Slashdot Mirror

I fully agree with you that if we are at the end of Moore's Law then it is because of physical limitations and not economics. As for no preceding tech breakthroughs, Intel's first CTO said (in 2008):

I compare Moore's Law to driving down the road on a foggy night, how far can you see? Does the road stop after 100 metres? How far can you go?

[...] That's what it's been like with Moore's Law. We thought there were physical limits and [now] we casually speak about going to 10 nanometres. We have work going on different transistor structures. Silicon has become scaffolding for the rest of the periodic table. We're putting these other structures into the materials. We see no end in sight and we've had 10 years of visibility for the last 30 years.

I think it is quite possible he is wrong about Moore's Law extending out to 2028 but I find it very hard to believe he is wrong about the history of Moore's Law leading up to 2008. He was in a position to see the tech breakthroughs first-hand. I don't see why he would lie about it.

Alright, not really.

licensing or patent issues?
What you also forget is that Oracle was the leading proponent of BTRFS and yes it had to do with licensing and patents from Sun. Once they acquired Sun that all went out the window. If I were the CEO at Oracle I'd ask "Why two file systems that essentially do the same thing? One's mature and the other, not so much" That's why BTRFS still survives but now with less Oracle support. Wait, is that a bad thing?

What the hell is up with this recent flood of anti-google articles and comments on Slashdot? Has Slashdot been hired by Microsoft, Apple and/or Facebook to do smear attack campaign on Google?

Just leave Google alone. They're a great company and don't deserve this bullshit with half-truth stories. They actually care about you. They give you free things. They release open source. They fight for your rights. SO LEAVE GOOGLE ALONE!

Slashdot used to be a better place. We would fight against evils like Bill Gates and Microsoft (a convicted monopolist). We would promote open source. But now.. now you are attacking the very companies that make FOSS great.

go away shill! Google is a convicted unfair competitor, convicted patent infringer, copyright infringer and even paid bloggers (yes they had paid shills working for them!) to promote their web browser!

Microsoft is evil, Apple is evil, Oracle is evil, Facebook is evil and so is Google! The only reason there is a perception that they aren't is that they have the motto 'don't be evil' and morons like you lap that up and just ignore it when Google does wrong.

Daniel Harris, Lindows' lead trial counsel, said in a statement that the win was a major blow to Microsoft. "The court's ruling confirms that a company, no matter how much money it spends, cannot buy a word out of the English language. These repeated filings by Microsoft are just another attempt to deplete our resources by dragging these legal proceedings on for as long as possible."

i probably should have added that after this trial microsoft payed lindows 20 million dollars to change their name to linspire and protect their windows trademark.

According to Linux there's an ancient Sumerian prophecy which imply that the moon will explode if they called it 3.0. I hope they decoded those old tablets wrong because this could mean the end of the world. See http://joebarr.sys-con.com/node/32801 question 3.

This was at a time when Microsoft was a quasi-dominant force in the server market, when their IIS server platform actually had a reasonable install base in production environments, and Windows was totally unchallenged by Linux and pals.

Microsoft is doing quite well in the server market:

x86 server revenues were up 31.7% to $7 billion on shipments up 25.8% to 1.8 million servers, positively impacting Windows server demand. IDC put Windows server revenue at $5 billion, representing 46.5% of overall quarterly factory revenue. Linux server revenues were up 30.1% to $1.8 billion, representing 16.8% of all server revenue, up 2.5 points over last year. Server Sales Were Healthy in Q2: IDC [August 29]

With the second quarter server market figures tabulated and analyzed, it looks like SMBs rule the roost. Basically, there's been dramatic market growth among x86 servers--i.e, the PC-derived kind that SMBs buy. The high end of the market, meanwhile, continues to dry up.
IDC, the market research firm behind the figures, says that there was a 28.2 percent 2Q year-over-year increase in Windows Server shipments, as users not only bought new x86 machines, but found broader uses for x86 machines.
Linux servers (which also often involve x86 machines) showed even better growth, with vendor revenue up 30.1 percent. Linux servers now account for 16.8 percent of the server market, an increase of 2.5 points over the last year. Server Field Becoming An SMB Market

Novell Wipes the Floor with SCO
"it (SCO) should have gotten them (copyrights) under the intent of the original deal."

http://linux.sys-con.com/node/1428534/print

Interesting - looks like they un-fired the bitch when nobody was looking.

The announcement of her firing is dated May 10, 2005. According to Sys-Con's archive, they did stop publishing her for a while, but she came back exactly one year and one day later. And it's also worth noting that the editors who forced her out are no longer working at Sys-Con.

How can Mrs. O'Gara be fired when her publisher touts her as:
"Maureen O'Gara the most read technology reporter for the past 20 years, is the Cloud Computing and Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media."
at http://maureenogara.sys-con.com/

sys-con being the slimeballs^Wpublisher where the PJ hit piece was published 5 years ago and for which she was supposedly "fired".

Okay.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison claims the European Commission’s prolonged investigation of Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun, which isn’t expected to finish much before the agency’s mid-January deadline, is costing Sun $100 million a month in revenues and a weakened revenue stream will impact how many employees Sun gets to keep if and when the acquisition is approved.

And this isn't the only citation you can find.

If you have a windows server, you can tell Share point to index the file share. See: http://dotnetmafia.sys-con.com/node/1046930

There are plenty of real world case studies that prove your personal experience to not be the general case for Java:

http://www.sun.com/customers/index.xml?soln=31a8487e-0f60-11da-99bc-080020a9ed93&page=1&sort=date&asc=false

This case study is particularly relevant:

http://www.sun.com/customers/servers/transact_tools.xml

This page is rather out of date, but shows that Java was performing well even in 2003:

http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=8142

Java has become the number one most prominent language in business with good reason. It's flexible, and can cater to pretty much anything you throw at it if you understand the tools and technologies available, and which ones are suited to your particular problem. Garbage collection really just comes down to having an understanding of the way the garbage collector works and being able to develop with that in mind. See here for an example discussion of just that from back in 2003:

http://java.sys-con.com/node/37613

here's a slightly more recent (but still relatively dated in technology terms) article:

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6108296.html

The problem Java and .NET seem to face is people approaching the language, from say a C++ background and not understanding what's different about it and how it works to be able to implement a solution in it to an equivalent level of their C++ application. This does not mean experienced Java/.NET programmers cannot do just that though- they can, and do. Again, it's really a question of competence in a particular skillset rather than inherent flaws in a particular technology.

So, so far, in Massachusetts, it's illegal to leave Lite Brites out, illegal to wear a shirt with LEDs on it, illegal to do chemistry at home, illegal to delete spam email(!!) , and now it's legal to secretly track people with GPS systems?!

What the hell is wrong with that state?

Oracle-Sun: Jonathan Schwartz Writes His Toughest Ever Email

http://eclipse.sys-con.com/node/926256/print

"...All members of the board present at the meeting to review the transaction voted for it with enthusiasm, and the transaction stands to utterly transform the marketplace - bringing together two companies with a long history of working together to create a newly unified vision of the future."...

Erm? Really? You cannot be serious?

You don't recall Apple suing one of its fanbase (a student & lifelong fan), a web design school (who mostly used Apple's products), New York (for daring to use an apple in a environmental awareness campaign) and of course Psystar (attempting to resell OS X).

I could go on & on. Sure. Plenty of people sue Apple (just like any other big tech corp), but Apple's penchant for pulling out the legal guns against small operators (and its fanbase) makes it stand alone in the tech crowd.

I think I'd wait on an Armadillo lander until they can perfect the Space Tourism vehicle.

Still, if you gave Armadillo (and others) the chance to build a real lunar lander in some sort of contest with a $1B prize at the end, I'm sure John Carmack and a dozen others would jump at the chance.

Heck, make it good for 3 places, $500M for 1st place, $350M for second, and $150M for third. I'm sure you would get people crawling out of the woodwork to claim these prizes. Not only that, but I bet that it would cost NASA easily $1B just for the preliminary studies to get a new lander built alone. Set up some qualifying contests such as the LLC just to be able to enter the competition, and you would have a real horse race to be able to get to the Moon. When you are done, you would have at least three competing vehicles from completely different engineering philosophies and backgrounds that have proven themselves with the hardest challenge of all: actually getting there and doing it.

Too bad that NASA will likely avoid doing some contest like this and spend much more money on a lander as a result.

(Consider the -X ending, implying DirectX, rather than something like PhysicsGL, or PhysL, implying OpenGL -- you know, the actually portable industry standard for graphics.)

...Or maybe PhysX just sounds a hell of a lot better than PhysL?

PhysX is actually not connected to DirectX at all; the PhysX SDK is even available for the Playstation 3 and Linux.

The best part? The company Fabric7, which was pimping this new paradigm is apparently defunct.
http://search.sys-con.com/read/368244.htm
WTG Gartner! At least Fabric7 paid for this little bit of advertisement before kicking the bucket.

If the numbers in TFA are true (36 million students, growing to 52 million by the end of 2009), then this is absolutely huge in terms of Linux install base. In fact, I think this project would approximately double the install base.

I know that "counting" the number of Linux installs is essentially impossible, but here are some random numbers I've accumulated that point to the approximate size of the Linux user base:
1. The Linux Counter estimated 29 million installs in 2005. This estimate involved numerous assumptions, such as extrapolating from 8 million installs reported by Red Hat in 1998.
2. According to an IDC study, the Linux marketshare for PCs was ~3% in 2003.
3. There are about 1 billion Internet users. Browser logs indicate that Linux accounts for ~0.8% to ~3.9% of web traffic. This gives us an estimate of 8 million to 39 million Linux users. (The upper estimate is undoubtedly an over-estimate since the value comes from W3Schools, which probably has a greater fraction of 'technical' users.)
4. According to Canonical's server logs from OS updates, there are approximately 6 million active users of Ubuntu (see here and here). Assuming that Ubuntu represents 30% of Linux usage (based on this), you can come up with an estimate of 20 million Linux users.
5. According to Fedora's logs for OS updates, there are approximately 2.8 million installations of Fedora Core 6, and 1.6 million of Fedora 7. Assuming Fedora represents 9% of Linux installs (again, based on this), you can estimate 48 million Linux users.

Obviously all of these methods have their own problems. I'm not claiming that any of these estimates are robust. However they do at least suggest a range for the number of Linux users (~20 million) and the marketshare of Linux (~1% to 2%).

So, this single project, it would seem, is drastically increasing (doubling?) Linux usage. This is huge, in my opinion, because a generation of students who have learned Linux will be far more likely to use and improve upon FLOSS when they enter the job market.

The Ruby syntax tree needs an LL(k) parser. This tighly couples the parser to the lexical analyser which makes any it deeply flawed, buggy and unreliable. Add into the mix that ruby is really a dynamic scripting language and you find an explaination for it's unreliablility.

Dr. Dermot Hogan agrees, he said To my mind, the Ruby parser and syntax is fundamentally flawed.

That's why there are not grand scalable performant systems written in Ruby.

James Gosling said of Ruby it ... just generate web pages. But none of them attempt any serious breadth in the application domain and they both have really serious scaling and performance problems.

He was proven right by Derek Sivers said after spending two years trying to rewrite a website in Ruby with Jeremy Kemper that it was Like trying to turn a train into a boat. It's do-able with a lot of glue. But it's damn hard. And certainly makes you ask why you're really doing this. In the end he abandoned Ruby and rewote the system in PHP in 2 Months.

If you want to do Dynamic programming, don't be taken in by the hype; learn Python, Smalltalk or the second choice language Schema.

A few more links...

Optimizations added to Java 5.0:
http://java.sun.com/performance/reference/whitepapers/5.0_performance.html

Hotspot internals Q&A session:
http://blogs.sun.com/nike/entry/hotspot_internals_q_a

Another highly interesting set of benchmarks:
http://java.sys-con.com/read/45250.htm?CFID=388847&CFTOKEN=9460D898-B6BB-AC8B-3C74121E272A4D92

I'm not following the whole SCO/IBM/Novell/Groklaw drama, but I read the article you linked to... and was surprised to see a quote by Maureen O'Gara. I googled some portion of (there was no link on Groklaw) and found the source - http://search.sys-con.com/read/502009.htm (sorry, I'm not gonna link to them either). Wasn't O'Gara kicked out from sys-con after she went too far and published personal details (address, telephone number, photo) of PJ?

In the meantime, Landon Fuller is doing an admirable, if duplicated, job of single-handledly porting Java 6 to OS X based on the efforts for BSD.

Java 6 was released more than 12 months ago for other platforms. "fake" and real Steve may dismiss Java as irrelevant but the truth is Apple have dropped the ball.

I develop Swing applications and it's frustrating that we can't use new features of Java 6 because we have to support OS X's legacy Java 5 implementation.

The majority market share is still Windows. While Apple lags with Java it's hurting Linux AND OS X. Much as Java-haters on this site would like it to disappear, Swing is still an option for cross OS deployments in the enterprise, offering a rich client alternative to web-browser environments. At times the option of supporting an application for Win32, Linux and OS X with native toolkits is not viable. More likely it's mandate Windows-only or use Java.

I found another link that gives the information. The patents claimed in the suit are 5,282,222, RE37,802 () and 5,956,323. The filing dates are 1992, 1997 and 2000. You can Google the numbers to try to understand what the patents are about, but unless you have a deep understanding of RF technology, its will probably be greek.

Brian

LOL! Clearly, yet ANOTHER case of *NIX having LESS SOFTWARES AVAILABLE FOR IT, vs. Windows NT-based OS... nobody wants to develop for something nobody uses (apparently, because that is what this is telling me):

"Hello windbag. All you need to do is point me at the OpenBSD version of the tool. I don't see it on their web site." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 26, @10:44AM (#19996529)

Windbag? Funny - aren't I the one with clear facts above in challenges I issued to the entire *NIX variant community here on this site & elsewhere:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254685&cid=199 85487
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243

LASTLY, & MOST IMPORANTLY, THIS ONE (where LINUX penguins suggest testing vs. a BSD variant no less):

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

LOL, & ALL I GET HERE IS YET ANOTHER "EVASION/SPINMASTER B.S." EXCUSE OF "My little used OS doesn't even HAVE a test I can run on it, because no one develops for it!"... rotflmao!

I also provided backing photo proofs of my score:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

AND METHODS FOR WINDOWS USERS TO GET THE SAME SCORE for online security ratings as well:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=fe3 a450dc9f3055920edd0fcea17b27b&p=375355#post375355

Each time in the list of 18 url's or so, above?

I issued a CLEAR CHALLENGE, with backing facts, (and how to get my score no less for Windows folks to use) to the *NIX community here to outdo my score on a multiplatform test for online security??

ABOVE ALL ELSE - You are the one tossing names.

LOL... more *NIX "big talk" about being "so secure"...

"You also forget the target demographic for OpenBSD: this is not for your Desktop, nor even for your high-load server. You can use it for that, but the niche in which it lives is firewall, NAT, transparent bridging. Places where security matters more than anything else. Sure, a bit more complex to set up, you need to work more, but this is not your moms OS." - by Corporate Troll (537873) on Thursday July 26, @04:51AM (#19993919)

Well, ok then: Take that OpenBSD setup of yours, & run this test on it:

http://www.cisecurity.org/bench.html

And see if you can beat this score on it (which was gained on Windows Server 2003 SP #2):

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

Via this "12 step program" (methods used to obtain that score on a modern Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003 & yes, it works on VISTA too):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=fe3 a450dc9f3055920edd0fcea17b27b&p=375355#post375355

I have repeatedly challenged *NIX people to this test, 17 times now (this will be the 18th in fact) here @ /. & other sites (Linux oriented ones) & to date:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254685&cid=199 85487
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

Not a SINGLE *NIX user has surpassed the score I obtain using a custom-hardened setup of Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully hotfix patched... not a one

"But what makes you think Windows is less stable and less secure than *Nix or OSX?" - by dc29A (636871) * on Tuesday July 24, @11:08AM (#19969905)

Absolutely NOTHING man, & I am in UTTER 110% AGREEMENT with you here (& see WHY you did not get modded down, as is USUALLY the case when someone points out things that the *NIX crowd says about "*NIX security > Windows Security" etc. et al)...

Why?

Well, these 15 URL's, from here @ /. (slashdot) & other *NIX oriented sites, for starters:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241957&cid= 19662703
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=241913&cid= 19662485
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19690705
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243071&cid= 19691091
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 22485
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244821&cid= 19736881
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=245695&cid= 19761821
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=246583&c id=19779437
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252367&c id=19946243
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

Where I outright challenged ANY *NIX type & their users to exceed this score on "THE CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY"'s CIS Tool 1.x multi-platform test (which actually HELPS a user secure their system online to a LARGE extent) here @ SLASHDOT numerous times (14) & a LINUX oriented site (where BSD was suggested in lieu of Linux for security no less, 1 time)...

And, to date? Either NO TAKERS to my challenge, OR outright evasions (spinmaster b.s. that I easily disproved, in other words, for those that tried to "downplay" the use of this test, which IS multi-platform & tests analogs that exist between *NIX variants & Windows, such as init files vs. registries etc.).

All this year in fact?

Not a single *NIX person challenged exceeded the score I was able to obtain on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully hotfix patched, though each stated something to the effect of:

"Windows IS LESS SECURE THAN (insert *NIX variant here)"

AFTER seeing those (if you wish, it is always the SAME result in them, with *NIX folks raving that Windows is less secure than Windows NT-based OS (even after both are hardened for security))...

PROOF?

See this screenshot, first:

http://i

"On the contrary, I'd expect it to be one of the best jobs ever; you don't have to do anything." - by MadUndergrad (950779) on Wednesday June 27, @02:14AM (#19659761)

Well, not nothing, but then, not much either... to make Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA, VERY secure online!

(In essence, you have to do these "12 steps", about 1 hour of an experienced user's time):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=378 52b3b0b2148fe282a73c1e688efc1&p=375355#post375355

To get this score (on the multi-platform CIS Tool 1.x test, by the "center for internet security"):

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

An 84.735 score on it...

Secured operations online, on Windows no less, is quite easily doable (& to levels that FAR EXCEED VISTA, with just a wee bit of work, and plenty to gain/learn!)

I wish some folks from the *NIX world would take this challenge, & possibly exceed my score (since the "control method" in the test? IS THE CIS TOOL 1.x TEST ITSELF, & download url's links for it are inside the 1st url noted above!)

If they could do that? I would ask how & where they did not fail things on that test, & attempt to emulate them on Windows, getting an even HIGHER score (and, still be able to go online & do things of course).

We'd ALL gain & grow by it, but, unfortunately/again - no takers to my challenge! Perhaps the Linux mascot ought to be a chicken, instead of a penguin, eh?

LOL!

APK

P.S.=> I wonder if anyone from the Linux (especially SELinux bearing distros), or BSD variants camps can get a better score on that test, than that...

In fact, I have repeatedly challenged anyone who uses those OS' to do so, here @ this site:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237507&thre shold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=19408273

&

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240571&cid= 19630923

&

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240283&cid=196 31141

&

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=240501&c id=19630965

(and, more from slashdot, especially the PC-BSD one that had an article from arstechnica as its base, because Linux users @ the URL below repeatedly suggested things like "if you want security, go BSD" etc. et al!)

And here, elsewhere on Linux sites:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

(See comments #82, #81, #77, #76, #73, #69, #63, #62, #61, #58, #21, #11, #9, #8 there for my repeated challenges to 100's of viewers from the Linux world, yet no takers (or rather, no one challenged that met or exceeded my score & instead, they suggested BSD variants))...

Yet, & to date? No takers!

(Or rather, no one that outdid my score, that is (because I do suspect those that I challenged DID try, & the Linux folks ended up suggesting BSD, yet no one from the "penguin world" (or "bsd devils") could exceed that score I obtained on it))

For all the "(INSERT *NIX VARIANT HERE) is more secure than Windows" b.s. slogans online?

Nobody from that world is willing to try a test that runs on BSD (sorry, no MacOS X version available, a case of there being less software for Macs than there is for W

"Vista is not considered suitable, the cost is huge per seat, and they figure that as long as they are retraining the workforce to use something, it might as well be something that is cheaper, more secure, and more reliable." - by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Sunday June 24, @12:24AM (#19625447)

For reliability?

See my subject line, and some data about Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 (history of 0 vulnerabilities so far @ SECUNIA.COM for its ENTIRE lifetime now) & they run NASDAQ 24x7, 365 days a year, stable as titanium steel/solid as a rock (with the fabled "5 9's" of reliability 99.999 uptime).

For security??

See this data (it takes some doing, 1 hour of work tops for experienced users & a bit more for those less experienced, but an excuse to be MORE experienced in the doing of it, if they want to learn: Want to get a job done RIGHT? Do it, yourself, in other words), & it can be applied to ANY Windows OS of modern variety (2000 even, & XP too, in the majority of its points):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=365 996#post365996

& the score it gains on CIS Tool 1.x:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

It can & DOES far surpass VISTA's score "oem/out-of-the-box-stock" as it is setup by MS, & yes, even patched... with about 1 hour's worth of work on an experienced user's part!

Even Linux folks agreed with me (god forbid, lol), that my 14 points for securing Windows (has one small omission, the use of regedit.exe, part of CIS Tool's suggestions) works, here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

And, when I challenged ANYONE there to exceed my score using CIS Tool 1.x (84.735)!

It appears that nobody tried to (or possibly they did, but could not. I say that, because many suggested BSD instead. So, that said? I posted in the BSD post there the other day (PC-BSD related, here @ slashdot, by arstechnica news reporters)!

Yet again, the same challenge to slashdotters - NO takers, again! Evasions? POSSIBLY!

- or, possibly they don't care about security online!

(OR, that my post was buried in the deluge of posts here @ slashdot (imo @ least, the boards here are difficult to see all users points/posts imo, the only weakness here: The posters that come here though, like Bruce Perens, John Carmack (& others I RESPECT IMMENSELY for their accomplishments though)))

Anyhow/anyways - nobody taking my challenge or beating my score from the *NIX world on a test that runs on ALL platforms (thus, it is the "scientific method of control", the same test on all systems OS types this tool runs on)?

This only shows myself, & the planet, that all this "Windows is less secure than *NIX" is pure b.s., & all of them (yes, even BSD derivants like MacOS X etc. et al) out of the box stock, have holes or room for improvements (especially in terms of security & holes/vulnerabilities).

Still, anyone care to download & try CIS Tool 1.x (from the CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY), & exceed my score in the graphic above (84.735) from the *NIX world?

Here is its download (it is MULTI-PLATFORM, & runs on BSD (no MacOS X version though sorry), Linux, Solaris, & Windows):

http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html

Go for it, & good luck!

(I hope you *NIX (or windows guys too) CAN exceed my score, because I will ask how, & attempt to emulate this on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched, to get even stronger IF it is doable... &, we ALL can learn/grow & GAIN by such a test!)

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> I can be reached @ apk4776239@hotmai

Check this out:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=365 996#post365996

& the score it gains on CIS Tool 1.x:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

It can & DOES far surpass VISTA's score "oem/out-of-the-box-stock" as it is setup by MS, & yes, even patched... with about 1 hour's worth of work on an experienced user's part!

Even Linux folks agreed with me (god forbid, lol), that my 14 points for securing Windows (has one small omission, the use of regedit.exe, part of CIS Tool's suggestions) works, here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

And, when I challenged ANYONE there to exceed my score using CIS Tool 1.x (84.735)!

It appears that nobody tried to (or possibly they did, but could not. I say that, because many suggested BSD instead. So, that said? I posted in the BSD post there the other day (PC-BSD related, here @ slashdot, by arstechnica news reporters)!

Yet again, the same challenge to slashdotters - NO takers, again! Evasions? POSSIBLY!

- or, possibly they don't care about security online!

(OR, that my post was buried in the deluge of posts here @ slashdot (imo @ least, the boards here are difficult to see all users points/posts imo, the only weakness here: The posters that come here though, like Bruce Perens, John Carmack (& others I RESPECT IMMENSELY for their accomplishments though)))

Anyhow/anyways - nobody taking my challenge or beating my score from the *NIX world on a test that runs on ALL platforms (thus, it is the "scientific method of control", the same test on all systems OS types this tool runs on)?

This only shows myself, & the planet, that all this "Windows is less secure than *NIX" is pure b.s., & all of them (yes, even BSD derivants like MacOS X etc. et al) out of the box stock, have holes or room for improvements (especially in terms of security & holes/vulnerabilities).

Still, anyone care to download & try CIS Tool 1.x (from the CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY), & exceed my score in the graphic above (84.735) from the *NIX world?

Here is its download (it is MULTI-PLATFORM, & runs on BSD (no MacOS X version though sorry), Linux, Solaris, & Windows):

http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html

Go for it, & good luck!

(I hope you *NIX (or windows guys too) CAN exceed my score, because I will ask how, & attempt to emulate this on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched, to get even stronger IF it is doable... &, we ALL can learn/grow & GAIN by such a test!)

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> I can be reached @ apk4776239@hotmail.com in regards to your scores, if you do not have the ability to post your CIS Tool 1.x score on the web, & we can discuss your scores... everyone gains this way! apk

"The security aspect of things really hasn't changed much" - by Runefox (905204) on Saturday June 23, @11:36AM (#19620095)

Check this out:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=365 996#post365996

& the score it gains on CIS Tool 1.x:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

It can & DOES far surpass VISTA's score "oem/out-of-the-box-stock" as it is setup by MS, & yes, even patched... with about 1 hour's worth of work on an experienced user's part!

Even Linux folks agreed with me (god forbid, lol), that my 14 points for securing Windows (has one small omission, the use of regedit.exe, part of CIS Tool's suggestions) works, here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

And, when I challenged ANYONE there to exceed my score using CIS Tool 1.x (84.735)!

It appears that nobody tried to (or possibly they did, but could not. I say that, because many suggested BSD instead. So, that said? I posted in the BSD post there the other day (PC-BSD related, here @ slashdot, by arstechnica news reporters)!

Yet again, the same challenge to slashdotters - NO takers, again! Evasions? POSSIBLY!

- or, possibly they don't care about security online!

(OR, that my post was buried in the deluge of posts here @ slashdot (imo @ least, the boards here are difficult to see all users points/posts imo, the only weakness here: The posters that come here though, like Bruce Perens, John Carmack (& others I RESPECT IMMENSELY for their accomplishments though)))

Anyhow/anyways - nobody taking my challenge or beating my score from the *NIX world on a test that runs on ALL platforms (thus, it is the "scientific method of control", the same test on all systems OS types this tool runs on)?

This only shows myself, & the planet, that all this "Windows is less secure than *NIX" is pure b.s., & all of them (yes, even BSD derivants like MacOS X etc. et al) out of the box stock, have holes or room for improvements (especially in terms of security & holes/vulnerabilities).

Still, anyone care to download & try CIS Tool 1.x (from the CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY), & exceed my score in the graphic above (84.735) from the *NIX world?

Here is its download (it is MULTI-PLATFORM, & runs on BSD (no MacOS X version though sorry), Linux, Solaris, & Windows):

http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html

Go for it, & good luck!

(I hope you *NIX (or windows guys too) CAN exceed my score, because I will ask how, & attempt to emulate this on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched, to get even stronger IF it is doable... &, we ALL can learn/grow & GAIN by such a test!)

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> I can be reached @ apk4776239@hotmail.com in regards to your scores, if you do not have the ability to post your CIS Tool 1.x score & we can discuss your scores... everyone gains this way! apk

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=e4d 36eb2396773f558df8271fadcadf5&p=365996#post365996

That's a post showing an 84.735 score, using CIS Tool 1.x (highest I can get as of today) & methods I outline to achieve it, for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA users:

http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPoi ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg

That result was done using a tool I know of that runs across multiple platforms for a test of security online in CIS Tool 1.x (center for internet security)!

CIS Tool:

http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html

(& this test is the "scientific control method" in that it is the SAME test used across diff. OS/hardware platforms here)

CIS Tool runs on Linux, BSD (no MacOS X though), Solaris etc. et al (various *NIX variants), & Windows. Java runtimes are required (they were recently updated mind you, by SUN Microsystems).

Thing is, I have freely challenged Linux folks to run that test here & beat the score I had, shown above, here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

No takers, or rather, no respondents with scores exceeding mine on Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully patched as of the date of the test I took it & yes, today.

They did suggest BSD - so I posted in regards to testing BSD vs. my score here, at slashdot:

http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849

Again, no takers (could be here though, it was buried too deep, slashdot's replies/forums system is way odd imo, by comparison to boards like this one imo, not as clean/easy to use/etc.).

Still, even from the "BSD" family (which is often noted to be the MOST SECURE UNIX etc., even by Linux folks (see the LINUX.SYS-CON.COM url above)), no takers.

All I know is this - I hear a lot of "Windows is insecure & (insert UNIX variant here) is more secure" etc. ... & yet, when it comes time to "put your money where your mouth is", on a test that runs across multiple OS platforms?

Nobody from the *NIX world has ever done so when I have asked them to try it @ least!

(& the test is sort of nerdy fun, you learn from it too, because it aids in securing yourself online).

And, the 14 points in the 1st URL above? For Windows NT-based OS like 2000/XP/Server 2003, & YES, VISTA??

They work!

(... & even *NIX folks agree many times they do)

I would like to see your scores here in fact, & IF you can exceed my score? We can all learn by it, & grow, as well as have a healthy competition in doing so!

Thanks! Any takers??

APK

"Feel free to source more than one security advisor. It may be helpful." - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

Good point & I'll agree (2nd doctor's opinions always are helpful):

(I didn't have time (got called into work to resolve an issue, but am home again now))...

"IIS secure? Apache secure? They both have exploits." - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

Yes, that's the very point I was trying to make...

"The number of exploits is one thing." - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

Yes, & there is apparently MORE reported on Apache Servers, up to 10 times more, per SECUNIA's data @ least.

"The number of exploited machines is another" - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

That always comes down to WHO is setting the systems up & admin'ing them, can you concede this?

E.G.-> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=784 c7caab0a4072b2e2cb96198eeb995&t=16097&page=2

See that url, humor me, especially THIS one... there is a reason why, because it "backs up" what I said above... with quantified numbers!

I.E.-> There, on the CIS Tool 1.x test (runs on Solaris, Linux, BSD, Windows etc. et al)?

I put out a roadmap of how to get an 84.735/100.000, w/ verifying photo of my score... I have challenged Linux folks to beat it here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

No takers... or, no one could!

Today, on a BSD related post (since most of the Linux folks @ the URL above suggested BSD for security)? I put the SAME CHALLENGE FORTH to BSD users here @ /. (slashdot/root lol!):

http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849

Hopefully, there WILL be some "takers" this time, from the BSD world!

(That 84.735 score in the techpowerup.com url above? It is as good as I can get it @ least, on Windows... stock though?? Even Windows Server 2003 SP #2 only gets like a 20 iirc, out-of-the-box/oem stock!)

"To make you feel good, here is a current Linux exploit;" - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

Well, it wasn't about THAT to me, but... since you put it THAT way? This does a better job:

I.E. - Windows Server (9%) itself has less bugs and LESS CRITICAL ONES, than Linux 2.6 kernel builds (13%) do!

Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition @ SECUNIA

http://secunia.com/product/1174/?task=advisories_2 007

vs.

Linux's @ SECUNIA (2.6 kernel builds/latest):

http://secunia.com/product/2719/

"For workstations which visit the web, I avoid Windows. Just seeing the headlines is enough." - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

Heh, I don't... see the URL above from techpowerup.com!

Again - on how I note how to setup Windows Server 2003 SP #2 (default install IS workstation/pro, you add server tools as needed, on the fly during setup, OR later as needed) to get that CIS Tool 1.x score of 84.735...

"If you have any data on the number of non Windows bots in the herds, let me know. I'm looking for any data on the breakdown of OS on exploited bots." - by Technician (215283) on Wednesday June 20, @11:57AM (#19581243)

LOL, cool... you're a "data archivist", as am I (for stats & such for backing during debates)... which IS good!

(I just thought you were trying to "overwhelm & devastate me" w/ a flood of figures (and I a

"I don't care about the pointless "allow or deny pseudo security" - by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday June 20, @07:45AM (#19577149)

Ok, how about this (real, quantified scores on the note of security then, using the Center for Internet Security's "CIS Tool")?

See this page, it outlines how to get a 84.735 score on Windows XP/Server 2003 SP #2 (both fully hotfix patched) with about 1 hour's worth of work (for years of stability, uptime, & peace-of-mind security online):

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=784 c7caab0a4072b2e2cb96198eeb995&t=16097&page=2

My photo of my score is there (84.735)!

I also have recently challenged Linux folks to beat that score (I suspect many tried, & could NOT exceed it and in fact, they suggested BSD for security vs. it) here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

(HOWEVER - None took the challenge & again - they suggested BSD instead!)

So, in regard to that?

Well, today, I made a challenge to BSD users here today in fact, in regard to this as well, see here:

http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=238993&cid =19578849

Since Windows Server 2003 is the base/underlying ancestor code used in VISTA? I would like to see how Linux AND BSD folks can do on it, & IF they can exceed my score on CIS Tool!

It is, afaik, the ONLY multiplatform online security test there is, that is THIS comprehensive AND coaches the tester into HOW TO GET BETTER ONLINE SECURITY (worth doing, imo @ least, how about you?).

Thanks!

(AND, good luck (the test is actually FUN and tells you how to help secure yourselves online, AND, on many an OS platform))...

APK

ON SECURITY:

I have asked folks from the LINUX world to try the CIS Tool on their machines, vs. a fully secured Windows Server 2003 SP #2 system I have here, & they would NOT "take" on this freely offered comparison here:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_f.htm

Now, I suspect more than a few TRIED to exceed my score of 84.735 on this test (my using the OS setup above) vs. theirs, & they could NOT exceed my score.

Many said "if you want security, go BSD"... that said?

Will any of you BSD users (this one, or variants) take the challenge?

(MacOS X users are going to be "let down" though, because there isn't a version of CIS Tool for them yet... this is a case of "more softwares are available for Windows vs. MacOS X" though, a clearly cut one in fact!)

CIS (center for internet security) Tool 1.x downloads for BSD, Linux, Windows etc. et al users are here:

http://www.cisecurity.org/index.html

(Amongst all others they have)

Good luck, I would like to do such a comparison, & I would like any photos of results sent my way, here:

apk4776239@hotmail.com

And, I, in turn? Will send the photo result of my CIS Tool 1.x score back to you in return.

NOTE: The program requires Java runtimes!

APK

P.S.=> I am out to see which OS can be secured the BEST online is why. I get no takers from the Linux world, & suggestions to "GO BSD", so... put your monies where your mouths are I guess! I am willing to do so, how about you? apk

Go to http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_p.htm and avoid all the junk.

Here is the print version to avoid the ad junk that sys-con is: http://linux.sys-con.com/read/382946_p.htm

Print version. The page is really ridden with ads (including a popup and a flash video).

Artima
eWeek
InfoQ
Java home
JavaLobby
JavaWorld
JDJ
The Inquirer
The Register
TheServerSide

What Mono does not support is the migration of Windows applications written using Visual Basic 6 or earlier. The solution for that problem is REALbasic, a cross-platform RAD tool that is similar to VB6 and runs on Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. REALbasic compiles native executables for each platform from a single code base.

Here's what the Mono guys say about it:
"REALbasic is a great tool for Linux," stated Miguel de Icaza, vice president of developer platforms for Novell. "Where Mono focuses on bringing .NET applications to Linux, REALbasic migrates Basic applications to Linux."
http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/244039.htm

REALbasic Standard Edition for Linux is free as in beer.
Get it here: http://www.realbasic.com/download/

Let me translate Microsoft's offer: there are patent problems with linux.

There are no patent problems with Linux. Some have suggested that it's the opposite; Novell threatened Microsoft with IP and Microsoft in return paid Novell $108M in their so called "patent deal". What Microsoft has been spewing is pure FUD and Red Hat knows it. But since the Microsoft FUD has been so effective, Red Hat must come out with it's own. Don't be fooled, Red Hat, Novell, etc are all corporations with shareholders and they will do whatever it takes to turn a profit. This is pure propaganda on both sides to gain mind share from the sheepish consumers.

Red Hat users?

http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/298991.htm

Novell Tuesday night outlined the financial terms of its pact with Microsoft in an SEC filing. Then, rather than let the press stumble over it, the company sent around a press release explaining the filing.

Meanwhile, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was in India and told India's Economic Times how he'd love to cut a similar deal "with anyone who distributes Linux software, Red Hat, whoever else."

Microsoft is going to pay Novell $240M upfront for those 350,000 SUSE Linux Enterprise Server subscription vouchers it said it would distribute in the next five years. It could sell them too. CIBC World Market did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and says the number implies an annual ASP per SLES subscription of roughly $685.

Microsoft is also supposed to spend $60M between now and January 1, 2012 marketing Linux-Windows virtualized scenarios and spend another $34M on the dedicated sales force it puts in the field.

For all of Ballmer's talk of a similar deal with Red Hat, it appears that Novell has a three-year exclusive on the virtualization-through-certificate program. Novell notes that IDC projects the market for virtual machine software will be worth $1.8BN by 2009.

Microsoft is also going to pay Novell $108M upfront under their shiny new "patent cooperation agreement" and Novell in turn will pay Microsoft at least $40M over five years - something like $8 million a year - "based on percentages of Novell's Open Platform Solutions and Open Enterprise Server revenues" - OES being Novell's mixed NetWare/Linux package and Open Platform all its Linux stuff.

Novell was at pains to explain that it wasn't paying Microsoft patent protection since the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the keeper of the GPL flame, at the mere mention of a patent agreement last week, started protesting that Novell couldn't - under section 7 of the GPL - distribute Linux if it was acknowledging patent infringement.

Novell claims it doesn't acknowledge that Microsoft has IP in Linux but the way the Microsoft and Novell attorneys sidestep the issue is by having Microsoft promise not to sue the SUSE customer, leaving Novell out of the equation.

Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry declined to explain exactly what Novell is paying Microsoft the $40M for or what Novell patents Microsoft is interested in. It's "just the way the deal was financially structured," he said. Whether that satisfies FSF attorney Eben Moglen remains to be seen. Novell is still negotiating with him, Lowry said.

Novell also posted a new FAQ trying to address the flood of questions it's been getting about the Microsoft deal from the open source community. In it, it says the $40M is "for Microsoft's covenant directly to Novell's customers."

So is Novell paying Microsoft to go out and scare Red Hat users?

In a canned statement, Novell general counsel Joseph LaSala said:

"Many people want to know whether this agreement is compatible with Novell's obligations under the GPL, especially section 7. This was an important consideration for us as well. Under the patent cooperation agreement, Novell's customers receive directly from Microsoft a covenant not to sue. Novell does not receive a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft, and we have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Our agreement does not affect the freedom that Novell or anyone else in the open source community, including developers, has under the GPL and does not impose any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL. Therefore, the agreement is fully compliant with the GPL."

There are exceptions to the "won't sue" covenants that aren't spelled out.

Rumor - underscore rumor - has it that Microsoft did the Novell deal because Novell threatened it with IP, which might explain why Microsoft is paying

Fox Interactive Media's hiring managers and recruiters are actively seeking candidates for more than 250 open positions throughout its network, including data architects, director of engineering, product managers and graphic designers.

> And Linus doesn't have a choice here. The kernel will likely always
> be GPLv2,
True.

> and if glibc and others switch to GPLv3, Linus won't be able to do a thing about it.
Not true. There are already alternatives to glibc, like diet libc.

When BitKeeper tried to pull similar shenanigans, Linus dropped BitKeeper like a stone, and wrote his own source code management system, called "git." The same thing will happen to the GNU/zealotware, if necessary.

> > And you didn't answer the question.
> It was a rhetorical question.
No, it was a real and concrete question.
Is a company acting in bad faith if it ships its embedded GPLv3 product with just exactly enough hard disk space to run the software it ships with, but no more? Or if the software is burned into EEPROM and unupgradable?

It's a question that you can't answer. Neither can Linus. And that's why we're worried.

> RMS is always the extreme. The GPLv3 is being drafted by more people than RMS.
RMS is setting the direction, and making the final calls.
Everyone else is just there to help point out self-contradictions and potential loopholes.

And making special exception to use user documentation to rip at reviewers is why I don't like MPlayer.

I'm hopelessly confounded by mencoder command line options.

What exactly has Joe Barr said that is false

1. "The MPlayer gang seems to relish nothing more than belittling their users and reminding them of just how little they know about Linux and computing in general" -- If the shoe fits. Don't email the developer list asking questions that belong on the Mplayer-users list. Mplayer-Dev is busy enough without all that.
2. "The journey began when I downloaded the latest CVS snapshot from the MPlayer Web site" -- A review of a CVS snapshot??
3. "The first thing to bite me was the configure script itself. It refused to run after detecting gcc 2.96, which is the default with Mandrake 8.1." -- Errrm, GCC 2.96?? A review of a CVS snapshot compiled with a broken compiler, greeeaaaat.
4. "It wants a file name on the command line." -- Duh.
5. "I needed video files. That called for gnutella." -- Because we all know the only thing worth watching is stolen from P2P networks.

1. "Gentoo doesn't ask what it can do to make things easier, it asks you exactly what it is that you want it to do, and then does precisely and only that." -- Funny, I don't remember being asked anything while installing Gentoo. There's no installer.
2. "For a proper Gentoo install, you'll need to read the fine manual. Read it a couple of times. Cover to cover. Pay particular attention to the sections on USE flags and Portage." -- Uhhh, not really. The Quick reference is more than sufficient.
3. "You will hear, see, and read "RTFM" dozens of times before you're done. But don't make the mistake of thinking that simply means having a copy handy as a reference during the installation, because by the time a question appears, it may already be too late. You need to RTFM before you begin." -- I don't even know what the fuck he's talking about there.
4. "Study GCC and the options that govern the behavior of GCC version 4.1.1." -- Forget studying GCC. If you don't understand what you're doing use the recommended $CFLAGS.
5. "After reading a few pages of the manual, I realized that the minimal live CD did not equal the Gentoo 2006.1 live CD. So I stopped and got the real thing." -- Dumb. You can bootstrap Gentoo from in Knoppix, that's what I always do. The CD you boot from makes very little difference. All you really need is bash, and something to download a stage tarball like wget.

One thing that should be discussed when talking about the "The coming RIA wars..." (That have been going on for almost 5 years) are the benefits and limitation of the underly "VM" that the technologies are built on. For any given application one VM technology made be best suited for the application requirements. A framework can make it easy to use the VM and smooth the rough edges, add features but the true benefits and limitation come from the VM itself.

Currently there are four different VM technologies people use to build RIA applications (in no particalur order).

• 1.) Java
• 2.) .NET
• 3.) Flash
• 4.) Browser / DHTML / Javascript

And he takes abuse from MS too:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/124218.htm

Interesting bit of history there. It really disturbs me that Miguel is leading a column of FOSS enthusiasts into the maw of MS patent enforcement, especially when he could have used his talent on something unencumbered like Parrot.

Madly Causing Slashdot Effect
Microsoft Certified Slave of the Empire
Morons Crudely Simulating Expertise
Maybe Could Suggest Exorcism
more: http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32859.htm#MCSE