You'll be really pissed when you heard how we say it. I'm Australian but it's pretty much the same in most commonwealth countries, except New Zealand but they all talk funny there:)
American pronounciation: A-loom-in-um
Commonwealth pronounciation: al-U-min-ium
May well explain why you lot spell it wrong:)
Now lets talk about how you say lieutenant...
I prefer this version of that quote
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
vi is like masturbation. It's quick and always there but not always your first choice.
The rest of the world isn't going to get this for some time. I would have thought the subject "Star Trek: Enterprise Reactions?" would have been a bit of a give away it contained spoilers. So just deal with it.
My understanding of the law in Australia (IANAL) is that once the liquidators get called in then there is a set order of payment. Employees are second (after the liquidators and even that may change in the near future). This includes all benefits (sick leave, annual leave etc) not just owed wages.
I don't know why 4.4BSD-Lite became so popular. Perhaps because it was released as OpenSource in 1994?
There was no such thing as OpenSource in 1994. The term wasn't coined until 1998.
The main three *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) all use at least 85% of 4.4BSD-Lite's source code,
And the concept of getting it right the first time eludes yuo? New does not always mean better.
FreeBSD's C2 security certification is horrible.
Neither FreeBSD or NT has a C2 security classification. The classification is granted not to software but to a specific hardware and software combination. NT's is on a couple Pentium class Compaqs running a particular release of NT 3.51 that aren't connected to a network. Real relevant.
NetBSD, I'm afraid, is dead before it got off the ground.
It's not just admirable, it's useful. The other BSD projects can feed off the work the NetBSD team does. Bugs show up when software is ported to other architectures.
OpenBSD's filesystem is extremely slow,... No real help is given to new users and such an elitest attitude is suicide.
The OpenBSD team don't tolorate stupid people (which I can perfectly understand) and this comment signifies yuo as one. From the OpenBSD FAQ (strangely hidden in the section on performance tuning):
Question: "I simply do "mount -u -o async/" which makes one package I use (which insists on touching a few hundred things from time to time) usable. Why is async mounting frowned upon and not on by default (as it is in some other unixen) ? Surely it is much simpler and therefore a safer way of improving performance in some applications ?"
Answer: "Async mounts is indeed faster then sync mounts, but they are also less safe. What happens in case of a power failure? Or a hardware problem? The quest for speed should not sacrifice the reliability and the stability of the system. Check the manpage for mount(8)."
Yuo have obviously made no attempt to find out why it was so slow or posted a question plainly explained in the FAQ and got flamed for it. Yuo are the one at fault here. Not the OpenBSD community. I personally quite like Theo's attitude. He's a total pain in the arse but it's all in the name of security.
Maybe yuo should stick to yuor NT point and drool interface and get cracking on updating yuor MSCE to W2k.
Before I start I'll just say I am a Bigpond Cable subscriber.
With out more info there is no way of knowing if this is a crack or PEBCAK. It's entirely possible that this was done with social engineering or trojan(s), not a 1337 4ax0r. So far all that's known that 70 accounts were comprimised by some method.
To put it in perspective, recently somebody sent an email to a large number Bigpond users pretending to be from Telstra asking them for their password and credit card number just so they could check their records. A depressing number of people replyed. We're not talking about the most security literate people in the world here.
Telstra uses pretty much standard PPPoE for ADSL although they do use the ADSL modems that had the security problem a while back.
We've also heard that Telstra has already caught the person responsible.
BTW the "Australian Broadband Users Group" are widely regarded among Australian broadband users to be a bunch of self-important tools who are pretty much out to make themselves look big. The only guy who's worth listening to is they guy that runs www.whirlpool.net.au The rest are just dead weight.
The idea is the patentability of the invention is decided when the patent is challenged. Then the patent office reviews it etc. The intention was that it is cheaper than a full patent but because the inovation patent is governed by all the same rules as a normal patent (if there is such a thing) it really still needs to be written by a patent lawyer which is where most of the cost comes from anyway.
And you can tell this was written by a patent attorney. "Circular transportation facilitation device". "Wheel" would have something representing regular english.
There are parts of TaSmania (what is it with Americans and Z? Do you guys have a problem using s?) where they could remain hidden but would have been hopelessly interbreed by now.
Of course cruel people would say that about everybody in Tasmania:)
The only rights you have to use software is the rights given to you by the person holding the copyright on the software. This is usually in exchange for money. If you find some software just lying around then you have no rights to use, modify or distribute that software. Why do you think commercial licences say something along the lines of "permission given to use this software provided blah blah".
If what you say was true then you wouldn't have to worry about hiding warez on your machine because it wouldn't be illegal. So long as you didn't give it to anybody else you'd be in the clear. Also you could modify any software you could lay your hands on.
You have 14 days to exit from the contract (from Tuesday) with no penalty. Of course the system doesn't start until the end of June and there's no way to find out how much bandwidth you've used in the past.
This is all true. What is also true is that a number of people (who seem to be under the dillusion that companies care about their customers) asked for a fixed limit. Despite being counselled (flamed everytime they posted) by others who actually live in the 21st Century, they continued to ask for a fixed limit. Telstra is now able to say with an absolutely straight face they are listening to their customers. It's just most of them are extremely stupid rather than everybody like the cap does.
I disagree with you on the lights. While numbers would have been nice, they could have just done what the other major broadband provider does and have more lights rather than the three they had. That way you get a decent idea of how much you can use. And it only affects the people who are putting an undue burden on the network
He didn't have to. Without explicit permission from the copyright holder you have no rights at all to their software. He gave permission to use and redistribute but there was no mention of modification which means we have no right to modify it. Everyone assumed he gave permission and he didn't correct them. Unlike trade marks you don't have to defend copyright. He didn't change the licence (we didn't have the right to modify the code ever), he clarified it.
Is what he did particularily ethical? Not really.
Is what he did within his legal rights? Most probably.
The only real issue is who else contributed and did they transfer the copyright of their work to him. Those people could make Darren's life difficult.
"Use in binary form" means no modification of the binary even though it is possible. Why should "Use in source form" mean any different? You can use the source to as it is intended (to make the binary) but not modify it. No explicit permission is given to modify anything which is necessary. It'll likely come down to what the judge's teenage kid thinks of it because there's a good change they'll have nfi.
Darren had made his feelings clear (until the second "clarification" which seemed to say "you _can_ modify it so long as you don't have anything to do with Theo because he hurt my feelings") that he didn't want people to modify it. Arguing legal technicalities that are contrary to the authors wishes is very bad. If a close source company does it then they get flamed big time. This is no different.
Theo's done the right thing (a little lacking on diplomacy though). He drew attention to something that was a problem. When Darren clarified his position Theo pulled IPF from OpenBSD and has started moves to fix the problem. Darren now has to make a choice, change the licence or get sidelined. His latest "clarification" is nothing more than an attempt to get the Free/NetBSD people on his side so they don't also pull IPF from their distros and support OpenIPF.
You are wrong. You have no implicit rights to use software, only rights given to you by the copyright holder. Nowhere in Reed's licence did it ever say "modify" so you have no right to modify the code. What he stated was implicit in his licence. Copyright isn't like trademarks. If you don't inforce it you don't lose it.
Reed is perfectly within his rights to prevent people from modifying his code and De Raadt is perfectly within his rights to tell him to place it where the sun doesn't shine and write his own. Once that happens how long do you think it will be before Free/NetBSD's are using OpenIPF which has a truely open licence?
No, he's wrong. If what he said is true then libc would need to be GPL'd because that is "using" (in their terms) GPL'd code. And hence all applications would need to be GPL'd to run on a linux system because they all eventually interact the kernel.
Only derived works need to be GPL'd which includes static libraries because you are in essence including the code.
Re:typical katzian little-centric view
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
Ahhh a typical Americans point of view. We are the center of the world. If something is said it should be about us. Every mention of the Moon landing should be primarily about us with little mentions of how other the countries "contribution was necessary".
The movie is made in Australia by Australians about Australians (and knowing Americans fantastic indepth knowledge of other cultures, for Australians and the rest of the world). Funnily enough a review of the movie is about Australia's contribution. Go figure.
Re:Great Movie, maybe not for Americans
on
Review: The Dish
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, we're pretty good at that. We did the same with Fosters beer. *Nobody* here drinks that shit.
>it was no known root exploits in the default
>install for three years.
Which makes a big difference. If you are running something that is vulnerable then you must have enabled it. When you see the advisory (if you aren't reading advisories then you're vulnerable on account of being a bit dim) you will probably recognise the service as one you had to turn on and patch it.
In a non-secure by default system, the vulnerability may go un-noticed because you never enabled the service yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll be really pissed when you heard how we say it. I'm Australian but it's pretty much the same in most commonwealth countries, except New Zealand but they all talk funny there :)
:)
...
American pronounciation: A-loom-in-um
Commonwealth pronounciation: al-U-min-ium
May well explain why you lot spell it wrong
Now lets talk about how you say lieutenant
vi is like masturbation. It's quick and always there but not always your first choice.
The rest of the world isn't going to get this for some time. I would have thought the subject "Star Trek: Enterprise Reactions?" would have been a bit of a give away it contained spoilers. So just deal with it.
My understanding of the law in Australia (IANAL) is that once the liquidators get called in then there is a set order of payment. Employees are second (after the liquidators and even that may change in the near future). This includes all benefits (sick leave, annual leave etc) not just owed wages.
There was no such thing as OpenSource in 1994. The term wasn't coined until 1998.
The main three *BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) all use at least 85% of 4.4BSD-Lite's source code,
And the concept of getting it right the first time eludes yuo? New does not always mean better.
FreeBSD's C2 security certification is horrible.
Neither FreeBSD or NT has a C2 security classification. The classification is granted not to software but to a specific hardware and software combination. NT's is on a couple Pentium class Compaqs running a particular release of NT 3.51 that aren't connected to a network. Real relevant.
NetBSD, I'm afraid, is dead before it got off the ground.
It's not just admirable, it's useful. The other BSD projects can feed off the work the NetBSD team does. Bugs show up when software is ported to other architectures.
OpenBSD's filesystem is extremely slow, ... No real help is given to new users and such an elitest attitude is suicide.
The OpenBSD team don't tolorate stupid people (which I can perfectly understand) and this comment signifies yuo as one. From the OpenBSD FAQ (strangely hidden in the section on performance tuning):
Question: "I simply do "mount -u -o async /" which makes one package I use (which insists on touching a few hundred things from time to time) usable. Why is async mounting frowned upon and not on by default (as it is in some other unixen) ? Surely it is much simpler and therefore a safer way of improving performance in some applications ?"
Answer: "Async mounts is indeed faster then sync mounts, but they are also less safe. What happens in case of a power failure? Or a hardware problem? The quest for speed should not sacrifice the reliability and the stability of the system. Check the manpage for mount(8)."
Yuo have obviously made no attempt to find out why it was so slow or posted a question plainly explained in the FAQ and got flamed for it. Yuo are the one at fault here. Not the OpenBSD community. I personally quite like Theo's attitude. He's a total pain in the arse but it's all in the name of security.
Maybe yuo should stick to yuor NT point and drool interface and get cracking on updating yuor MSCE to W2k.
Somebody please slap me for feeding the trolls.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/dissent.html
If you always type slowly then hows it going to notice you are typing a password?
Before I start I'll just say I am a Bigpond Cable subscriber.
With out more info there is no way of knowing if this is a crack or PEBCAK. It's entirely possible that this was done with social engineering or trojan(s), not a 1337 4ax0r. So far all that's known that 70 accounts were comprimised by some method.
To put it in perspective, recently somebody sent an email to a large number Bigpond users pretending to be from Telstra asking them for their password and credit card number just so they could check their records. A depressing number of people replyed. We're not talking about the most security literate people in the world here.
Telstra uses pretty much standard PPPoE for ADSL although they do use the ADSL modems that had the security problem a while back.
We've also heard that Telstra has already caught the person responsible.
BTW the "Australian Broadband Users Group" are widely regarded among Australian broadband users to be a bunch of self-important tools who are pretty much out to make themselves look big. The only guy who's worth listening to is they guy that runs www.whirlpool.net.au The rest are just dead weight.
The idea is the patentability of the invention is decided when the patent is challenged. Then the patent office reviews it etc. The intention was that it is cheaper than a full patent but because the inovation patent is governed by all the same rules as a normal patent (if there is such a thing) it really still needs to be written by a patent lawyer which is where most of the cost comes from anyway.
And you can tell this was written by a patent attorney. "Circular transportation facilitation device". "Wheel" would have something representing regular english.
There are parts of TaSmania (what is it with Americans and Z? Do you guys have a problem using s?) where they could remain hidden but would have been hopelessly interbreed by now.
:)
Of course cruel people would say that about everybody in Tasmania
The only rights you have to use software is the rights given to you by the person holding the copyright on the software. This is usually in exchange for money. If you find some software just lying around then you have no rights to use, modify or distribute that software. Why do you think commercial licences say something along the lines of "permission given to use this software provided blah blah".
If what you say was true then you wouldn't have to worry about hiding warez on your machine because it wouldn't be illegal. So long as you didn't give it to anybody else you'd be in the clear. Also you could modify any software you could lay your hands on.
You have 14 days to exit from the contract (from Tuesday) with no penalty. Of course the system doesn't start until the end of June and there's no way to find out how much bandwidth you've used in the past.
Unless you pay for it and there's been no word if you get extra allowance for the second connection (somehow I doubt it).
This is all true. What is also true is that a number of people (who seem to be under the dillusion that companies care about their customers) asked for a fixed limit. Despite being counselled (flamed everytime they posted) by others who actually live in the 21st Century, they continued to ask for a fixed limit. Telstra is now able to say with an absolutely straight face they are listening to their customers. It's just most of them are extremely stupid rather than everybody like the cap does.
I disagree with you on the lights. While numbers would have been nice, they could have just done what the other major broadband provider does and have more lights rather than the three they had. That way you get a decent idea of how much you can use. And it only affects the people who are putting an undue burden on the network
They who are the bane of the 21st Century. The stupid people.
He didn't have to. Without explicit permission from the copyright holder you have no rights at all to their software. He gave permission to use and redistribute but there was no mention of modification which means we have no right to modify it. Everyone assumed he gave permission and he didn't correct them. Unlike trade marks you don't have to defend copyright. He didn't change the licence (we didn't have the right to modify the code ever), he clarified it.
Is what he did particularily ethical? Not really.
Is what he did within his legal rights? Most probably.
The only real issue is who else contributed and did they transfer the copyright of their work to him. Those people could make Darren's life difficult.
"Use in binary form" means no modification of the binary even though it is possible. Why should "Use in source form" mean any different? You can use the source to as it is intended (to make the binary) but not modify it. No explicit permission is given to modify anything which is necessary. It'll likely come down to what the judge's teenage kid thinks of it because there's a good change they'll have nfi.
Darren had made his feelings clear (until the second "clarification" which seemed to say "you _can_ modify it so long as you don't have anything to do with Theo because he hurt my feelings") that he didn't want people to modify it. Arguing legal technicalities that are contrary to the authors wishes is very bad. If a close source company does it then they get flamed big time. This is no different.
Theo's done the right thing (a little lacking on diplomacy though). He drew attention to something that was a problem. When Darren clarified his position Theo pulled IPF from OpenBSD and has started moves to fix the problem. Darren now has to make a choice, change the licence or get sidelined. His latest "clarification" is nothing more than an attempt to get the Free/NetBSD people on his side so they don't also pull IPF from their distros and support OpenIPF.
You are wrong. You have no implicit rights to use software, only rights given to you by the copyright holder. Nowhere in Reed's licence did it ever say "modify" so you have no right to modify the code. What he stated was implicit in his licence. Copyright isn't like trademarks. If you don't inforce it you don't lose it.
Reed is perfectly within his rights to prevent people from modifying his code and De Raadt is perfectly within his rights to tell him to place it where the sun doesn't shine and write his own. Once that happens how long do you think it will be before Free/NetBSD's are using OpenIPF which has a truely open licence?
No, he's wrong. If what he said is true then libc would need to be GPL'd because that is "using" (in their terms) GPL'd code. And hence all applications would need to be GPL'd to run on a linux system because they all eventually interact the kernel.
Only derived works need to be GPL'd which includes static libraries because you are in essence including the code.
Ahhh a typical Americans point of view. We are the center of the world. If something is said it should be about us. Every mention of the Moon landing should be primarily about us with little mentions of how other the countries "contribution was necessary".
The movie is made in Australia by Australians about Australians (and knowing Americans fantastic indepth knowledge of other cultures, for Australians and the rest of the world). Funnily enough a review of the movie is about Australia's contribution. Go figure.
Yeah, we're pretty good at that. We did the same with Fosters beer. *Nobody* here drinks that shit.
Your just jealous us colonials beat you at the cricket and rugby now days (and we're working on the soccer) :) Allowances must be made for Americans.
Much prefered "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" myself. Not made in Sheffield but still bloody funny.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Actually it makes the majority of Americans fools. Sounds about right to me.
>it was no known root exploits in the default
>install for three years.
Which makes a big difference. If you are running something that is vulnerable then you must have enabled it. When you see the advisory (if you aren't reading advisories then you're vulnerable on account of being a bit dim) you will probably recognise the service as one you had to turn on and patch it.
In a non-secure by default system, the vulnerability may go un-noticed because you never enabled the service yourself.
They got hit by two or three format string bugs. For a while it said only one local root hack in 2 years and then that bit disappeared.