The worst change is that in order to have a secure browser you have to be using the current version of Chrome.

You seem to think they think this is a bad thing...

yes, you should because you're still modifying the data (it's just the DNSSEC data that's getting modified in this case, even if your normal "usage" data isn't).

True, though it's not a transcript: it's a very different set of text. I don't think transcripts are useful because they're designed around a video. The web page, on the other hand, is a tutorial that is independent of the video.

Side note: the video describes other tools as well, not just zonesigner. The web page only has zonesigner on it (though you could go find the similar pages for donuts, lsdnssec, etc, that the video shows)

No, I agree with you. But it is the new trend because some people definitely prefer to see it over time rather than over a page. Color me confused as well.

But we have a text version as well, so never fear: https://www.dnssec-tools.org/wiki/index.php/Sign_Your_Zone

Signing you own zone is trivial and you don't need to pay anyone. I even created a simple, short video on the subject using the DNSSEC-Tools components: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ksgTFxAg6U

Though I'm associated with the above project, I actually don't care what tool set you use: just sign your zone!

I've only played 1st (long ago) and 4th (much more recently and not nearly as long). IMHO, the 4th battles don't seem longer than I remember the 1st battles being: they're all long. But not unreasonably long. Good players stream line it, bad ones need to be walked through each step. The important thing is to have everyone write down (ahead of time) all their likely bonuses, etc, per power they're likely to use and then the addition is easy and doesn't take time. There's even a spot for it on the character sheet (though the spot isn't big enough).

We've had very few vulnerabilities in general, but it is not our responsibility to fix vendor's products. We announce a fix, be it generic bug or security related, and off it goes. When your code is distributed very and very wide, it's a challenging task no matter what the license is. In fact, the last critical flaw that was found a few years ago had a CERT disclosure that was leaked far in advance of the CERT defined time-line. When you notify half the world through CERT, there isn't a huge amount of chance of keeping things quiet (and if we ever have another issue, I'm no longer sure CERT is the right process to take it through).

It is not necessarily easier to ensure every linux distributor has a devoted package manager that will notice the change either. Simply put, it doesn't matter who needs to know about an issue: there are far far too many to manually track (CERT proved this last time). If downstreams can't subscribe to a low volume -announce list and push out fixes rapidly, then that branch of the world is in a serious bit of hurt.

As the maintainer of Net-SNMP I've received a huge number of patches that would never have been given to us if Net-SNMP used a GPL license (though in this case, the code predates the GPL). Companies that have worked on the Net-SNMP code and have given back to it do so because they want to use their cool new feature they've developed for the code base in their proprietary software or hardware. IE, the Net-SNMP libraries and applications are the base upon which they build. It's important to them to contribute their patches to the base back to the core Net-SNMP repository so they can be assured future patches will not conflict with their feature (ie, because a patch isn't accepted that breaks the existing code base). Plus it gets their name in lights (ie, the COPYING file. Not many lumens, but still "lights").

I've been told many times that if Net-SNMP was GPLed code it would never be used. But since it's not, it's used in pretty much distributed by nearly ever OS vendor except Microsoft, and is used on a ton of embedded hardware. This would not have happened if it was a GPLed code base.

(ok, Microsoft still wouldn't be distributing it and linux* still would be; but all bets on Apple, Sun, etc, would be off)

By double-clicking on your pinky, silly.

Nah. Think "flip books".

The problem is that what the theorists argue is the better language (or other widget foo) has nothing to do with what the most usable widget or language is. Assembly, many would argue, is the best language because it lets you optimize things the best. But in reality it's a pain to use. TCL may be a great language in theory but its not popular because it's not easy to write code in it. I'm sure TCL is a better language with theory, and I've written a number of things in it. It made me very productive. I productively walked much faster away from it than most other languages.

... where a reputable news source would have checked its sources for accuracy first. stagnated and stalled? Hmm... Just two weeks ago we had very different news.

In reality, even if Qt stopped dead in the water with no development from anyone, it'd still be one of the best documented GUI libraries out there. I've never been a fanboy of any particular software suite, but the more and more I've dove into Qt in the last year the more I'm truly impressed with the design and documentation of the toolkit. Somehow I don't think it's going away.

Google is knot an evil umpire. They our hear 2 us with wheel whirled problems. Please stop bash tag google. All your words belong to us.

I have that watch

Hmmm... I'd have posted that as an AC :-)

And we didn't need them either! Now get off our lawn!