Here in Denmark, power is reliable enough to run a Linux server directly off a wall socket, and still get an uptime measured in years.
postfix.server from https://github.com/vonSchlotzk... :
Description=Postfix Mail Daemon
266 lines, too long to print here, and just as ugly as sendmail.
So the postfix sysv init script is 113 lines LONGER while the
Prices fell more like 40%: http://www.jcmit.com/flashpric...
> And if that's the case, why would Mojang EVER feel obligated to release their serve source code because a guy who literally stole it anyway is demanding they do so?
Because the bukkit project which released the decompiler/disassembled portions was owned by Mojang. And Mojang knew full well it was happening while they owned the project. So it was essentially Mojang who released it.
Intel has an insanely high Gross Profit Margin of 75%. That is the opposite of selling at a loss.
> As of now, only AfriNIC is not in address exhaustion mode."
That is not true - ARIN (north America's RiR) is still handing out IPv4's and will continue to do so until down to their last
For dual screen setups, using the proprietary drivers is an absolute mess, while the open source drivers work perfectly. And the free drivers are perfectly adequate for non-high-end-gaming. I can play Minecraft at 1920x1600 with the open source Radeon driver at acceptable framerates.
Yes. There are free software projects making a driver for each of those, build upon Mesa. Both AMD (a lot) and NVIDIA (in small measure) has actually contributed to those projects, in addition to their closed source drivers.
My impression is that basically all Linux distributions install the open source drivers by default. And in my experience, installing the proprietary drivers is messy.
And most distributions uses 3D in the window manager by default.
So I imagine that many more Linux users use the open source drivers (which in turn use Mesa) than uses the proprietary drivers.
And from http://www.sintel.org/download
> 2^128 - 2^112 [...] it's significant, especially if you have a huge data center in Utah.
As an upper limit, assume that you remove 100*2^112. But that will still only eliminate 100/65536=0.1% of the search space. Any key that is brute-forceable by NSA with those 0.1% removed is also brute-forceable without those 0.1% of the search space removed.
> What may be worse (I don't know) is the simultaneous equations that it creates that are invariant for keys from such a source. Maybe they could be used in a cryptographic attack to help solve the sorts of attack that try to build big systems of simultaneous equations to attack the key schedule.
Something like this seems slightly more likely. But assuming the bits were perfectly random before the removal of repeated blocks, for finite keys it still doesn't generate anything that couldn't have been generated by chance without the removal of repeated blocks.
I agree that the output is not random by the standard definition. And obviously a bad RNG.
But making a practical attack based on that seems unlikely to me.
> For the record, RdRand doesn't do this because I refused to put it in because it's a back door in the spec.
Wait what - you designed Intel's RdRand hardware RNG?
So, since there is a lot of paranoia about backdoors in that, is there a backdoor?
Meh - NSA at the same time asked them to use a too short key length. And it was an open secret for a long time that NSA could brute-force it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...