Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:the point (Score 1) 131

What I've been wondering is ... isn't that a bitch to maintain security patches? Because you now have all these potentially vulnerable libraries spread out over a bunch of docker containers, completely outside of the control of the package manager.

So when the next heartbleed bug comes around, you may think you have patched your system, while in fact the libraries you are exposing to the outside world via your docker apps are still vulnerable.

Comment Re: Linux is a fragile house of cards (Score 1) 699

Except he is in fact a liar. As others have confirmed in this thread, removing sudoku via apt-get does not remove xfce. In fact it doesn't remove anything but the actual sudoku app.

So I'm sure he issued a bunch of other apt-get commands he has conveniently forgotten to mention here because he had no idea what the hell he was doing, and then he goes on to blame Linux and apt-get for his own willful ignorance.

Comment Re:Better solution (Score 1) 699

Have you even read the article?

Are you going to block rm -rf /sys/firmware/efi/efivars too? In fact are you going to add filters for everything that the rm command is not supposed to delete? How about the > command then. What if you did > /sys/firmware/efivars/* ? Would you block that too? How about the cp or mv command? dd? echo? cat? I could easily come up with some destructive stuff using those commands. Good luck with preventing all that.

And even if you could change all your shell utilities to block all potentially destructive modifications, it would still not prevent a rogue program or an attacker who gained root on your system to run their own code and permanently brick your system.

Read that carefully: permanently. brick. your system. Not: oh shit my linux is broken, I have to restore from backup or reinstall, but: oh shit, my motherboard is fried and I have to buy a new computer.

This is dangerous stuff, and it is something new to take into account when playing around with your computer. It used to be that nothing you did in software could damage your hardware, and there was something liberating about that idea. This has now changed.

Comment Re: Linux is a fragile house of cards (Score 2, Insightful) 699

> No, he's not an idiot. He's a normal person. Normal people click uninstall and expect their game to be uninstalled, not their OS's GUI

No he's not an idiot, a fucking liar is what he is. There is no way that in any package management system XFCE would have a dependency on a Sudoku app, if anything the dependency would be the other way around. So no, removing Sudoku would never result in XFCE being deleted. Not even Ubuntu would be that stupid.

Comment Re:Contested vs. uncontested sky (Score 1) 290

> How well do they work against EW countermeasures

S-300/400 SAMs are said to be very resistant to radar jamming. In the Ukraine crisis, they have inflicted huge losses to the Ukrainian air force.

> There are really not many countries (that we're likely to go to war with) that have the capabilities you're talking about

They may not have these capabilities yet, but systems like the S-400 exist and they will certainly proliferate in the coming years. It would be a mistake to plan for the present situation only. Iran for instance, is very interested in acquiring the S-400.

Comment Re:Contested vs. uncontested sky (Score 1) 290

The A-10 was specifically designed to take out Russian tanks invading Western Europe through the Fulda gap. It's certainly tough, but it's not invincible. At the time, it was projected that the whole A-10 inventory would be lost to combat attrition in about a week if such an attack would actually take place, and this was against a 1970s state of the art air defense, not a modern one.

Comment Re:Contested vs. uncontested sky (Score 1) 290

> It is probably worthwhile to develop strategies to attack and degrade enemy air defense systems

This is the so called Wild Weasel mission. They've been doing that since Vietnam. It's expensive, extremely dangerous, not foolproof and you lose any element of surprise.

> drones providing air defense

Escort fighters, drones and dragged decoys have been a thing for decades, but a drone isn't going to stop an incoming S-400, and the S-400 is clever enough not to go for the decoy but for the big juicy B-52 instead.

Comment Re:Contested vs. uncontested sky (Score 1) 290

Yes, that's what they pretty much had to do out of necessity. Also, a rather high amount of combat attrition was calculated in.

This multi-tiered approach has distinct disadvantages though:

It speaks for itself that high attrition is bad. When B-52s were initially used as a nuclear deterrent, they weren't even expected to return if they would ever be used against the Soviet Union. The whole A-10 inventory was expected to be lost after about a week if the Soviets actually attacked through the Fulda gap.

It's a two step approach, so you first have to spend a significant amount of time and effort in dismantling an enemy's air defense before you can attack actual high value targets. Stealth bombers and fighters can bypass air defenses and go in on the first wave, when you still have the element of surprise.

Air defense systems, like the Russian S-400 SAMs, are becoming ever more sophisticated and deadly and they are affordable by countries like Iran and Syria. It looks like in the future wild weasel tactics are becoming more and more a suicide mission.

Finally, I think it's always a good idea to have a bigger stick than your potential adversaries. Even if you never use it, it gives you more leverage just by having it. You can hate all you want on the F-35, but you can be sure that the Russians and the Chinese are paying attention.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.

Working...