.
Those boxes suffer from the same problem Macs have, namely they cost 1.5+ times the cost of a regular Windows machine. Oh PLEASEPLEASE p r e t t y PLEASE point me to your source. Spec for spec I betcha that the machines pre-installed with Linux are a bit cheaper than Windows boxes. And spec for spec MAC's aren't THAT more expensive than other machines.
Here is one: What is someone manages to install a Windows based, network game and get it running under WINE, and then can't use the network part? What does that user do? Gaming under Linux is a pain, I'll give you that - so a guy gets a game to work under wine but can't get the network to work? Bad example.
An in-depth reply - okay I appreciate civility, so let's get down to it:
2. I am not an average user - but I am not a hardcore Linux pro either.
a) I started somewhere - I used to be an average user way back when. No one is born a pro.
b) My mom is using linux via an XDMCP client on my dad's XP box - and loving it.
You know what "XDMCP" is, and apparently just assume that we also do, that makes you a "hardcore Linux pro" in my book.
A question - do you know what XDMCP is? I am unsure from that statement if you know or not, or if the issue is my assumption.
But let us explore XDMCP for a bit. It is a way to use linux from another computer - for instance you have an office full of old P111 boxes and you buy one powerful computer to host newer software for them. Sounds complicated huh?
Well in Linux, all you do (and I am using Gnome as an example) is you go to system>administration>login_window and enable remote login.
Then you boot using a minimal linux install from a remote machine - heck you can just do a default linux install if you want - and select "remote login" from the login screen. You will be presented with the login screen of the server, username+password and PRESTO you are working via XDMCP! THAT is how easy linux is. Now try and do something like that with Windows.
Let us go to Linux - you get pre-installed Linux boxes - fine for the "average user" - even easier to use. Plug into the network and you are online instantly, as a for instance.
Uh, what OS doesn't do that? How long has it been since you've used Windows or a Macintosh? (Actually, *all* versions of DOS-less Windows have done that.)
Well in a previous post in this thread I pointed out that I do not use MACOS often - but we have several XP boxes in the house - and getting them to use our broadband connection is a nightmare - heck networking is harder than with mu Ubuntu boxes.
Uh, what OS doesn't do that?
Exactly, my point exactly. Linux makes things easy.
I just wrote my first bash program this week, check it out - the source code is on my blog. It is a horrible mish-mash of commands and stuff to do something really badly - but it is there, and it is mine.
No way that I would have grown to the point of even attempting something like that as a Windows user.
Wait, slow down a bit here.
You're arguing that since Linux *requires* people to do all kinds of nasty shit just to get it working at all, it makes you a better person because you can write BASH scripts? Is that accurate?
Nope, that was not my argument. I think you read something into my comment that is not there. I did not argue that Linux *requires* people to do all kinds of nasty stuff to get it working at all.
1) Most people, 99.9999% of people, don't measure their self-worth by knowing scripting languages. I build web-apps for a living, and I don't care... imagine how little normal people care.
I do NOT know scripting languages, it is BASH for crying out loud.
2) If you do care about knowing scripting languages, what's stopping you from doing it on Windows? 2000 and XP have "whatever-you-call-CMD.exe-scripting", and yes it sucks, but it's there and it works. Windows Vista has Monad, which is significantly better. All Office versions have VBA, you can knock yourself out with that. Of course you can download Python, Ruby, Perl, etc... in short, what the hell does your choice of OS have to do with learning a scripting language? Connect some dots, please, I'm confused.
Nothing stops me from doing scripting on Windows - except paying tons of cash to get the programs to do it in the first place. But I am not that into scripting languages.
There is a perception that Linux is hard/unfriendly/a nightmare - and detractors cling to this with all they have because in reality that is all they hav
Gentlemen
on
The DIY Tank
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
1You are the dumbass for not knowing that you are 2not an average user. First off, I don't understand that sentence, but let me try to reply to it first.
1. Fine - call me a dumbass. Water off my back. 2. I am not an average user - but I am not a hardcore Linux pro either.
a) I started somewhere - I used to be an average user way back when. No one is born a pro.
b) My mom is using linux via an XDMCP client on my dad's XP box - and loving it.
c) My wife is using Linux - and loving it.
d) You argument sounds like an uninformed rant on a perception of the linux desktop.
Now, on user-friendlyness. You complain about something like installing a AGP card, or let's go wireless card.
And then you talk about the "average user" - let's then exclude gamers and geeks.
How many "average users" install new hardware on their Windows computers? The moment you feel confident enough to open up your tower case, rip out an old Graphics card and install a new one you are no longer an "average user".
I used to work in IT support at a retail store - and I had TONS of pc's come through my hands from normal people wanting me to do things like set up 3g modems, modems - yes dialup on board thingies would you believe, "screen cards" and the like.
Now then - a windows pc is pre installed with the OS no?
Let us go to Linux - you get pre-installed Linux boxes - fine for the "average user" - even easier to use. Plug into the network and you are online instantly, as a for instance.
No need to install office - it's there, chat client? there. You see - linux (and here I am referring to the desktop targeted distros such as Ubuntu/PCLOS/Mandriva etc) is very user friendly.
The moment you crack open the box to do something out of the ordinary however, you cross the line from "average user" to "pending geek".
I just wrote my first bash program this week, check it out - the source code is on my blog. It is a horrible mish-mash of commands and stuff to do something really badly - but it is there, and it is mine.
No way that I would have grown to the point of even attempting something like that as a Windows user.
There is a perception that Linux is hard/unfriendly/a nightmare - and detractors cling to this with all they have because in reality that is all they have criticism wise.
The one thing that detractors of Linus tend to overlook is the underlying philosophy behind it. I was able to write my little script because the community wanted me to write it. My success as a user/contributer is important to them.
That, my friend, is what makes Linux great.
As to you using it yesterday - if that is true I gladly apologize for my assumption. Your original comment, however, leaves me to think you are either lying for dramatic effect, or you popped in a disk, tried something out of the ordinary, and base all your assumptions on one wacky experience.
Most of getting to use Linux is getting past the "how it works differently" and then if you get your head around that you will be a-for-away...
I once did rm -rf/var/lib mysql instead of rm -rf/var/lib/mysql and I could still back up all the important stuff on the machine before trying to recover (which ended in a re-install in the end)
Were I to do rm -rf/home/frankypoo franky.jpg instead of rm -rf/home/frankypoo/franky.jpg the results would be catastrophy.
If a users HOME directory is specified as having privileges accessable to only that $username/group you need to either belong to that group, or get privileges for that group.
An outside attack by default cannot do anything if it is not allowed by user/root on the machine itself.
Well, I don't use mac that often (only via a friend when I visit him...) but I don't think a regular.exe will run on a mac.
The only way I can see it working is if someone runs parrallels with windows and opens the executable there - thus it is technically a "windows machine" that is infected.
No os is totally safe from access - what distinguishes Linux/Unix/BSD and maybe even MACOS from the Windows crowd is what you can do when you have penetrated the firewall/got a mail inside.
With Windows it is easier (for various reasons) to have a program do something illegal - either via user click or automagically - than with the others.
For a hacker it would still be hard to do anything on a Linux/BSD/Unix box without root/admin privileges - maybe stealing info is the worst (via accounts that do not need special privileges to view/access files).
Thus the term "HOW SAFE" needs to be defined before one can argue the strong points of an OS over the other.
For one person ACCESS to the info is a security issue, and for another RUNNING AN UNWANTED PROGRAM (virus/keylogger/trojan/bot) is the issue.
With the first issue I'd say Linux/BSD/Unix is a little safer than Mac which is a little safer than Windows, with the second issue I'd say Linux/BSD/Unix is way safer than the others.
Absolutely. I went to yahoo.cn and typed in random words (tibet, dalai lama, communism is evil... you know non offensive stuff...) and at first it was blocked - a flakey internal server error. And after I figured out that an allowed search followed by a blocked search I could get hits for tibet and dalai lama etc, but then suddenly I couldn't access yahoo.cn
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic that the more expensive model will run slower than the cheaper model, will feature more restrictive licensing and the user will not be able to tweak it as much as the cheaper version...
Wow, I did not even think they had that much market share...
I sense a snake in the grass - no way Blu-Ray is gonna up sales to that levels without either a massive price cut or other sneaky tactics - like no longer making regular DVD drives - but that would be stupid...
NP, it's early in the US anyways. I can always see when the yanks wake up - I start getting /. mails in my inbox...
Snap.
Heya, if you read down the thread you will find me and another poster talking about just that - possible ways to compromise a linux box.
The reason I asked the question is that I really want to know the answer to it - of course no OS is totally secure.
The reason I want to know is simple - I want to see if I can find out how quickly the OSS community reacts to that.
There lies the strength of Linux - the community and the culture, not necessarily the OS.
I got XP to do XDMCP via cygwin, beautiful program.
I use static IP on both XP boxes, but Ubuntu just felt more intuitive, plug in, click FF and hit google.
XP just wouldn't - but I might be missing something you are saying, its 23:11 here...
Great chatting... it's off to bed for me...
Ah, you see - the /. headline had me thinking they blocked http traffic specifically.
What I gathered from tfa was similar to what you wrote - absolute rubbish service from their side...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xdmcp
for XDMCP.
I might be sticking my foot in it, but remote desktop lets one control a remote computer via your own. That is what VNC does.
XDMCP lets you run a session hosted by a server on your own pc as if the operating system was installed on your own. The big difference between XDMCP and VNC (and Windows remote desktop as I understand it) is that with VNC the user on the remote pc needs to be logged in, and you use their programs whereas with XDMCP you can have multiple users using the same pc simultaneously and independantly from each other. A thin client network, if you will. And seriously, you use right-click to select copy and paste and you're calling me a newb? Learn the keyboard shortcuts.
But there you have it - good and bad in both areas. As for my "nightmare" scenario, I am either getting rusty with XP or something - but I always struggle to get the XP computers to work on our network. That said we do not have a dhcp host here, there might be the problem. Thanks I will be looking into it.
Yeah, you might have a point there... The only thing that I think might stop that is that shell scripts are not made executable by default, it will just open a text file.
/.$folder in /home/$USER in order to work.
For an executable program it might be a different story... it might just work.
I was thinking hard hacking from the outside rather than a user executed action...
Good point.
Now, the beauty of OSS, let's figure out how one would prevent that from happening.
From a default install I would say anything system related is safe, unless $user "root" has clicked an executable while running as root, or the user blindly enters their password when the prompt pops up.
1) We could default all executables from mail to have privileges that do not allow deleting/changing files.
2) An online database of harmful executables that is kept updated whenever you go online.
For (1) there might be a problem with legitimate programs wanting to create .
that makes me think of
3) Do not allow any programs to be run via clicking from a mail attachment. If user decides to run, he must manually move the file to a folder, and run it from there. Also, and this might be a major hassle with some programs, do not allow that program to write anything outside that folder it is installed in.
4) In addition to (3) one might require the user to manually make the file executable, but users might complain about having to jump through so many hoops...
Any ideas?
Yes, but then you need write priveleges.
2. I am not an average user - but I am not a hardcore Linux pro either.
a) I started somewhere - I used to be an average user way back when. No one is born a pro.
b) My mom is using linux via an XDMCP client on my dad's XP box - and loving it.
You know what "XDMCP" is, and apparently just assume that we also do, that makes you a "hardcore Linux pro" in my book.
A question - do you know what XDMCP is? I am unsure from that statement if you know or not, or if the issue is my assumption.
But let us explore XDMCP for a bit. It is a way to use linux from another computer - for instance you have an office full of old P111 boxes and you buy one powerful computer to host newer software for them. Sounds complicated huh?
Well in Linux, all you do (and I am using Gnome as an example) is you go to system>administration>login_window and enable remote login.
Then you boot using a minimal linux install from a remote machine - heck you can just do a default linux install if you want - and select "remote login" from the login screen. You will be presented with the login screen of the server, username+password and PRESTO you are working via XDMCP! THAT is how easy linux is. Now try and do something like that with Windows.
Let us go to Linux - you get pre-installed Linux boxes - fine for the "average user" - even easier to use. Plug into the network and you are online instantly, as a for instance.
Uh, what OS doesn't do that? How long has it been since you've used Windows or a Macintosh? (Actually, *all* versions of DOS-less Windows have done that.)
Well in a previous post in this thread I pointed out that I do not use MACOS often - but we have several XP boxes in the house - and getting them to use our broadband connection is a nightmare - heck networking is harder than with mu Ubuntu boxes.
Uh, what OS doesn't do that?
Exactly, my point exactly. Linux makes things easy.
I just wrote my first bash program this week, check it out - the source code is on my blog. It is a horrible mish-mash of commands and stuff to do something really badly - but it is there, and it is mine.
No way that I would have grown to the point of even attempting something like that as a Windows user.
Wait, slow down a bit here.
You're arguing that since Linux *requires* people to do all kinds of nasty shit just to get it working at all, it makes you a better person because you can write BASH scripts? Is that accurate?
Nope, that was not my argument. I think you read something into my comment that is not there. I did not argue that Linux *requires* people to do all kinds of nasty stuff to get it working at all.
1) Most people, 99.9999% of people, don't measure their self-worth by knowing scripting languages. I build web-apps for a living, and I don't care... imagine how little normal people care.
I do NOT know scripting languages, it is BASH for crying out loud.
2) If you do care about knowing scripting languages, what's stopping you from doing it on Windows? 2000 and XP have "whatever-you-call-CMD.exe-scripting", and yes it sucks, but it's there and it works. Windows Vista has Monad, which is significantly better. All Office versions have VBA, you can knock yourself out with that. Of course you can download Python, Ruby, Perl, etc... in short, what the hell does your choice of OS have to do with learning a scripting language? Connect some dots, please, I'm confused.
Nothing stops me from doing scripting on Windows - except paying tons of cash to get the programs to do it in the first place. But I am not that into scripting languages.
There is a perception that Linux is hard/unfriendly/a nightmare - and detractors cling to this with all they have because in reality that is all they hav
Hats off.
There goes a truly great future engineer...
1. Fine - call me a dumbass. Water off my back.
2. I am not an average user - but I am not a hardcore Linux pro either.
a) I started somewhere - I used to be an average user way back when. No one is born a pro.
b) My mom is using linux via an XDMCP client on my dad's XP box - and loving it.
c) My wife is using Linux - and loving it.
d) You argument sounds like an uninformed rant on a perception of the linux desktop.
Now, on user-friendlyness. You complain about something like installing a AGP card, or let's go wireless card.
And then you talk about the "average user" - let's then exclude gamers and geeks.
How many "average users" install new hardware on their Windows computers? The moment you feel confident enough to open up your tower case, rip out an old Graphics card and install a new one you are no longer an "average user".
I used to work in IT support at a retail store - and I had TONS of pc's come through my hands from normal people wanting me to do things like set up 3g modems, modems - yes dialup on board thingies would you believe, "screen cards" and the like.
Now then - a windows pc is pre installed with the OS no?
Let us go to Linux - you get pre-installed Linux boxes - fine for the "average user" - even easier to use. Plug into the network and you are online instantly, as a for instance.
No need to install office - it's there, chat client? there. You see - linux (and here I am referring to the desktop targeted distros such as Ubuntu/PCLOS/Mandriva etc) is very user friendly.
The moment you crack open the box to do something out of the ordinary however, you cross the line from "average user" to "pending geek".
I just wrote my first bash program this week, check it out - the source code is on my blog. It is a horrible mish-mash of commands and stuff to do something really badly - but it is there, and it is mine.
No way that I would have grown to the point of even attempting something like that as a Windows user.
There is a perception that Linux is hard/unfriendly/a nightmare - and detractors cling to this with all they have because in reality that is all they have criticism wise.
The one thing that detractors of Linus tend to overlook is the underlying philosophy behind it. I was able to write my little script because the community wanted me to write it. My success as a user/contributer is important to them.
That, my friend, is what makes Linux great.
As to you using it yesterday - if that is true I gladly apologize for my assumption. Your original comment, however, leaves me to think you are either lying for dramatic effect, or you popped in a disk, tried something out of the ordinary, and base all your assumptions on one wacky experience.
Most of getting to use Linux is getting past the "how it works differently" and then if you get your head around that you will be a-for-away...
peace.
I was lazy with my CAPS haha.
/var/lib mysql instead of rm -rf /var/lib/mysql and I could still back up all the important stuff on the machine before trying to recover (which ended in a re-install in the end)
/home/frankypoo franky.jpg instead of rm -rf /home/frankypoo/franky.jpg the results would be catastrophy.
But yeah - your point stands.
I once did rm -rf
Were I to do rm -rf
My username is not frankypoo btw...
Oh, i am not new here - it's my therapist... he said I need to change at least one thing for the positive every day...
This has taken me two weeks to do... *sobs*
Ah - the old "Linux is not user friendly" rant.
Dude - that is a way old argument. When last did you use Linux? Try Ubuntu - and some of that so-called "crapware" and then post an informed reply.
Don't you mean rm -rf /home/$user
Or is that what you meant with $HOME
If a users HOME directory is specified as having privileges accessable to only that $username/group you need to either belong to that group, or get privileges for that group.
An outside attack by default cannot do anything if it is not allowed by user/root on the machine itself.
1. It is a darn good read. Concise, short and to the point.
/. headline had me thinking one thing - but reading the article clarified my one knee jerk reaction: "You cannot browse the web - at all!?"
2. They are using firefox.
3. The Slashdot headline is not completely accurate.
The
Reading the article I got the idea that is not exactly the case...
I try. *bow*
Well, I don't use mac that often (only via a friend when I visit him...) but I don't think a regular .exe will run on a mac.
The only way I can see it working is if someone runs parrallels with windows and opens the executable there - thus it is technically a "windows machine" that is infected.
No os is totally safe from access - what distinguishes Linux/Unix/BSD and maybe even MACOS from the Windows crowd is what you can do when you have penetrated the firewall/got a mail inside.
With Windows it is easier (for various reasons) to have a program do something illegal - either via user click or automagically - than with the others.
For a hacker it would still be hard to do anything on a Linux/BSD/Unix box without root/admin privileges - maybe stealing info is the worst (via accounts that do not need special privileges to view/access files).
Thus the term "HOW SAFE" needs to be defined before one can argue the strong points of an OS over the other.
For one person ACCESS to the info is a security issue, and for another RUNNING AN UNWANTED PROGRAM (virus/keylogger/trojan/bot) is the issue.
With the first issue I'd say Linux/BSD/Unix is a little safer than Mac which is a little safer than Windows, with the second issue I'd say Linux/BSD/Unix is way safer than the others.
Yes, and .exe should only target Windows - but what about people running wine?
.exe from a mail - or has tech support looking after them...
But then, a person running wine either knows better than to open a random
btw, who these days open these spammy messages AND clicks on the executables?
*shakes head*
Which just goes to show that the best defense against infection is an educated userbase.
And then they must be willing to act along the guidelines for security set by IT dept.
How many of those zombies are Linux platforms?
Absolutely. I went to yahoo.cn and typed in random words (tibet, dalai lama, communism is evil... you know non offensive stuff...) and at first it was blocked - a flakey internal server error. And after I figured out that an allowed search followed by a blocked search I could get hits for tibet and dalai lama etc, but then suddenly I couldn't access yahoo.cn
Those Bastards!