Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Was SCO really that bad? (Score -1, Troll) 169

by Eravnrekaree (#49283255) Attached to: Not Quite Dead: SCO Linux Suit Against IBM Stirs In Utah

That is an outrageous comment. Most everyday users who would be the type that would need to move to Linux for it to actually gain real growth against Windows don't even know what systemd is. Most of the squabbling over it comes from Linux insiders, who if they wanted to could simply tailor Debian to use their own init system, so if they dont like systemd, why dont they just put in their own init program after they install debian?. As far as I know, there is no reason why the distribution should not allow the user to select another init system, other than the default systemd. You could also configure systemd to start up your own init scripts and programs and start your programs from those scripts.

Furthermore most of the squabbling over systemd seems to be about the fact that some people do not like that systemd gives you more control and flexibility over the startup process. It seems as this group is opposed to anything that would extend or improve upon Linux's mechanisms that would allow for more options and control. They are opposed to being able to start a program on the NIC coming online, if that is what you need to do. systemd does not take away any functionality, it fully supports the full SysV init system, so its not as if systemd is taking away your ability to set up your init system like you always have. All of the functionality it adds is in addition to the existing functionality of previous init systems. What this means is that those who oppose systemd are only about taking away choice, control and flexibility from other users, they do not want other users to be able to utilize certain features. So these people basically want to keep Linux difficult to use, unconfigurable and inflexible. In fact, those who suffer and lose the most from the attacks on systemd are techie types who can most benefit from the kinds of control and customizability that systemd can provide in initialization and system control. I believe that many of those who oppose systemd are in fact agents of Microsoft trying to undermine Linux and attack anything that could actually make it better.

Comment: Re:Slashdot Overrun by Luddite Barbarians (Score 3, Interesting) 163

by Eravnrekaree (#49271853) Attached to: "Hello Barbie" Listens To Children Via Cloud

One of the concerns is that what the child says will be recorded and mined for nefarious purposes, such as using it to profile them. Another concerning thing is the concern that it could be used to manipulate them psychologically in various ways. Parents have no way of knowing what this damn thing could blurt out to their children next. Its not impossible that this thing could allow the cloud to get inside the childs head and use responses to cause psychological responses. Unlike the interaction with the child with one of their real, living peers, what is behind this doll is a massive corporation with huge analytical capabilities and the potential for an ulterior motive to try to get inside and and manipulate the users of this doll. Children are more vulnerable than adults due to the fact they are still in a period of rapid development and learning.

Comment: Re:I have two problems with this article. (Score 1) 287

by Eravnrekaree (#49247511) Attached to: NTP's Fate Hinges On "Father Time"

The purpose of NTP is to accurately set the clock. There can be many reasons for this, not just network protocols that may depend on it. It may be that some people just like having the computer clock set with close to atomic clock accuracy. It is true that network protocols should be more resiliant to unsynchoronized clocks at either end, but this does NOT negate the need for NTP, since many use it to keep the computer clock accurate to have an accurate clock and not have to constantly readjust it, for their own personal use for timekeeping, setting their watch, accuracy in timed events and so on.

Comment: Re:Have we handed the government control over it? (Score 2) 347

by Eravnrekaree (#49244157) Attached to: FCC Posts Its 400-Page Net Neutrality Order

Actually, not quite. Most areas at best have 2 options for high speed internet. Usually, both are bad. Its almost impossible for other companies to enter the market to provide a real competitive atmosphere by doing it better than the existing providers. So you have no real competition. This is mainly why broadband services are a natural multiopoly, the huge capital investments needed pretty much lock it up for 1 to 2 companies, any more than that and it becomes unprofitable due to the huge cost of running lines. This means that the market basically does not function effectively in this market and regulation is well justified to provide protection for the consumer. Its very similar to your water service, it wouldnt be feasible or practical for 20 different water companies to run their own pipes up and down their streets.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 1) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49211059) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

Removng TSYNC support would be incredibly stupid. You have no idea what your talking about. The feature is there to sandbox the browser. Given the history of security problems in nearly all C software programs, this is of critical importance. TSYNC can also be used by all other network programs in the system as well, so this is not chrome specific. Firefox needs to use this feature badly. Just backport the feature to older kernels. This is what Debian is refusing to do because they are a bunch of stubborn fools. Debian basically wants to keep their users unnecessarily in a less secure state because they dont like Google.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 1) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210961) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

The feature added on the kernel side is not particularly for Chrome, it can be used by other networked applications, in fact, such use would be highly advisable. Firefox needs to use this itself, and can. Its a sandbox feature for protecting the system from a compromised process. Its debian that refused to apply the patch for older kernels. The feature should be considered a security patch as the situation with browsers, not just the browser but some plugins some users use such as Flash, has become serious enough that having a sandbox nowadays is a critical extra layer of security. You basically shouldnt be running a browser without the sandbox anyway. So backport the sandbox to older kernels and be done with it.

Comment: Re: People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 2) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210933) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

Its not bloatware. The feature is something that can be widely used by any networked program, it provides a security layer. Given the problems browsers have faced with security issues, its a badly needed extra layer of security. You are basically saying that protecting the system from an compromised process is bloatware. Thats nonsense. If anything, Firefox needs to play catch up to implement the sandbox.

Comment: Re:People are correctly annoyed by this (Score 2) 338

by Eravnrekaree (#49210909) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

The feature added is something that is generally useful for a large number of network applications, not just Chrome. Its a sandbox feature that other programs and servers could benefit from, not just Chrome. Given the dangers of the web browser today, you basically shouldnt be running a browser without a sandbox, the security imperative is certainly justified enough for a backporting of the feature to older kernels to add the additional security.

Comment: Only safe form of payment is encrypted (Score 1) 230

by Eravnrekaree (#49180915) Attached to: Will you be using a mobile payment system?

Whether you use a card or a device, the only safe form of electronic payment is one that encrypts the data from your card or device all the way to the bank. You don't want the POS to be able to read it. The US is way behind the times on this and it took billion dollar scams for US banks to finally push chipped cards in the US, which Europe has had for years. This is the apathy and complacency which leads to so many problems. I saw a woman using a smartphone to pay and the smartphone would display a pattern on its screen, hopefully that was a one time code because someone nearby could take a picture of it and use it in a replay attack. Note that credit cards still have the number printed on them in very very visible numbers, how easy would it be for someone nearby to take a shot of the card with their cell phone cam when you are swiping it? Thats why even the numbers bring printed on the credit card can be a security threat. Perhaps the number should be hidden on a pull out piece of plastic that is stored inside the card, so that it is not normally visible.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.

Working...