Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer on Linux
theodp writes "'In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims,' warned Steve Ballmer, saying that Microsoft customers would be protected from the $550 million Eolas patent infringement judgment. 'I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt,' said the CEO of the company who earlier cried wolf about breaking IE in the wake of the Eolas judgment, prompting the W3C to go to bat for the software giant."
I like that last line of the article.
"I just think people should go out and research this for themselves".
Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions independant researchers to prove their point of the day.
My assessment (not that you asked)?...
Well, my research showed that patent infringement issues in Linux will more than likely get the same treatment as GIF files. If something does come up that really is an infringement, it'll stink for a few years, and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better solution than the patented one anyway.
Then again, I've already got my company running on Linux servers, so perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part. *shrugs*.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
There's a first time for everything.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's interesting to note the arguments on groklaw that an OS strategy might actually have *less* to fear than a closed-source one, compared to Mr Balmer's "It's not really FUD, honest" intellectual property FUD.
... eg:
:-)
Also, reading the article, either the writer is unsympathetic to MS, or Balmer is really putting out some mixed messages
"Ballmer scoffed at arguments that his company's operating system creates a computing monoculture" vs his statement "Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology".
Sounds like he's been spinning so much, he's dizzy
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
"Please get off, you're crushing me, you sweaty bastard!"
Patnets do not apply to end users only to maker/vendors..same as for copyrights
Try again Mr Ballmer, I suck at Patent Law...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said
Fear - Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
Uncertainty - "In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Doubt - On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
"Here at Microsoft, we spread duf(TM)."
'In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims'
He does got a point here. And that's one of the (many) reasons why software patents are evil. Read more here.
He surely is our favorite monkey
Microsoft CEO says 'in Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims'
IBM, HP, Sun, and others have ALL either stood behind or promised to stand behind their Linux patent interests. Ballmer's statement is a blatant lie and he knows it.
In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims
what about OSRM?
just the fact that microsoft so quickly denounces Linux should tell you something
(as tux shoots at his feet)
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten," Ballmer said.
yea.. he will be out of a job..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
In other news, MS was just granted a patent concerning using TAB to move from Link to Link in a Web Browser: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnu mber=6,785,865
Posted by michael on 14:30 02 September 2004
from the microsoft-veterans-for-truth dept.
Get off of your soapbox michael. This is Slashdot not moveon.org
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
Puh-lease. I was at the introduction of XML and CDF back in 1996/7 by Microsoft. They also handed out 4.0 beta disks of IE 4.0 at the event. I think it was called World Wide Live.
MSFT's gone nowhere fast with XML, while the rest of the developer world embbraced and extended it. They (MSFT) finally decided on a strategy for it what, three years ago? And now it's going to be the next big thing of the coming decade?
No wonder Linux runs circles around the Redmond Behemoth...
Responsibility is the punishment for compentenc
it'll stink for a few years, and then it will fizzle away as developers agree that there's a better solution than the patented one anyway.
Which, when you think about it, has been the intiative behind lots of great development, if you don't like the toll road, dig your own and many fine things have come of this. Further browsers like Mozilla and Opera progress while IE stagnates.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Funny, my girlfriend said the exact same thing!
:-)
(to me that is, not Ballmer. Actually she wasn't my girlfreind, she just lived across the street and never closed her curtains).
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
search the recent slashdot history for the article "microsoft is bullish on windows bearish on linux"
you'll notice in that article it is the same thing with the exact same quote about patents. Amazing how you can take the same article put a different spin on it and its news again.
Sure, I know that I can completely trust a monkey that works for a completely unbiased software company ;-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The W3C didn't stick up for Microsoft -- they went after Eolas for applying for and obtaining a patent for a technology that has multitudes of prior art. Had the USPTO simply cared enough to research claims like this, there wouldn't have been the need to debunk this claim. The fact that Microsoft stands to benefit (or at least not lose anything) as a result of the W3C's actions is collateral.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I really dont belive that microsoft would step up to the plate to defend a user against a lawsuit due to an IP problem.
They would fight to keep the offending product on the shelves, but NOT to 'protect' its users..
And if they loose, you are on your own.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You see this argued a lot here on
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
I am just speechless. I better sit down.Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
Not FUD?! What the hell. Every word in his talk was precisely that.
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ahh, wait. Now why do they bother supporting Linux or Unix if they feel that it's not good enough? I would imagine that if you are that confident in how a rival product is shitty, you would just go ahead and not offer support. But MS wants to leverage customers who have Linux and Unix systems, but yet diss Linux. Sheer hypocrisy.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Yes smartass. But resisting the attack will be the better one, and that will not be based on what's popular. Are they trying to say that Linux is popular, now? Out of the horse's own mouth, eh.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
Boo! The only reason the software industry is so messed up by patents is beause big businesses want to resort to their lawyers in case something goes wrong, and not technology. How about building great technology and not resort to cheap practices, for a change?
Sheesh. I'm fuckin' mad as hell. Not FUD? That's all there is in that.
Is it just me, or does Balmer sound like a desperate lawyer who collects every single possible argument he's heard for Microsoft, and then regurgitates them all at once?
--
Power to the Peaceful
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Huh? Apache httpd gets attacked even though it has the market share of on-line web browsers... fortunately the attacks are looking for M$ IIS holes...
Wasn't there a lawsuit against MS over SQL server where its customers weren't protected? I can't remember the story. Someone help me out...
I'd love it if proprietary vendors allowed us the capability to evaluate the risks ourselves. I'll believe the story about proprietary being safer only after Microsoft lets customers audit their source to let me verify that their closed-source stuff doesn't infringe on patents I may be worried about. Note that they let important customers audit their source for security reasons. Losing mission critical infrastructor because a vendor didn't have the rights to it could be even more harmful to my business than a security hole (which I presume would be easily patched).
If my company depends on a closed-source application, and that application infringes on someone elses patent, I wouldn't want that software yanked out from under me. At least in an open source environment I can understand that the offending parts could be coded around. With closed source, it's more likely the vendor will have to stop providing the software. Also, in the open source case, there's a better likelyhood that people have scoured the source code looking for infringing patents.
So far most of the big vendors, MSFT included, have a pretty weak concept of indemnification - they'll cover purchases prices, and the like. Heck even Gentoo.org'll probably indemnify you the cost of the purchase price. Unless they start offering far better indemnification (cover the costs of migrating off their infringing software to an alternative), I'm better off with open source.
Noting the prevalent use of pen and paper by audience members, Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation
Perhaps it was because no reporter was willing to bet their career on a laptop running Windows XP?
Ironically, 20 years from now, these reporters will still be able to read their handwritten notes, but Microsoft will have long abandoned the audio and video codecs used to record the speech today...
And that's assuming that the recording media is still playable. How many people can read 5 1/4" floppies any more?
In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
This is an abject legal falsehood; a patent ownder can sue the users of the patent if they so desire. They might choose instead to sue Microsoft, but there is no legal indemnification from a patent lawsuit - Microsoft's EULA explicitly denies liability in this regard. And considering that Microsoft's customers have already been sued over patents (Timeline, anyone?), I don't see how he can even believe this truthfully. And to make matters worse, Microsoft has sued its own customers.
If anything, using Microsoft instead of open source software imposes an even greater risk of patent liability on the users.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
WTF n3wb. 17$ (4££3Ð "FUD." 7h3$3 w1nÐ0w$ h4(|{3r |{1ÐÐ13$ n33Ð 70 $p3nÐ 4 Ð4¥ 0r 7w0 0n /.
Open Source Sushi
We also have people at the EFF who argue against some patents.
Well, according to SCO, Linux doesn't exist. And the headline for this story is "Ballmer on Linux". So I gotta wonder if he's about to have one of those Wile E Coyote moments where he's standing on nothing and gravity decides to assert itself? ;-)
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
... move along, now.
'I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt' but I will in this case.
WBG Links
www.wbglinks.net
WBG Links
www.wbglinks.net
"Earlier today, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer commented that the OSS community doesn't like software patents. Slashdot countered with the statement that Microsoft didn't like the Eolas patent."
Wowzers! Two foreknown facts that nobody disputes. Hooray for slow news days.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
So, what you you prefer? Pay $1 in the event of a patent - or pay $500 for the program in question?
(Yes, my numbers are just guesses, but I think you understand my point: paying for a patent infringment, if it happens, is cheaper then buying from someone who will "protect" you.)
-Ariel
Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
Because the speech was encoded using WMA Digital Rights Management, restricting the delegates from recording his words except via an audio stream licensed from Microsoft. Extracting audio "snippets" was prohibited by the DRM software, which meant that reporters on radio could either stream his entire speech or none of it.
A separate license was required to decode the real-time audio, with royalties paid by-the-minute (even modern-day-techno-savy journo's don't want to pay to broadcast Ballmer looking like a monkey) to the owners of the audio-streaming technology, which in this case happened to be Microsoft.
Finally, the PowerPoint presentation was similarly protected by traditional copyright law (its binary), the DMCA (its digital transmission), and - if it's been XML exported with the latest Office - probably patent law as well.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Is he implying that I would have to pay the judgement if Microsoft did not? This is just wrong! End users of Microsoft software are not liable for Microsoft's theft of intellectual property.
Not surprisingly, a similar misunderstanding of copyright law was the linchpin of SCO's extortion of Linux users. It's not surprising because Microsoft's funding of SCO bought the suit in the first place.
So, let's see: they don't understand copyright law and they don't understand patent law. Maybe this is why Microsoft is continually being sued for IP infringement!
If you really are worried, just get some insurance.. shtml
http://www.osriskmanagement.com/index
linux is supported via patent claims by the GPL licence, along with 3rd party vendors.
.. like IMB with the whole SCO case. i can not stand how they're such propaganda morons. and people /.'ers know the real truth.
really believe this crock? its like believing somebody, without investigating it yourself. come on
people. im sure the vast majority
lies, all lies. "In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims..."
So, do we start calling Ballmer, 'Duf-man' or what?
"Duf-man, not spreadin' FUD, ooh yeah!"
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
Eyewitnesses at the conference where Ballmer made this statement noted that he started running around the stage trying to rile up the crowd by shouting "Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers! Patent lawyers!"
But don't worry about on a weekly basis your computer and all your precious data is at risk thanks to our security holes.
But you could lose everything you own, thanks to a Microsoft software bug and the EULA plainly states 'As Is' and they will not be held liable for your losses.
Exploits are already being found in SP2 Windows will be secure in about 10 years, maybe.
Don't spend those billions of dollars all in one place, Steve.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
He is asking for people to really really consider OSS.
And guess what could happen if people really do.
These rallies have nothing to do with tech, They are about cash.
-- forget
Eventually, hopefully, America will reexamine its patent and copyright laws and realize just how idiotic they are.
I'm all for protecting an individual's rights as the creator of something (be it software, music, film). But patenting concepts is stupidity in itself.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next computer literate person, but in this case I hope Microsoft wins.
So what has the EFF been doing? Nobody in the open source world creates patents, but at least we have the EFF to stand to help us out against these claims. Wasn't the EFF actually helping fight the Eolas patent claim.
Sure Microsoft has more money to throw at the problems, but then again they also spend their time flooding the system with more unnecessary patents, for whatever reason.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
"Noting the prevalent use of pen and paper by audience members, Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation." I see Steve has finally discovered Speakable Items.
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten," Ballmer said.
I agree. I sincerely doubt that SCO will be around in ten years.
That's because we all know software patents are bogus.
AC comments get piped to
On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
I guess the only arena in which we can verify this is the server market. Anyone have any hard figures on successful attacks against Linux servers vs. those on Windows servers?
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Like I would trust anything someone says about their enemy/competitor. Besides, Microsoft has a history of lying and producing fake/false statistics just to make money anyway.
/. space.
Give me a break. This story is a waste of
I hope they have something really good cooked up, because 1994-2004 is going to be tough to beat. Let's see, we have:
1. The Web*.
2. E-Mail*.
3. Home computers go mainstream.
4. Win95/98/NT/2000/XP (poke fun all you want, but you can't argue that these weren't a major improvement over what they replaced).
5. OSS, Linux, GNU, BSD*.
6. 3D games with realistic jibbing.
7. (about a dozen more which I'm forgetting)
* Yes, these were around before 1994, but between 94-04 is when they became tools of the common folk.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
It's just you. Nice flamebait though.
On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
He fails to mention if attacks would be as successful on attacking Linux as they are Windows. Great way to answer a question without answering it
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
excellent idea Steve - I will review your Eula and
see what it says and compare it to the GPL.
GPL is about protecting IP you moron. So rich sloppy companies like yours can't steal somebody else's idea. It's how the science community works. Software patents stifle innovation in case you haven't noticed.
you still just don't get it do you. Please just stay the hell out of IT and let us run it the way we are suppose to - not with the inovative crap you come up with.
He is essentially right about patents. There is noboby to sue over patent infringements if they would somehow appear in Linux code. Whereas Microsoft has the money to settle any patent lawsuits against them, and still have money for fat, sweaty Ballmer to roll around in. What this has to to do with "standing behind" patent claims, I have no idea. All he is saying is that MS can buy its way out of legal trouble. Duh.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This is actually another lie. In the end Windows users end up paying for legal costs in higher price of products. That also has an affect on MS product quality as the money spent on defending patent infringement claims takes money from security R&D. So, in the end MS users get bitten twice when they use MS products. This is not so much of a problem for end users of F/OSS products.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
If an open source product gets sued for patent infringement, it only seems to kick the development community into gear to find a better solution.
I say sue at the drop of a hat and keep spurring innovation!
...compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
So does he mean that the open source community has people all over the map searching for and fixing vulnerabilities, or that the open source community looking at the whole metaphoric "map" of code looking for vulnerabilities and fixing them?
I call bullstuff (on Ballmer).
It's not protection money. They'll just pass the cost on to their customers like every other business. In fact (with a $50 billion cash bank account they are just now starting to dispense to shareholders, etc.) you could argue they already have passed it on to us through inflated prices.
For all that talk Ballmer goes through about there not being any such thing as a free lunch, you'd think he'd at least have read what his ECON101 text book had to say about it.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
He didn't say he wasn't spreading FUD, he said "I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt" (emphasis mine). In other words, he's so good at spreading FUD that it comes naturally to him and he does it without trying!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hmm, I always thought that interoperability implied multiple platforms.
Oh come on!!!
I defy anyone *not* to come up with in-depth verifiable prior art on that!
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
At first I thought you were kidding - but you were not! If this is not abuse of the patent system I challenge anyone to find a better example...
If you read the article to the laughable conclusion they then expand it to include further context.
While the present invention has been described above in reference to a preferred embodiment thereof, those skilled in the art will appreciate that various changes in form and detail may be made without departing from the intended scope of the present invention as defined in the appended claims. For example, the tabbing may work with application programs other than the web browser.
You may as well submit a patent for every key on the keyboard and say it could do something different if used in various combinations with other keys or in different circumstances.
To fair to MS they probably have to do this so that some shady lawyer (such as Boies) does not attempt to sue them for ctrl-alt-delete or displaying a solid color screen (such as blue) when their program crashes.
Ballmer wasn't trying to spread FUD; he was just trying to instigate it. Leave it to the journalists to spread it.
Yes, it's by a company by the name of Timeline (Google search).
It may be that not only Microsoft, but the developers / users of SQL Server would also have to pay royalties.
As to no one backing up Linux, doesn't HP imdemnify their customers (if you pay for it)? I know Sun imdemnifies their customers for Solaris.
I won't read the article. Maybe if the guy had been on Fear Factor and bravely eaten a few pounds of various animal feces would I be interested in hearing what he had to say. I'm tired of M$ bullshit. IMO people should just stop publishing news stories about M$, discussing M$, just ignore them. Just refuse to talk about M$. Why waste your time reading articles about M$ or from M$? Does it give you a boner? Worthless!
"Defecate on your book of belief" - Deicide
I am not religious, but fucking hell what is going on with these patents law people who grant them??
He is spreading Doubt, Uncertainty, and Fear
Which is the name of a pretty good beer.
Actually they have, all the latest Office stuff works with XML and the .net development kit is loaded with XML stuff. They also have their own standard, which was a /. topic about a year back (i'd look it up but the /. search really is pretty useless)
They rolled it out pretty quietly.
Maybe they borrowed their marketing strategy from Paul Masson (not before it's time, ...)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Or John Kerry.
It is not a false analogy, and it is't a stupid thing to say.
:)
The linux camp needs to get past the outdated idea that they are immune from security problems.
The facts plainly disprove this.
Infact, I beleive the number of remotely exploitable defects in the various linux distros are similar or even higher than the remotely exploitable defects in windows server 2003 (you could use ballmers argument against MS if you could concede giving it merit, as i think linux installations might be leading Server2003 installations
There is no arguing that the design of windows and the design of linux are different. However, there IS an argument as to the merits of the design of one vs the design of the other, and how those design choices affect "security" (whatever you define security to be). However, the design differences do not lead to a self evident conclusion.
Now, back to the argument that the exploitability of windows is a function of its installed base:
Here is an example. The morris internet worm did not affect any windows machines. One could argue that a larger percentage of the internet was crippled by the morris worm than was damaged by slammer/whatever.
Naturally, at the time of the morris worm, there were few (zero?) windows servers on the public internet, so the worm didn't target them at all. Instead, it used what was common at the time - defects in fingerd, sendmail, etc.
The worms and defects of the day largely target what is popular and under public scrutiny.
Here are some more points to consider, specifically around linux:
The number of exploited defects in linux is larger today than it was in 1991.
The number of exploited defects in linux today is larger than it was at some point previous to today.. call that t0. Since t0, linux has had more code reviews than previous to t0, and the people maintaining linux code have become more aware of security issues of the day. Even so, the incidence of linux exploits in the wild is greater today than it was at t0. One might argue that the new exploits only appear in new code, but this is clearly not the case. New _classes_ of exploits have been discovered that affect 10 year old code! Consider that one byte overflows, heap overflows, and format string overflows were almost unheard of until after stack overflows had been widely publicized and work was going on to fix them.
It is clear that the sorts of things that turn into exploits are a moving ball. One could postulate that the code getting exploited in linux has been around _longer_ than the code getting exploited in windows (if for no other reason than unix is older than NT). Yet the rise of the number of attacks against linux does NOT seem to correlate with the age of the defects, instead, with the installed base of the platform as a percentage of all targets of opportunity.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable argument to make that people looking to exploit systems, especially kiddies using tools, choose targets of common opportunity. You can disagree, but you need to prevent a valid disagreement, not just assert that Ballmers statement is incorrect because you want it to be.
Finally, and not to be too much of a jerk, but what qualifications do you have regarding the design of secure operating systems? If you beleive that Windows would be more secure because of your input, and can back that up, Microsoft will be happy to pay you any amount of money you ask for to make it happen.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Apache has about 66% of the web server market and yet you don't see many (if any) worms attacking it.
Anyone remember SQL Slammer? How many systems were there (relative to Apache sites), and how much network chaos ensued (fewer hosts, but more issues).
Population size is a valid point, but there's no way to know until it's actually there. Pure conjecture is a useless argument.
listening to microsoft about linux is like listening to Ashcroft about drug users. if you want the whole story, you dont listen to one side.
why didn't you do basic research on patent law instead of wasting time writin gthat long message??
I feel inspired to send a personal letter to Ballmer to complain. Anyone else? (Hint- You might find something interesting here: http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php)
I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language. The proper way is :
'He ain't got no point here'
I believe mr. ballmer is the "man" who said Janet Reno could go to Hell. Certainly a "man" with that much hubris is one to consider carefully when hearing his "thoughts".
I've read his books, I've heard him speak. He's a great cheerleader, he's a RUTHLESS businessman (maybe more than Bill), and mostly just an asshole when it comes to technology. He doesn't get it, but he's got the bully pulpit.
That said, it's unfortunate his commentary WILL carry much weight for the above reasons.
BTW, is it true MS people now wear buttons that say "Will work for FUD"?
What really yanks my chain when people bring up that using OSS means that you have nobody to blame your problem on when things go wrong is "Does that really matter?".
Do you actually have someone to blame in the Microsoft world? Sure, Microsoft. But does blaming them help anything? No. They just deny that its a problem with their software.
So in the OSS world, how would not having someone to blame be any different?
I think at least the top heads at Microsoft are running macs with os X over there. They really have no clue about how windows or linux works for the end user. I'm sure when you're at that level of any company you end up becomming so disconnected from the details of the product you sell. I doubt the Ford executives test drive every new model of a car, but if these cars' tired suddenly blew out on the highway, they'd call in their engineers and ask them what the hell's going on. I don't have any inside sight on how Microsoft works, just a view from the outside like many. For anyone who works there, do these managers at least look at how their products are working and the amount of headaches they cause people all over the world? Or is it all just to get it out the door and market the hell out of it?
You're remark about codecs is blatently incorrect.
You're new here? Better tell this guy.
(Great, now I'm reduced to proxy troll.)
now where again did i hear that sentence...
said the CEO of the company who earlier cried wolf about breaking IE in the wake of the Eolas judgment, prompting the W3C to go to bat for the software giant."
Tell me, do you not believe that if Eolas had won their suit.. that Microsoft and every other browser maker would need to drastically change the way their browsers worked to avoid this patent?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
That's not exactly a one for one comparison, is it? A Linux distribution containing xxx number of independent software packages vs. the Windows Server 2003 distribution? It's a commonly broken comparison but it's still broken.
A fair comparison would be a Linux server with all of the equivalent services installed in their most secure forms. Choose the most secure httpd, ssh, etc. and make the comparison. While any individual Linux distribution may not fit the bill it certainly isn't beyond us to consider that a Linux admin might choose to install such services. You can cherry pick your Windows packages too if you really want that.
Further maybe you want to compare the mean time between discovery of a problem and the resolution of that problem.
This would give you a reasonable and fair comparison. Just pulling stuff out of your butt based on "Randomly Chosen and Configured Linux Distribution + All Software That May Or May Not Be Installed" vs. Windows 2003 Server with no ups or extras doesn't really cut it. For your fantasy Linux distribution to be fairly compared you'd also have to install every single piece of Windows software and compare the security.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
He's right, linux would be attacked just as frequently as windows.
One word: APACHE
Which gets attacked more, Apache or IIS. Which has more market share?
It is not a false analogy
No, it really is. Are you honestly going to try to argue that one can treat any OS as being equal when it comes to arguing security. Just because Linux and Windows are both operating systems does not allow you to argue that they therefore have the same security strengths/weaknesses.
The linux camp needs to get past the outdated idea that they are immune from security problems.
Where in my post do I claim Linux is immune? You could argue effectively so you decide to erect a pile of strawmen for me to argue now?
However, there IS an argument as to the merits of the design of one vs the design of the other, and how those design choices affect "security" (whatever you define security to be). However, the design differences do not lead to a self evident conclusion.
Again, very wrong. Linux is based on a UNIX OS design, one that assumes user groups and individual logins from the get-go. Windows is based on a single-user environment, where most applications won't even install correctly unless the user is root. This gives Linux a huge head start when it comes to security.
I think it is a perfectly reasonable argument to make that people looking to exploit systems, especially kiddies using tools, choose targets of common opportunity. You can disagree, but you need to prevent a valid disagreement, not just assert that Ballmers statement is incorrect because you want it to be.
Oh, thank you so much for specifying how I can reply to you. I'm honoured.
Finally, and not to be too much of a jerk, but what qualifications do you have regarding the design of secure operating systems? If you beleive that Windows would be more secure because of your input, and can back that up, Microsoft will be happy to pay you any amount of money you ask for to make it happen.
Jesus you are a giant tool. Where's your qualifications? Actually, never mind those, where is your common sense? If you want to claim Linux is as insecure (or more) than Windows, the onus is on you to prove this. There is no evidence for it now.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
You *CAN* effectively argue it.
Claiming that any software is attacked more because of market share is *PROVABLY* false.
If it was true, Apache would be attacked a lot more than IIS, because it has a much larger market share.
Apache is more secure than IIS, therefore the assertion that market share affects security is false.
QED.
...breaking IE...
Breaking IE? Isn't it already broken? Mod: -1 Troll, but it must be said.
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
They keep screaming about idemnification, idemnification, idemnification.
So 3000 of us form our own companies. Distributing our own OS, looks like linux, smells like linux, but I promise it isn't linux. I'll promise to idemnify you if anyone sues.
Okay they sue, they come after me for $30,000,000,000. because I violate their double-click patent.
I give, I stole the code, here's the only quarter I have
You know, this horse-shit of lying and hiding behind shell companies can work both ways.
hey maybe after Dale over at SCO finishes pissing away that 31 million. We can pitch in and throw money at him to be our linux bitch.
Windows is designed like most ocean going cruise ships... massive, takes a lot of work to run, and it's pretty, and it's not engineered with ruggedness in mind. If anyone on board or off board pokes a hole in it, everybody gets wet. Also, by default, it's loading hatches (ports) are always open, allowing pirates to come aboard and poke holes. The designers also don't consider themselves responsible for anything you put on the boat, even though it doesn't come with a lot built-in.
Linux, on the other hand, is built more like the Titanic. It's the kind of OS that requires monumental stupidity to sink - just as the Titanic required such. All the sections are compartmentalized from the others, and if one part goes under, others remain.
The crew is more alert as well - in general, roughly twice as alert, in my experience. As soon as they find a leak, they patch it. They also purposefully build in other people's stuff and work with the people who made it to deal with patches.
Without vigilance, at some point you're probably going to be underwater with either vessel. But looking at the characteristics, it's a lot easier to find yourself swimming if you charter a Windows boat.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Patent claims stand behind you.
"I'm as fired up now as I've ever been in 24 years at Microsoft," Ballmer said. Noting the rapid adoption of technology such as PCs, the Internet and cellular telephones in the preceding decade,
As anyone who has seen the Ballmer:Monkey Boy video can attest, this is quite a claim.
Ballmer said a new generation of software and hardware, driven by advances in speech recognition technology and multimedia, will revolutionize the way individuals work and live.
So "speech recognition" and "multimedia" are the two current buzzwords?
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
I really wonder what it was like at that long-ago Microsoft meeting where they agreed to use the word "innovation" at every possible opportunity.
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," he said.
Yeah? Linux is a more popular server OS than Windows. How come Apache hasn't been compromised in the numbers that IIS has been?
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
Microsoft's system, which isn't working as well as the apparently "all over the map" OSS world consists of (a) take in complaint, (b) cover up as long as possible, (c) refuse to call a the problem a "bug" and insist that it's an "issue", and (d) refuse to allow people who have the ability to fix the problem to *fix* them (in the OSS world, there's always some coder who can say "oh, shit, that's bad" and spin out a patch almost instantaneously, which is immediately available to those who need it immediately. This then gets integrated into the software package, and can be used at a higher level of QA by folks that can afford to wait around a bit, and then later with even stronger QA assurance as the distro okays the patch.) Microsoft's mechanism for dealing with problems is not transparent, not rapid, and has been dishonest in the past, attempting to falsely spin down the severity of problems or to shove blame off on to IT people "Well, yeah, we had a remote root issue in the RPC mechanism, but we put out a patch a *week* ago and besides, it's your fault for not firewalling our server." In the OSS world, people call bugs "bugs", give the whole world access to the bug-tracking system used by the the developers so they can see whether a problem is fixed and provide additional information, and there isn't any spin from a marketing department.
Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
That is absurd. You can make the same claim about every product that I'm using. I have a keyboard in my hands -- there could be patents that cover it, but I'm provided no indemnification by the manufacturer. Same goes for HDTVs, cars, and whatnot. Besides, Microsoft has *never* followed up on covering customer losses. How many people do you know that have suffered damages from defects in Office or Windows? Has Microsoft ever offered to cover those losses, flaws in their *own product*? Hell, no.
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said.
Ballmer is absolutely full of it. That is *exactly* what he's trying to do. Lots of vague claims to produce an inflated sense of worry.
"I just think people should go out and research this for themselves."
Well, at least Balmer and I can agree on this.
May we never see th
Remove the outline from around the link, and you're not in violation of the patent.
Buy Windows today. Consider it "protection money."
Bullshit. If you didn't buy Windows, they you wouldn't be using it, and so any legal action targetting MS customers would be none of your concern anyway.
This isn't "pay us or suffer", this is "pay us and we'll make sure no-one makes you suffer for paying us", which is entirely different.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If a patent holder sues me for using an (allegedly) infringing MS product, then what idemnification do my licenses with MS give me?
It's a while since I've needed to read a MS license, but my memory is that most of them are along the lines of "MS does not warrent anything about this software. MS is not liable for anything. Nadda, nothing. If the law forces us, we much refund your purchase price, but nothing else"
MS users might be better off than open source users if the patent holder is willing to settle with MS for gobs of cash. But a patent holder who wants to be disruptive (like EOLAS) doesn't have to sell a license to MS - in that case, MS users are really screwed - they have to stop using the infringing product, and don't have source code so they can't just remove an offending part, no matter how trivial.
What percentage of Apache servers and IIS servers are attacked (successfully or not)? I don't know... most defacements go unreported. But there are more Apache servers (see Netcraft, and Apache servers *are* frequently attacked and compromised by skript kiddies.
The bat that Steve talks about swinging to protect its MS Window monopoly is the same bat used to pound customers into paying outrageous licensing fees for insecure product. Remember how that kinder gentler Microsoft was/is threatening US School districts with the help of their BSA buddies? Microsoft with ANY bat is not a good thing. Why isn't THIS brought up when Open Source and Microsoft are mentioned in the same session? The BSA would be DOA with FOSS. Or atleast the Microsoft problems which are most of BSA's mandate. IMHO.
;-)
And another thing about this Ballmer guy:
THIS was nicely worded, as only Microsoft could:
"If you have two popular operating systems, both will get attacked -- whatever is popular is going to be attacked," Ballmer said.
The interesting word is "attacked". Notice he didn't say 'broken into'. There is a night and day difference between being attacked and having attacks suceed. And in MS Winodws case, crashing to its knees from almost every attack.
Microsoft is THE master marketing company and could probably sell an elephant as a duck. Oh wait, they do.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
for two seconds i read:
Balmer Bullshits On Future
literally incorrect as well....
I'd say Ballmer's on something, and it definitely ain't Linux.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
in overdrive again.
.NET computing architecture.
But Ballmer shed his visionary mantle soon after, taking shots at the open source software development community and warning participants to think twice before adopting open source products like Linux.
Translation: We're ticked people put software out there that we charge exorbitantly for and they have the nerve to code it better than we do.
"I'm as fired up now as I've ever been in 24 years at Microsoft," Ballmer said.
Translation: I've nerver been so damned mad and scared for my own cushy job security in 24 years of being at Microsoft.
"In the next ten years, you're going to see more positive change than in the last ten," Ballmer said.
Translation: This keeps up we're going to miss our quarterly projections again and continue to loose our monopolistic stranglehold on the home computing industry that we've had in the last ten over the next ten.
Ballmer promoted his company's products as a key to that transformation, including the next version of the Windows operating system, dubbed "Longhorn," and the company's
Poster's commentary: Makes me wanna revive the "Where's the Beef" commercials from over 10 years ago with all the hooplah, smoke and mirrors I keep reading about "Longhorn". I can see it now, They'll start calling computer viruses on "Longborn" (intentional mis-spelling) Mad Cow Disease and we see more countries banning the sale and distribution of Microsoft "beef" possibly.
Joking about recent news regarding a curtailed list of features in Longhorn, Ballmer said that cutting back on the promised features at least allowed the company to announce a release date for the product, which was a "major accomplishment."
Poster's commentary: Only at Microsoft would a major overshoot of a release become the joke to them that it is to the rest of us.
Despite the focus on the next version of Windows, Microsoft is also working to make its offerings more interoperable with products using other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language), Ballmer said.
Ballmer singled out XML and Web services as the "big breakthrough" of the next decade that will spur innovation.
"The fact that companies like Oracle (Corp.), IBM (Corp.) and (Microsoft) have bet on an architected approach to interoperability is huge," he said.
Translation: Since our corporate peers are lining up to kick our butt with Open Source we better buckle and see what all the fuss is about. This is merely another move by Microsoft to catch the last of the waves as the sun sets and they're "Johnny Come-lately" to the next trend.
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
Translation: We better suck it up and realize we have to straighten out our backyard since the Open Source is making so many significant innovations and has an ability to patch their software so fast we don't even get to read the patch update notice before it's done, damn it! It's not far that Open Source has the ability to call on developers "all over the map", woe is us, how can we compete with the world? You can't Stevie, so suck it up and bask in your glory while it lasts.
"In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Translation: For them (Open Source), there too many targets. For us, (Microsoft) the litigants have an easy target. Strength in numbers, Steve! *grin*
"I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt," Ballmer said. "I just think people should go out and res
Scientia et Potentia
I'd really like to ask the question, will Ballmer, on behalf of Microsoft, put that in writing? Will Microsoft provide a written guarantee that they will indemnify their customers against claims of infringement by their software? Not from anything I've seen. So far, here is what Microsoft has put in writing:
From their site, For Business (Windows 2003 Server):
And from their site, For Consumer (XP HOME):
I really don't see where Microsoft is giving anything to people above what Linux is giving, i.e. nothing, except people can see the Linux source code and it is possible if something infringing is present it can be removed.Well, I have researched it for myself and gone right to your company's written EULAs and read them, Mr. Ballmer. Unless and until Microsoft is willing to give (or sell) written indemnification for non-infringement then all your claims represent are a worthless cant of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Paul Robinson
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
>He's right, linux would be attacked just as >frequently as windows.
Number one Linux is attacked just as often as windows. Twice a year on average. Problem is microsoft attack lasts longer. The virus writers just keep changing their source code to get past the AV companys software. So the damage is far worse. Linux does not depend on AV companys most of the time this is the difference they depend on removing the fault the virus/hacker exploted. A hack on a windows box turns into a virus about a 12 months after detection and used to steal data about 2 months.
Wasn't it something like two years ago when Microsoft got tagged for patent infringement over their SQL server, and they did not indemnify their users? What does the EULA say? Where's this indeminification Mr. Ballmer is talking about?
I was reading the transcript of SCO 3rd quarter teleconference, and was astounded once more by how deftly McBride spun the news, and how ably he misrepresented SCO position.
The M$ board aren't stupid, so either they have severe reality problems, or lying is an automatic impulse to them, kinda like when you ask a 10 year old kid if they stole $20.
They know about the problems with M$ products, and they delude themselves about how minor the problem is, and how great their effort is to fix things. They also proceed to delude as many people as possible, which involves retaining a large marketing machine, well versed in replacing fact with gloss and image.
How do I know this? Just a wild stab in the dark, but if I had $50 billion in the bank, I'd feel differently about certain minor niggly issues as well. God knows what I'd think of a bunch of commies on a religious crusade to give away their code.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It was about a year ago after years of dragging out the case that it was proven the MS SQL 7 was stolen from or illegally used from another company MS response was "we will cover legal cost and suits up to the cost of the product" yeah MS really stand behind their work but the limit is as much as you paid to get it. So by those terms FLOSS is on equal grounds with MS support policy.
Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
Mostly they probably didn't think of doing it, which I assume is your point. But even if they did think of it, I doubt that Microsoft declared your speech to be public domain or handed out written authorizations to reproduce it. In today's IP-obsessed, everything-is-copyrighted legal climate, which Microsoft has done a lot to nurture, the risk of infringement is probably a good deterrent against using these nifty technologies to record and reproduce anyone's output, other than from public employees and political candidates.
There's absolutely nothing that Linux can do to protect against a user who has the root password and who has been convinced to run an untrustworthy executable.
Just a side note: you don't even need to be root to run untrusted binaries.
Have a look at bugtraq or any other full disclosure mailing list to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
Some vendors, including most linux distros and the BSDs have appointed a security team to handle the issues once they are discovered. BUT if Linux (or BSD) were to become a mainstream product, would you expect every Joe Sixpack to update their system (or third party apps) regularly?
Sure, Linux and BSD are much more secure than Windows; but they are certainly not immune against attacks; even against basic attacks.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I used to have a very triumphant "Yes!" as my shutdown sound back when I still used MS-Windows.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The answer of course is MS. How many people have seen the name Linux for the first time in an MS ad or press release?
You don't see car company A constantly talking about car company B. Imagine your a store owner on a triple A location selling X. Are you then really going to talk to the customer about you really are much much cheaper then this totally unknown store that is in fact just around the corner? Of course not.
So either MS doesn't know shit about marketing,don't tell the customer he can in fact go somewhere else, or they think they got no other choice.
Keep talking about Linux MS. The only thing you are achieving is that Linux is becoming more widely known. Each time you say linux is more expensive you just alert them to the fact that there is in fact another OS they can buy.
You don't see Archos or Creative or iRiver running ads on how they are cheaper then Apple do you? And everyone knows about the iPod.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Was that subtle enough? (-:
BTW, the case for FOSS mail servers is even more extreme (something like 80%). If anything bad were going to happen, it would have. It hasn't. QED.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Quote from article: "Noting the prevalent use of pen and paper by audience members, Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. Advances in software in coming years would make such features practical, making "information workers" and those in fast-growing fields like healthcare more productive, he said." Dare to dream, Ballmer: Someday...
FTA:
"I'm as fired up now as I've ever been in 24 years at Microsoft," Ballmer said
Great! More monkey boy style videos!
meh
And roughly 2/3 as many defacements of them are logged. The obvious conclusion is that IIS is three times as insecure.
From the few obsolete surveys that exist, FOSS mail servers are likely to have a closer to 80% "market share", at least facing the internet. We don't have "defacement" stats, but I'd be shocked if a serious number of PostFix, Exim or QMail services were being broken. None of mine ever have. Unlike Exchange, security issues for these services were a priority from Day One.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...based on the principle that it is easier to apologise if you exceed your authority than to get permission in the first place.
Once upon a time, telling lies for commercial gain was called "fraud" and punished accordingly. These days it's called "marketing" and proponents of it are rewarded with high-paying jobs.
Now tell me, why do we have a problem with being constantly buried in bull?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Again, very wrong. Linux is based on a UNIX OS design, one that assumes user groups and individual logins from the get-go. Windows is based on a single-user environment, where most applications won't even install correctly unless the user is root. This gives Linux a huge head start when it comes to security.
:)
Users and groups aren't particularly effective when services running as root are exploited.
I agree with you that Linux is a lot more secure/ less exploitable than Windows but only a few weeks ago I had a server compromised via an ssh exploit. I had upgraded sshd only a few months ago after the PrivilegeSeparation issue. I *do* hold myself responsible for the compromise but your "Unix users and groups" is pretty cold comfort for someone like me who has to take a Linux server offline and rebuild it from scratch because of a compromise.
Also, I'd be pissed if there was, say, a Firefox exploit that did an rm -rf ~ I'd lose a lot of important stuff. Oh that reminds me, time to rsync
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Imagine if that was patented. It's been shown to be the fastest sort possible, if I remember right. Or how about all those patents apple has on Font Rendering? There's lots of stuff in Math that there's only one way of doing right. That's why you weren't allowed to patent algorythms in the past.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Microsoft's platforms offer better interoperability with the company's other technology, such as
In my opinion, this proves two points
he just *does* it.
if we're not to use open software and open standards because we would be alone in case of a patent trouble, then how came they, the software giantER, being backedup in a trial by w3c?
shouldn't it be the oposite, since open standards|software doens't have who stands for them?
Mono scares the living daylights out of me.
Given the triviality and obviousness of patents being issued today, there's practically no way Mono can be non-infringing. Yet it's even more dangerous to check for it, because then you get into a triple-indemnity situation. Letting Mono burrow its way into Linux culture, software, infrastructure, and support is ASKING for trouble a few years down the road. It's putting a giant SUE ME sign out.
Besides, "Microsoft done right" isn't aiming that high. We could do better.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Far easier to discover infringement in Open Source software. No doubt if you were to discover it in Microsoft (or any other proprietary) source, you'd be under some sort of NDA that included a gag order expressly forbidding you from disclosing patent infringement.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
M$ has no answer for linux . Ballmer knows windoze and .Not
has no chance against Linux and Java. M$ only way is to threaten OEMS like HP and Dell to preload windoze/.Not and sell it.
or is someone missing the point here.
"other software platforms such as Linux, Unix and XML (Extensible Markup Language)"
If I'm not ENTIRELY mistaken, XML is more of a data encapsulation format and less of a "platform". Aggressive ignorance of this nature always irritates me. I would take some of these articles a little more seriously if they just had a CLUE.
Put your money where your mouth is. The comment that Microsoft users will be protected from the violating of the EOLAS patent is where? They aren't being protected you're just paying the license fee. What about all the other patent violations in Microsoft software? This specific comment must be followed up. I'm sure it will make Ballmer wish he never said it.
Silly patents are bad, this whole patent game is bad. However, Microsoft shouldn't pretend it's indemnifying users. It will come back to bite them in the ass. Sometimes I wonder if these CEO's and execs are really worth their salaries making statements like these. Microsoft shareholders should be pissed Ballmer is opening them up to future legal problems with this one silly comment.
Ballmer wondered aloud why the content of his speech was not being captured and translated automatically, while also being synchronized with real-time video and a copy of his Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
How many times have we been told that you aren't allowed to use recording devices to capture a lecture because of copyright issues? Does anyone else think it's strange that Mr Patent is complaining because technology isn't being used in this way ?
Hint : it's not because the technology is lacking
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
It has NOTHING to do with how many Web Servers are on the net!
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Balmer doesn't like Linux!
Mice don't like cats!
Red Sox don't like Yankees!
I really should write "So what, we already knew that Mr. Obvious!!" except that, err, well, I RTFA too.
Um... it's called "Damage Control". Or an attempt at it anyway. ;)
"You hate it because you can't effectively argue it"
I believe what you mean is that he can't argue *against* it, or so you believe.
To say you 'argue' something is to say you argue FOR it, and support the concept/idea/whatever you're arguing.
By the way, the linux community as a whole doesn't claim to be immune from security problems, they just tend to point out very often how less likely it is to suffer some form of security-related trouble on linux, as opposed to very different situation on Windows.
GNU: Lots of contributors not standing behind it, some of whom will try to address the problems post haste, some of whom will offer help free of charge, some of whom will be your best friend for a hearty thanks if they successfully sort it out for you.
Microsoft: Multi-billion $ company not standing behind it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Now lapdog,
now attack dog.
Actually this is why Linus isn't afraid of software patents in Linux all that much. Most software patents don't include a shread of USEABLE code! so it's not like you can copy from the patent application. And REAL software is text/speech...so it never should have been patented in the first place. Try to sue users directly [in such a case as the Linux kernel] and the court would get the joke [that the emperor has no clothes!] and the whole rest of the software industry would go down in flames... OSS is the ultimate WMD in the software patent wars... Linux is a "glass house" and the first to throw stones gets the shattered glass right back...even MS isn't THAT stupid!
Also, I'd be pissed if there was, say, a Firefox exploit that did an rm -rf ~ I'd lose a lot of important stuff.
Wouldn't you be even more pissed when compromised by an IE worm that did the same? Especially after the piece of swiss cheese that IE has proven itself to be? Say what you will, Linux designers would have to have frontal lobotomies or be deliberately maliscious to create the number of holes that we have seen in just this one application.
Lest you declare that this is an isolated case: IIS. 'nuff said?
While not perfect on security, Microsoft has a defined process for addressing security vulnerabilities, compared with the open source community, which he called "all over the map," when it came to addressing vulnerabilities in Linux, Ballmer said.
I'm reading this like: "Our security is so bad we had to spend millions on consultants just to come up with a way to deal with all the problems we've created." Some things are better left unsaid, Mr. B.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
All I can remember is the IBM Ad, in which 'Linux' was symbolized by a little prodigy kid who everybody was lecturing at.
resigned
That's a bit like slashdotters going "not to troll, but
That's not to say that users would be sued more often than those making and/or offering to sell, just that users certainly could find themselves sued as well. Which is to say there _is_ a legal theory there.
there's an old usenet troll tradition of trying to include the word "flame", or some derivative thereof, in a flamebait post. a good enough troll could blatantly flaunt the fact and still start a flamefest. i believe mister ballmer is following the this fine tradition, by acknowledging that he does not intend to spread fud, and then proceeding to do just that.
kids, if you want to learn more about trolling, see alt.flame.
Without specific details, you can't compare two operating systems at all; you cannot make a statement for or against equaility. Details have been very sparse in this thread.
Windows NT has always assumed user groups and individual logons, it has always required ACL based security descriptors on all objects (from files to threads to mutants...). Windows NT has always been multi user in the sense that multiple users can be logged on at once. GUI support for multiple users didn't come until NT3.51 but surely Linux is still multi user without X? /etc.
What are based on a single user environment is most third party applications for Windows. Programs designed to run in the monouser (no security) 9x environment whose developers are too cheap to fix their broken products.
It's the application's fault that they can't install as root; it's the application's fault that it demands unreasonable access to install. The operating system isn't preventing a user from installing a program for himself; it's the installer that doesn't understand a multi user OS. If you tried to run an installer designed the same way on Linux, it would require root, replace shared libraries with bogus versions and screw with
But this isn't about third party apps, it's about operating systems: both Linux and Windows protect global settings from change by normal users.
And what is so bad about asking you to provide actual backup for your statements?
It depends on what aspect of security you are talking about. Design: /w patch) you can have a great deal of granularity.
Kernel level security in both OSes is designed to be air tight. With ACLs (NT standard, Linux
Network security design depends on what services you use: some like telnet are insecure. Both OSes provide securely designed network services.
Neither OS provides any protection from root users.
Both OSes provide excellent protection for the system itself and for other users from normal users.
Neither OS provides more than obscurity protection for a user from himself (IE deleting all his files)
Both OSes have historically provided poor protection for a user from social engineering or good ole stupidity, but both are getting better. At this point, I'd have to say that Linux is better although XPSP2 helps a lot. Linux mostly gets points here for being obscure.
Both OSes provide some physical protection in the form of encryption.
As for implementation:
Both kernels have had a few local exploits, but not many and they didn't last long.
Both have had some remote exploits too, but I think Windows is definately worse in this respect. Windows RPC has had more exploits than I can remember. For one thing, Microsoft depends on interface obscurity too often.
Internet explorer has problems that haven't been fixed for some time now. The most this can escilate to is running arbitrary code as the current user (not root) so this threat can be eliminated by running IE as a different user (along
I remember hearing about that in Auto Tech in high school. I remember that the patent was eventually ruled invalid because it only covered two-cycle engines and at that point most cars were using four cycle engines.
The man was George Selden, and you can info about that patent mentioned here.
IIS6 has had no exploits thus far.
Do you think thats because its better than apache, or because not enough people are using it yet? Answer carefully.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
constrain it to default configurations of each OS, as installed. Consider vulnerabilities that allow for remote root code execution.
I'm aware of the "you cant count the vulnerabilities in 23 MTAs and 44 MUAs" issue. My claim still stands.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
developers, developers, developers, developers,
In Australia microsoft are now ringing customers direct to attend local conferences for customer feedback. They even offered me a free copy of XP Pro and Office 2003 to attend. Of course I refused but said I would "consider" going if they sent me a free copy of Win2K Pro, as I would need one for my next dual boot laptop (needed a copy of the toy operating system to play games - told them that, also told them the main OS would be SuSe, need to work too ;-) ). They said they would check to see if it would be possible and would get back to me.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Slashdot/OSDN is a hypocrite in this regard.
I would not say it's a gain nothing game. An influential person might be persuaded by the advertisement to further Microsoft's adoption in his company. If even one such event happens, then the advertisement has worked!
This is because each such decision will have network effects, i.e. a major "collateral damage" of the "adoption bomb", the size of the damage which depends on the size of the company. Big companies outsource their things, and they might require subcontractors to have the same systems to ease up working, and so on. So if you cave in for worth of 5 for a large company, it will end up having an overall positive effect of 35, to put it in such overly simple terms.
I would rather see Slashdot stick to its principals and remove those Microsoft advertisements. Or, if that turns out to be impossible for them, to stop talking the talk if they're unwilling to walk the walk, because in this case in this case, money does stink.
I do not moderate.
Whatever, just don't dance again.
And some people believed him. There's one born every minute.
It's putting you off your food, it's keeping you awake at nights, you know it so just admit it.
They pay you millions of dollars in salary a year yet you cannot see what is in front of your face - Microsoft must adapt, must become more open, must embrace open standards or it will die.
Microsoft's a cold blooded dinosaur and the climate's changing - whatcha gonna do, Steve?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Re: "Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
This is great news for my company! If Microsoft loses, patched its browser to comply, and we have to rewrite or retest hundreds of Web pages, I have a promise from Steve Ballmer that they'll protect me, and the only possibly way is to cover my costs. Thank you Microsoft!!!
Something similar happened when a recent Microsoft security patch slightly changed the way that hidden fields worked and broke my Web forms. Does anyone have Steve's email address so that I can send in my expenses claim?
Man Apache servers are attacked all the time. Thing is, we don't have default.ida installed.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Not really... The W3C and TBL went in because EOLAS claims were a threat for the whole World Wide Web. And an closer look at the legal process day per day will show you TBL's public address was far from the kind of present Microsoft was waiting for at that time. Even it TBL expressed opinions that were against EOLAS, and then in favor of Microsoft, it came at a very bad time from a legal perspective...
Security is an optional extra in most software houses. Features and release dates drive most application development. And even if "security" is added to the product, it's usually done as an afterthought, to place a tick in a marketing box.
What's better: a secure system where even a badly written application can't compromise it, or a wide open system which relies on each application being secure? Do the risk analysis.
If we make the security of our systems dependant on every application being coded securely, we don't have security.
Wouldn't you by definition be covered under whistle blower statutes?
Never confuse volume with power.
Ok, so all this talk about patents and we've all been watching the SCO case.
Let's assume that in 2 years somebody comes out and they say "we have well documented proof that the linux kernel has infringed on our patents". when the matter is looked into the majority agree that yes, this companies IP was incorporated into the linux kernel...
Couldn't the maintainers of the kernels, and ultimatly the end users themselves protect themselves by simply removing the offending code and replacing it with non-patent-infringing code? Could this be used to protect the linux end users? Let's assume that the royalty and "past abuse" is ignored... I use the linxu kernel, it has code in it the offends person A, I remove the code and re-compile getting myself a "clean" kernel, am I know safe from A's litigation?
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The fact that MS advertises here and doesn't have one iota of influence of the content of the stories shows an incredible amount of integrity. But you are either too stupid to realize that fact or you're deliberately mischaracterizing it in order to prop up your flimsy argument (i.e., you're trolling).
I'm betting it's the latter.
No, no... he's not spreading FUD.
Just lies.
...if you look at microsoft's EULA, the indemnification is entirely for microsoft's benefit, indemnifying microsoft from its own users, and not granting customers any indemnification from anything at all.
i don't expect this will ever change.
FTA:
"On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows."
What a load of crap. The logic here is that Windows is more vulnerable due entirely to its popularity over Linux. I'd like to see Steve FUDFace explain this away:
According to Netcraft, Apache has a market share of 67.7%, while Microsoft servers (IIS) have a grand total of 21.21% of the market. Assuming some sort of proportionality relationship between market share and vulnerabilities/attacks, one would then expect Apache to be significantly more vulnerable/more often attacked than IIS. Right?
I don't know where to get the figures on number of exploits. Anyone? If Apache has been subject to more exploits than IIS, I'll eat my socks.
I wonder why tech reporters never bust out this counterexample. I'd love to see Ballmer's face if, in the middle of a press conference and upon making such a ridiculous assertion, a reporter were to stand up and exclaim, "I call bull****! Apache is over 3 times more popular than IIS, but has experienced only (some small percentage) of the number of attacks/exploits IIS has. Now what's your excuse?"
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
To me XML is like interpunction, the commas, dots and quotes. When you use it your writing, it might become more clear. But if you use other words, grammar or an entier different language, people still don't understand you.
Yes it is great if everyone writes a little bit more understandable but it is not going to 'solve Babylon'.
ok, so the market share has an effect. Thanks for agreeing. That's what ballmer was saying.
Also, how can you say apache has less security problems than IIS - IIS6 has had zero remote exploits. How does apache compare ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.