> 2) There is no way to "solve" the terrorist problem on the home front either.
Demand that your government respect human rights, international law, the Geneva Conventions and stop supporting dictatorships. Do this to stop expanding the terrorists organizations pool of potential new members.
> If the hardware turns out to be extremely buggy, then it might be Intel's advantage not to publish any documentation.
This was suspected as the reason why Sun did not release hardware docs for UltraSPARC III. Only very recently did OpenBSD have working device drivers for UltraSPARC III.
OpenBSD want to distribute firmware along with the OS under an acceptable license. They are not asking for the source code of the firmware. Intel are instractible here, so owners of Intel wireless devices needs to personally accept a license before downloading the firmware. As an example: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
As for open source drivers: OpenBSD wants hardware documentation, not a Linux driver, so that they can write their own drivers. Intel claims that they are open source friendly and gives out documentation, but the last is clearly a lie since OpenBSD had to reverse engineer several Intel wireless chipsets.
Giving the appearance of beeing friendly to open source, while not beeing so, is the latest fad in business. Intel is an example of this fad.
What OpenBSD asks for is hardware documentation, not source code.
They also ask for the right to distribute firmware under an acceptable license, but Intel refuses. Ironically your link above describe exactly the Intel attitude: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
Upon selecting a link above you will be taken to the firmware license agreement. Agreeing to the terms presented on that page will direct your browser to the firmware download.
A far more sane security policy is to work with upstream to fix bugs then ensure you are always using the latest version of what's available. But this is not "the Debian way" so they won't ever do this,
OpenBSD does this, but there are still
many patches. Many of them are related to the package system in various ways, but others should be fixed upstream, like
this one, for instance.
There's been complaints for years and years at Mozilla over the dubious quality of some of the Debian patches, not to mention the very large amount of them
There are many patches because they are needed to make the very bloated application work in the first place.
All the distros and *BSD has many Firefox patches:
OpenBSD patches
> Is there any chance something other than the drives is causing the failures? Bad power? Too little cooling?
Inadequate cooling will really shorten the lifetime of the harddisk. Using a modern power hungry graphics card(s), an Intel CPU , a power hungry motherboard along with an inefficient and overdimmensioned PSU will generate a lot of heat. Without an extra fan for the hard disk it may be too hot.
You have a CPU bound process that you split over several cores/CPUs since a single CPU is not fast enough for you, but this comes at a cost as you know: syncronization overhead and complexity of algorithms. Your special application may be able to split all this work over many cores/CPUs (even over network), but the majority of applications will not be able to do this.
I'm pretty sure that many will be greatly disappointed that their quad core CPU will not be four times as fast as a singe core one, far from it (in general).
> US Embassies have a specific department that does nothing but lobby for US companies in whatever country they are in.
US "lobbying" is more akin to bullying other states, including allies, into doing what the US government wants. That does not always work though, partly due to the end of the Cold War and the disgust the current US administration generates.
> Newsflash: Browsers that are actually used by large numbers of people have larger numbers of bugs found and exploited than browsers that are mostly ignored.
Newsflash: Bloated applications with developers more interested in adding features than fixing bugs are more easily exploitable.
> Comparing the "number of vulnerabilities" is irrelevant to me. How many of them have actually been exploited in > the wild? How many of them have caused users to lose data or unintentionally host malware? How many have resulted > in people's identities being stolen?
The issue is that Firefox (and Thunderbird) has had many security issues, and still has many. For instance, KDE Konquerer WWW browser has not has nearly as many security issues.
> his study shows me nothing useful. Given the fact that all software is buggy, there are many more people looking > at the source for Firefox than for IE, so it's inevitable more issues will be found.
Some applications are quite buggy, and Firefox falls in this category.
I am convinced that online media have made a huge contribution to getting out the truth when the corporate media are seeking to suppress the truth.
Much of the online media is corporate;-) But there are very good sites for with very good articles from authors interested in truth rather than not offending advertisers.
> I just hope this fairs a bit better than OpenNTP which I was rather dissapointed in. Hopefully > DragonFly NTP will work it's way into the FreeBSD ports collection so I can test it out. I've > always been rather happy with the utilites Matt Dillon as worked on.
After OpenBSD 3.9, some code was taken/inspired from Dragonfly and put into OpenNTP. Now the accuracy of the time is much better (less than 1 ms for me).
I thought America was supposed to be better than other countries since it allows any ideas to participate in the democratic process.
I think you forgot to add [/ironic];-)
Charlie Chaplin was deported due to his anti-war opinions, while there was
attempts to do the same for John Lennon. Now, imagine you are not famous, rich and
happens to be a muslim....
(deportation)
The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to antiwar activist, and recounts the facts about Richard Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement. The filmmakers got lots of people to talk about Nixon and Lennon on camera, including Walter Cronkite, Gore Vidal, Mario Cuomo, George McGovern, Angela Davis and Bobby Seale, with G. Gordon Liddy representing the other side; the film also includes archival footage of Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, and stars John Lennon and his biting wit and great music. It opens Sept. 15 in Los Angeles and New York City, and nationwide on Sept. 29. The story of Nixon's attempt to deport Lennon is relevant today because deportation, and the larger issue of immigrants' political rights, has become a central problem in American politics.
> However, outside the programming language community, the question probably refers not just to > the language, but also to the libraries, and there Scheme could reasonably be said to lose out > to at least Java.
Without extensive libraries, most programming languages are not very useful for many common tasks.
> Just being an administrator on OS X is not equivalent to being root. It does, however, give you > 'sudo su' privileges, which lets you execute tasks as root.
Not equivalent, but pretty close, considering how sudo is generally configured.
> Anytime an application needs to change root owned files (which all system files should be), it > should be forced to pop up and ask you for your password (same as would happen if you ran 'sudo > su root -c cmd' from terminal).
sudo usually has a timeout for when you have to re-authenticate, but you can configure sudo to force you to re-authenticate for each invocation. That may be a pain in the ass, though, if you work from the command line.
> Ubuntu, on the other hand, is far more focused than Debian is. Starting with the general base > (the plateau, as Mark called it), it builds a strong distribution targeted to only 3-4 > architectures (counting SPARC), which opens many more options.
Ubuntu's focus is to be the "market leader". Part of that is to encourage hardware manufacturers to make binary-only drivers to be included in Ubuntu. This undermines efforts to get the hardware manufacturers to release hardware specs.
Slashdot Mirror
> 2) There is no way to "solve" the terrorist problem on the home front either.
Demand that your government respect human rights, international law, the Geneva Conventions and stop supporting dictatorships.
Do this to stop expanding the terrorists organizations pool of potential new members.
> So stuff not patented in the US can be copied by everyone else, from a US perspective?
Sure, because then it is "fair use", but if a foreigner tries the same, he is a "pirate". Double standards? You bet.
> If the hardware turns out to be extremely buggy, then it might be Intel's advantage not to publish any documentation.
This was suspected as the reason why Sun did not release hardware docs for UltraSPARC III. Only very recently did
OpenBSD have working device drivers for UltraSPARC III.
OpenBSD want to distribute firmware along with the OS under an acceptable license. They are not asking for the source
code of the firmware. Intel are instractible here, so owners of Intel wireless devices needs to personally accept a license
before downloading the firmware. As an example: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
As for open source drivers: OpenBSD wants hardware documentation, not a Linux driver, so that they can write their own drivers.
Intel claims that they are open source friendly and gives out documentation, but the last is clearly a lie since OpenBSD had to reverse
engineer several Intel wireless chipsets.
Giving the appearance of beeing friendly to open source, while not beeing so, is the latest fad in business. Intel is an example
of this fad.
They also ask for the right to distribute firmware under an acceptable license, but Intel refuses. Ironically your link
above describe exactly the Intel attitude: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php
> What does Javascript have to do with Java?
;-)
They both contain the letters "Java"
OpenBSD does this, but there are still many patches. Many of them are related to the package system in various ways, but others should be fixed upstream, like this one, for instance.
There are many patches because they are needed to make the very bloated application work in the first place. All the distros and *BSD has many Firefox patches: OpenBSD patches
> OpenBSD ditched Apache for the same reason.
No, you are wrong. OpenBSD forked Apache httpd when Apache changed their license to a less free one.
The electronics needs to be cooled as well, and are prone to failure if it is too hot.
> Is there any chance something other than the drives is causing the failures? Bad power? Too little cooling?
Inadequate cooling will really shorten the lifetime of the harddisk. Using a modern power hungry graphics card(s), an Intel CPU , a power
hungry motherboard along with an inefficient and overdimmensioned PSU will generate a lot of heat. Without an extra fan for the hard disk
it may be too hot.
If you need more RAM, then you buy more RAM, not a quad core CPU.
I'm pretty sure that many will be greatly disappointed that their quad core CPU will not be four times as fast as a singe core one, far from it (in general).
> I'd hate to use a quad core system on just 2gb RAM - that's an average of 512mb for use per core.
Just because you add more cores does not imply that your favorite application will use much
more RAM.
> US Embassies have a specific department that does nothing but lobby for US companies in whatever country they are in.
US "lobbying" is more akin to bullying other states, including allies, into doing what the US
government wants. That does not always work though, partly due to the end of the Cold War
and the disgust the current US administration generates.
> Newsflash: Browsers that are actually used by large numbers of people have larger numbers of bugs found and exploited than browsers that are mostly ignored.
Newsflash: Bloated applications with developers more interested in adding features than fixing bugs are more easily exploitable.
> Comparing the "number of vulnerabilities" is irrelevant to me. How many of them have actually been exploited in
> the wild? How many of them have caused users to lose data or unintentionally host malware? How many have resulted
> in people's identities being stolen?
The issue is that Firefox (and Thunderbird) has had many security issues, and still has many. For instance,
KDE Konquerer WWW browser has not has nearly as many security issues.
> his study shows me nothing useful. Given the fact that all software is buggy, there are many more people looking
> at the source for Firefox than for IE, so it's inevitable more issues will be found.
Some applications are quite buggy, and Firefox falls in this category.
Much of the online media is corporate ;-) But there are very good sites for with very good articles from authors interested in truth rather than not offending advertisers.
> I just hope this fairs a bit better than OpenNTP which I was rather dissapointed in. Hopefully
> DragonFly NTP will work it's way into the FreeBSD ports collection so I can test it out. I've
> always been rather happy with the utilites Matt Dillon as worked on.
After OpenBSD 3.9, some code was taken/inspired from Dragonfly and put into OpenNTP. Now
the accuracy of the time is much better (less than 1 ms for me).
I think you forgot to add [/ironic] ;-)
Charlie Chaplin was deported due to his anti-war opinions, while there was attempts to do the same for John Lennon. Now, imagine you are not famous, rich and happens to be a muslim.... (deportation)
> However, outside the programming language community, the question probably refers not just to
> the language, but also to the libraries, and there Scheme could reasonably be said to lose out
> to at least Java.
Without extensive libraries, most programming languages are not very useful for many
common tasks.
> Finally, and most importantly, with increased power or wealth comes increased responsibility.
With enough power or wealth you don't have to take any responsibility, and you can
get away with just about any crime.
> Just being an administrator on OS X is not equivalent to being root. It does, however, give you
> 'sudo su' privileges, which lets you execute tasks as root.
Not equivalent, but pretty close, considering how sudo is generally configured.
> Anytime an application needs to change root owned files (which all system files should be), it
> should be forced to pop up and ask you for your password (same as would happen if you ran 'sudo
> su root -c cmd' from terminal).
sudo usually has a timeout for when you have to re-authenticate, but you can configure sudo to
force you to re-authenticate for each invocation. That may be a pain in the ass, though, if
you work from the command line.
> I was responding to the fact that the parent thought that a non-admin could become root. That isn't true.
Erh, Google for "local root exploit".
> Ubuntu, on the other hand, is far more focused than Debian is. Starting with the general base
> (the plateau, as Mark called it), it builds a strong distribution targeted to only 3-4
> architectures (counting SPARC), which opens many more options.
Ubuntu's focus is to be the "market leader". Part of that is to encourage hardware manufacturers
to make binary-only drivers to be included in Ubuntu. This undermines efforts to get the
hardware manufacturers to release hardware specs.