Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Time To Give It a Try (Score 2) 79

by Noryungi (#49596081) Attached to: OpenBSD 5.7 Released

[...] Maybe OpenBSD could create a section on their web site that provides documentation on the advantages of BSD over Linux as well as some advice on how to avoid common pitfalls that Linux users typically make in BSD. [...] In any event, I'm curious to see what I'll miss coming from the Linux world after spending some time in OpenBSD.
On a semi-related note: what's with replacing nginx with their own http daemon? Is the NIH syndrome spreading to OpenBSD as well?

Nope, they have explained at legnth that nginx was getting too big, and its developpers too unresponsive, for it to be a part of base anymore. That was also the case with the previous web server, which was an old version of Apache with a lot of patches.You can still install nginx from ports though and Apache is in there somewhere as well.

As far as documentation is concerned, please refer to the OpenBSD FAQ:

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq...

And:

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq...

What will you miss? Probably not much, except for the eye candy. OpenBSD is a really good and complete OS, and its quality is excellent.

Comment: Re:New HTTP daemon (Score 4, Insightful) 79

by Noryungi (#49596025) Attached to: OpenBSD 5.7 Released

No, most people want to run a simple PHP website (Wordpress, Drupal, etc). But since almost every modern CMS and framework require at least a simple form of URL rewriting (rewrite every request for a non-existig file to /index.php), OpenBSD's httpd is a no-go.

Err... If you are running PHP on OpenBSD, you have COMPLETELY missed the point of OpenBSD in the first place.

Seriously, though. PHP?

+ - UMG v Grooveshark settled, no money judgment against individuals

Submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: UMG's case against Grooveshark, which was scheduled to go to trial Monday, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement (PDF), (a) a $50 million judgment is being entered against Grooveshark, (b) the company is shutting down operations, and (c) no money judgment at all is being entered against the individual defendants.

Comment: wrong arrest (Score 2) 309

by Tom (#49525709) Attached to: Futures Trader Arrested For Causing 2010 'Flash Crash'

The real people to throw in jail are the ones who made it possible. The guys who deregulated the markets so much, the ones in oversight of the finance system who didn't see these things approaching and the people who dissolved all the protections of the real economy against the finance market because they were greedy for quick bucks.

Politicians, mostly, but we should also go after the lobbyists and their employers who influenced them.

Of course, that will never happen. Society rarely becomes self-conscious enough to get rid of its parasites.

Comment: Re:failed industry (Score 1) 67

by Tom (#49523033) Attached to: How Security Companies Peddle Snake Oil

That is exactly what I mean. I would even go one step further at the end: Without the risk of the computer compromising the user. Because the computer in itself is worth its scrap metal value and that's it. Everything of actual value is in the user - the data, the communication, the access to 3rd party networks and services. Not that one particular user in front of the machine, maybe, but a user.

Comment: failed industry (Score 4, Interesting) 67

by Tom (#49517301) Attached to: How Security Companies Peddle Snake Oil

I've exited the security industry after 15 years, no longer believing that it does any good. And TFA is pretty spot on.

The issue is that security is both wide and deep. You need to cover all your weak spots, and you need to cover them completely. As an industry, we have succeeded in finding technical solutions to almost every challenge, but we've failed in creating a systematic approach to the field. Look at the "best practice" documents - they are outdated and mostly a circle-jerk. I did a quick study some months ago checking the top 100 or so for what the academic or scientific or just substantiated-through-sources basis is, and the result is pretty much: None at all.
Even the different standards, including the ISO documents, are collections of topics, not systematic wholes. It's like high school physics: This month you get taught optics, next month Newton mechanics, the third month electromagnetism. The only thing they have in common is the class room.

Nowhere is it more visible than our treatment of the user. It's clear that most security professionals treat users as disturbances, as elements outside their field of security. I imagine what roads would look like if their planners would look at accidents and say "cars are a threat to our road system. They clog it up and very often they crash into each other and cause serious issues to traffic. We need to protect the road system against cars. Can we automate roads so they work without cars as much as possible?"

We need a much more systematic, holistic view on the whole field than we have right now. In a pre-scientific field, snake oil is the norm. It was the same in medicine (where the term originates), in chemistry (alchemy), in psychology (astrologie, numerology, one hundred other primitive attempts at understanding and predicting human behaviour) and virtually every other field, even many non-scientific areas, such as religion/magic.

Comment: Re:Russians still have access? (Score 2) 167

by Noryungi (#49510571) Attached to: ISS Could Be Fitted With Lasers To Shoot Down Space Junk

Oh boy, that was such a flame-bait post.

Just cool down, man, the ISS is still up there and still useful -- this (shooting space junk) is just a good example of it.

Besides, if the US Governement had invested in space research and (cheap, reliable) space access, you guys would not be at the tender mercies of the naughty naughty Russian bear. So you only have yourselves to blame here...

Comment: Re:Execute the fastest way possible (Score 1) 591

Whilte it originally was introduced in order to execute painlessly, following basically your logic, it has since turned out that this is not true and the Guillotine is actually a fairly cruel execution method.

It is great for market-square entertainment, though. Maybe that's what you're really after?

Comment: interesting (Score 2) 58

by Tom (#49509515) Attached to: Computer Beats Humans At Arimaa

Actually much more interesting than I thought at first glance.

The game is designed intentionally with computational complexity in mind. It failed. The rules (WP has them, or a dozen other sites) are mostly designed to increase the search space. For example, instead of the fixed setup in chess, you get basically the same pieces, but you can put them into your 2 rows in any way you want. I'm too lazy to calculate the initial starting positions, but thanks to the Internet, someone else did it and came up with ~10^15. That makes an opening library practically impossible.

However, I'm a hobby game designer, so I look at rules with slightly different eyes. The complexity of the game is largely artificial. Brilliant minds will, like in a badly designed crypto-cipher, find tons of places where the complexity can, for the practical purpose of actually playing and winning a game, be reduced dramatically. Remember that in theory chess has 20 valid opening moves for white. The vast majority of them you will never seen in any real game.

I'm also bothered by the fact that complexity is reached by the addition of rules, instead of the subtraction. Go is a perfect example for how you can reach complexity with very simple rulesets. When building games, especially board games, you generally strive to keep the ruleset as simple as possible and check every rule for whether or not it adds anything worthwhile to the gameplay or not. For a simple, conventional style 2-player board game, the ruleset is overly complex IMHO. Maybe that's why I never heard about this game before - it doesn't actually appeal to many human players, except those interested in not being beaten by a computer.

Comment: new rules (Score 1) 229

by Tom (#49509455) Attached to: Whoah, Small Spender! Steam Sets Limits For Users Who Spend Less Than $5

New at Steam: We replace people who don't give a fuck with people who really don't give a fuck.

No, don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction. But the step itself begs questions. In general, the great firewall is the first cent - people who spend nothing at all and people who spend something, no matter how much. If you don't believe me, try charging 10 cents or something ridiculously small for any free web service you offer, and you'll find your user numbers drop through the floor.

I don't think there's a measurable difference between $5 and $4 or $3 -- the number is entirely arbitrary. A psychological barrier would be $10 (the two digits, the reason almost nothing in any shop in the world costs $10, it will always be $9.99 or $9.95).

In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.

Working...