Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wonder if Bit.ly is still happy about their URL (Score 5, Informative) 77

Root servers for the ly TLD:

  • dns.lttnet.net
  • auth02.ns.uu.net
  • ns-ly.ripe.net
  • phloem.uoregon.edu
  • dns1.lttnet.net

All of these would have to inoperable before all .ly domains would stop resolving, and there's still the matter of caching at intermediate DNS servers until the TTL expires for records. Additionally, bit.ly isn't hosted within Libya. In short, I don't expect bit.ly to be going down over this.

Debian

Submission + - KVM Virtualization with Debian 6 (Squeeze) (palegray.net)

palegray.net writes: "Whether you'd like to set up your own "personal cloud" for development purposes, or just want to learn more about server virtualization using open source software, this guide to KVM virtualization on Debian 6 gives you everything you need to get started (server not included). From installing Debian on your host server, to configuring KVM and installing your first guest VM, every step is covered. Enjoy!"

Comment Re:I don't think they care (Score 1) 744

Where, precisely, in that post did I mention LOIC? To put it simply, anyone using that particular method to participate in a DDoS attack is a moron, and deserves what's coming to him. However, since you mentioned the civil aspect of this issue, I'll once again wish you "good luck" in getting any compensation whatsoever out of anyone actually subject to a civil penalty in such a case. Your armchair lawyering aside, history has more than adequately demonstrated the folly of what you're advocating. Oh, and don't forget about the technical consultation fees required to actually get beyond the "reasonable doubt" aspect of the case, the sheer enormity of the number of potential defendants you'll need to chase down, the legal fees involved in putting the matter through the courts (time isn't free, even if you're an attorney yourself), additional repercussions and continued attacks from those who are displeased by such actions, etc.

Once again, "good luck with that."

Comment Re:I don't think they care (Score 3, Informative) 744

If they have anyone technically competent around it would be trivial for them to identify and sue participants in a DDOS, ADDING to their cash flow.

You've just demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about the basics of DDoS operations. It is most assuredly not trivial, especially when tens of thousands of compromised machines owned by people who are barely aware of the location of the power switch are involved. Even assuming a handful of folks were stupid enough to carry this out in a manner that were to permit their apprehension, there are probably going to be jurisdictional issues to contend with (likely crossing national borders), coupled with the age old adage that "you can't get blood out of a stone." In other words, good luck identifying any actual willful participant, and good luck getting any money out of said person should you manage to drag him into court.

tl;dr version == Ha, good luck with that.

Comment Re:FUD as in FUD (Score 1) 231

And yeah, don't worry, they're not going to abide by the licensing terms so they aren't going to be considered a part of your community anyway.

You're missing a point here, actually. To use the GPL as an example, those who modify the code are not required to make those changes public unless they're distributing the code outside their organization. For large government entities, well, those are very large organizations. It doesn't mean they're violating the terms of the license at all.

Additionally, I've been a direct observer of code produced within a government agency being contributed back upstream. You're probably going to want to split hairs by replying with something like "oh but some governments will still find ways to break the license," but that would just make you guilty of the same behavior you just accused the GP of displaying.

Comment Re:FUD as in FUD (Score 1) 231

Wrong. Only a very small subset (GPL and its derivatives) of the Open Source licenses actually require you to share your source with your binaries. Most (BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL, zlib) don't.

That's a very misleading statement. While there are tons of OSI-approved licenses, and many others that haven't been subjected to any formal review criteria, I'd love to see statistics on how many projects use licenses that require code sharing versus those that don't. Given the enormous growth in popularity of the GPL alone over the last decade alone, and my personal memory of over 20 years of open source and free software, I strongly suspect the number of projects that require sharing code will dwarf the alternative.

In fact, the GPL seems to have become the "default" license for free software in many respects, even though many people who license their code under the GPL honestly don't understand the license at all (that comes directly from my personal interactions with lots of developers). This is an unfortunate state of affairs from some perspectives, but it's reality. I license the majority of my code under BSD-style licenses, but I freely (haha, I'll be here all week, tip your waiter, try the veal) admit that I'm most likely in the minority these days.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...