Meltdown & Spectre --update--

Yeah, sometimes it does not warrant any extra security to be cutting edge... This I know.

That a hardware-vulnerability has gone unchecked for a couple of decades, however, eluded even me. Even more that it wasn't even addressed / announced before very recently.

Turns out, almost every computing-device I own has these bugs. And I find myself in a situation where I do as very many others do with vulnerable equipment, with little to no chance of patching; I just isolate them.

Don't get me wrong, I've taken measures and patched / disabled low-level functions as best I could. But when the issue is basically invisible (ring -3), there's limits to what I can do to fix it.

The ass-hats who made the shit have to fix it properly, or someone considerably smarter than me have to do what they can to mitigate as the circumstances will allow.

Which, from what I understand isn't much, and it's massively complicated to boot. The complications are the reasons for the "considerable performance slow-down" that will result from the software-fixes to the issue.

---

***UPDATE***

Seems these bugs / vulnerabilities have been blown totally out of proportion for the average computer-user.

Slowdowns only present themselves at huge workloads (think Big Data databases, enterprise computing, etc.), so average-Joe won't even notice any difference... I've been pretty buzy patching / fixing my affected systems lately, both at work and at home, and I can't say I've noticed any significant slowdowns in any way.

Not that I've got huge workloads, or global-spanning database-queries running 24/7, but I've definitely got bigger and heavier workloads than the average man.

--- If people just patch their systems regularly, they'll be fine ---

---

If you want to be sure you actually have the bugs, you can run this bash-script on Linux systems:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
echo "cpuinfo           : "$(cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep 'model name' | awk 'NR==1' | awk '{ print $4" "$5" "$6" "$7" "$8" "$9 }');
cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i bugs | head -1;

"Unix is not an acceptable Unix"

This article really grinds my gears. The author tries to discount the use of command line interfaces by saying it is an obsolete interface-technology (mostly reserved for developers and advanced system administrators).

Pontificating that modern Unices (like Mac OS X and Linux) suffer at exactly the same areas of complexity because of their Unix-heritage. Well, I call bullshit...

• Linux does not have a Unix-heritage, because it does not contain any UNIX®-code.
• Computer complexity is really a catch-22 scenario; every time you modify something low-level, something may break on a lower level. Keeping this complexity usable at varying levels is a master-class balancing-act, and not to be taken lightly.

Yes, the Unix-philosophy states that every program should: do one job, and: do it well. And to some extent, Linux has done just that. BUT, since we're operating in a so-called "open-source community", where everyone has the right to shout out concerns, fixes and feature-improvements, the so-called "bloating" of CLI-programs are a direct result of this fundamental right to speech, re-use and community involvement. Which in itself is beneficial to everyone using the software.

The reason why lower-level programs use much the same functionality as was used in the original UNIX®, is because the programming language in question (C) has few alternative methods of performing low-level calls to the hardware, and thus is forced to do certain things in specific ways. Having these low-level functions available at any time for whichever program needs them is fundamental to a POSIX-system. And re-using these functions to build / extend programs is the way it's always been done

I can agree with his point about re-creating and duplicating core-functions in a program if the program already facilitates the components needed to do a specific task, it's unnecessary. But I can see the other side of this matter as well, from a developer-viewpoint. If you spent a lot of time (multiple iterations) developing and extending an already-implemented function, (just) to get specific results presented in a specific manner, wouldn't you want to include it in the program so you wouldn't have to re-implement it further down the line if ever needed again? And does it really affect normal users what kind of extra filters and/or flags a program accepts from the command-line? Not really...

Back in the day (70s and 80s), this was the only way of specifying arguments to programs in a sequential fashion, and to some extent still is. Hardware works on the principals of sequential data-flow and execution, and unless we do something drastic to the hardware-platform we are all using, this is the way it will continue to be used in low-level terms (C+asm) until we do.

Until we see newer and better ideas concerning the data-bus / CPU inter-connection, we will not be able to implement any innovative interface-functionality on a low level.

My point is this: CLI is not meant for normal users. It is not intended to simplify computing, rather, it was intended for developmental and operational purposes, created by the very same type of people who use it on a daily basis.

If you want ease-of-use and simplicity, use Apple or Microsoft, and supplement that usage by providing user-feedback to them for new features / functions and fixes. Don't just crap on the alternative(s) because "it doesn't conform to my unique idea of what user-friendliness is". Linux was never made to be user-friendly. Derivatives were made to suit that scenario, so use them, instead of slagging on about the lacking user-friendliness and simplicity of the OS itself.

To quote one of the best sayings I have ever read:
"Unix is very simple, it just needs a genious to understand it's simplicity" --Dennis M. Ritchie

"Linux er død (igjen)" - Eller?

Jaja, skal si meg enig i at Linux på skrivebordet kanskje aldri når frem til mannen i gata. Men ikke fordi det ikke er mulig, vanskeligere, eller utilgjengelig. Ingen av disse utsagnene stemmer i det hele tatt.

Det hele dreier seg mer om uvitenhet enn noe annet. Og det at folk er "vant" med det de er vant til (les: Windows / Mac OS X).

Tankegangen blant gjennomsnittet er at programvare laget av store programvare-selskaper som selger dette, er "bedre" enn gratis programvare. Dette stemmer ikke alltid heller.

Skjønt fri programvare kanskje ikke har de samme funksjonene som betalt programvare, betyr det ikke nødvendigvis at de ikke kan gjøre akkurat den samme jobben (gjerne bedre i mange tilfeller), men at de utføres på alternative måter (dette fordi proprietær programvare ofte har lisenser og patenter krøllet inn i oppskriftene for å beskytte opphavsretten, men det har også visse frie prosjekter, deriblant Linux kjernen).

Jeg er nokså enig i det mange sier om at Linux er for avanserte brukere, eller såkalte "super-brukere", jeg er selv en super-bruker. Og når man besitter denne kompetansen, krever man gjerne litt mer av programvaren man bruker. Jeg gikk personlig over til fri programvare og Linux fordi jeg var drittlei av å være begrenset i hvordan jeg kunne benytte programvare, forandre den og dele den videre.

Jeg er nokså enig i Richard M. Stallmans (grunnleggeren av GNU og FSF) ideologi om at all innovasjon og oppskriftene på dette skal kunne deles, og at alle skal ha de samme rettighetene på det samme grunnlaget. Men at alt skal være gratis uten unntak, er å gå for langt. Det er nok av plass for begge typer programvare i vår verden.

Link til ITAvisen.no:
http://www.itavisen.no/853888/linux-er-dod-(igjen)

A few words...

Ok, to start off, I've always said people obsess about desirable objects of irrelevance.

This is exactly what I think of the fuss about iPad, iPod, iPhone, and the like.

I used to be an Apple fanboy, using Macintosh machines and software for DTP/PR illustration and artwork purposes. But these days, what's the point?

"Think different"?

Well, Apple-machines run on the same hardware as PCs running Microsoft Windows these days. Suffice to say Apple has definitely shifted the last decade, and not for the better if you ask me.

iPhone? - I actually love my HTC Desire Google Android smartphone very much thank you.

iPod? - My HTC Desire runs Spotify and has my entire favorites collection stored offline on the SD-card.

iPad? - Nooot really my bag. I think I'll be waiting a little while for some ubuntu pre-installed pc-pad, which does not restrict my computing in any way, and is way cheaper per high-spec component compared to Apple-products.

There's a major difference between the phrases "need to have" and "just works". I prefer the second, but then again maybe I have a little more than average understanding of technology, to better cope with the situation should the software not function as advertised. That's the major problem with OSS software, it does not come with a guarantee of operation, you either have to make it work yourself, or pay for the support to get it working. Mind you, the linux-support available is extraordinarily useful and easy compared to big proprietary ISVs.

I've given up telling people about these facts. The only people that listen to such advice about computer equipment and/or software choices, are people that eventually prefer Linux over Mac OS X and Windows as their everyday OS.

Sure, I can understand that in Scandinavia, we have a rather sore relationship with the word "free". The past has not proven the word to have any positive meaning in any areas, This was also why the OSS community split from the FSF in the 90s. The wrong words for the right thing if you ask me.

I think it's awesome that I can download software-packages from the Internet via University and/or ISP mirror-servers, and make a computer-device work out-of-the-box on an operating system I got the same way :) way to go Torvalds, FSF and the OSS communities!

I SALUTE YOU! ;D

Edit, 10:44PM:

My point with "need to have" and "just works", was the freedom of choice.

Sure, if need be, I can save up to what Apple products costs, OR, I can have what just works, to do what I want for a fraction of the price and no agreements telling me I can't do this or I can't do that.

I'll do whatever I want to with my computer equipment thank you very much! The hardware itself was quite expensive, so I refuse to be locked-in at any ISV, where my digital rights are virtually non-existant, system-usage is governed by one proprietary entity for which I even have to pay for every regular release.

Thanks..., but NO THANKS.

Årets Apple-artikler

Brukere klager på nye iMac.

http://www.itavisen.no/827272/klager-paa-nye-imac

Apple-mus slaktes.

http://www.itavisen.no/826980/apples-mus-slaktes

iPhone bryter med Nokia-patenter.

http://www.digi.no/826647/iphone-%ABbryter%BB-nokia-patenter

Mac-folkets mareritt (Patentert reklame i OS-et).

http://www.itavisen.no/826566/dette-er-mac-folkets-mareritt

Steve Ballmer (Microsoft CEO) reklamerer for Win7 OG Apple(!).

http://www.itavisen.no/826829/oops-ballmer

Apple Inc.: "you're safe with us"

Herregud, seriøst? Det er nå avdekket en kritisk(!) feil i Mac OS X, som visstnok har vært der lenge. Apple har ikke kommet med hverken kommentarer, eller gitt noen klare svar på om det kommer noen fiks for problemet i nærmeste fremtid.

Slike feil hadde jeg ikke forventet av Microsoft engang, heller ikke at det skulle gå dagevis siden feilen ble avdekket til den ble lappet over...

Feilen ligger i det å logge seg inn på gjeste-kontoen i Mac OS X. Når en da logger seg inn på sin egen vanlige bruker i ettertid, skal mappen (/Users/"ditt-brukernavn") fortsatt være der, men er skåltom...

Det er liksom ikke helt uten grunn at jeg sier til folk at de må ta sikkerhetskopi av dataene deres tidt og ofte...

Så, Mac-folk, FFS:

TA BACKUP FOR DATAENES SKYLD!

Denne forhåndsregelen bør håndheves av ALLE databrukere, uavhengig av hvilket operativ system eller maskinvare som brukes!

Link:

http://www.itavisen.no/