Slashdot Mirror
Google Reportedly Ditching Windows
Reader awyeah notes a Financial Times report that Google is ditching the use of Windows internally. Some blogs have picked up the FT piece but so far there isn't any other independent reporting of the claim, which is based on comments from anonymous Googlers. One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000. "The directive to move to other operating systems began in earnest in January, after Google's Chinese operations were hacked, and could effectively end the use of Windows at Google. ... 'We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,' said one Google employee. ... New hires are now given the option of using Apple's Mac computers or PCs running the Linux operating system. 'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.' ... Employees wanting to stay on Windows required clearance from 'quite senior levels,' one employee said. 'Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval,' said another employee."
'Linux is open source and we feel good about it,' said one employee. 'Microsoft we don't feel so good about.'
However, they feel pretty good about a closed-source implementation of an open source operating system on locked-in hardware? This sounds rather flamebaity and very light on facts.
I am curious if long term this will help security. Windows is the prime target for attackers, but I'm sure there are many 0-day exploits waiting in other operating systems. However, if administered right, Windows can be pretty secure.
Time will tell if this actually reduces compromises. I'm interested in seeing the results over the long term, just to be objective.
Probably the only reason Google used Windows to begin with was out of freedom of choice for their employees. Now that freedom of choice has turned into a liability, thanks to Microsoft's shoddy security record. No wonder they've finally decided to pull the plug.
The year of Linux on...
Never mind.
Yeah, they can use "the Linux." I could see Google ditching Windows as a primary OS, and maybe just running it as a VM for testing purposes, but any article that doesn't give a specific distro they're moving to rates about an 8.5 on my bullshit-o-meter. Further, it'd be a staggered roll-out, I'm sure. Nothing worse for an IT department than having 20k+ employees needing everything changed. Until there's an official announcement, I won't hold my breath.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
.....if Microsoft employees can ditch Google.
That will be the true test of Google's influence.
Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google.
Your friend,
Steve Ballmer
Security updates are rare because there are less exploits found. Do you complain because the pace of security updates for OpenBSD are far fewer than Windows?
Trolling is a art,
I recently left IBM, but while I was there, there was considerable effort to eliminate M$ products. Symphony was being pushed out over MS Office, and Apple netbooks were an available option in some areas. Obviously IBM has a love for Linux, and the Linux folk there are doing everything they can to make it perfectly acceptable, and usable, to use Linux internally. For all of my 4 years at IBM I used Debian and then Ubuntu on my work thinkpad (but I kept a XP partition for Visio).
I thought the next big thing to hit MS by Google actions was to make HTML5 the new YouTube installer(apart from the beta html5). This would represent the next most significant milestone over the inception of Google Search itself.
But this is up there. For Joe and Jane Public, google is hip, trustworthy, and useful everyday.
Perhaps more than any other effort, this may influence significantly the perception of school aged people and Operating Systems. When that tipping point comes, MS is in serious trouble.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Google makes its own mobile platform (Android) and is working on another for general computing (Google Web OS), so it only makes sense that they'd move away from a closed, proprietary platform like Windows. If there are any Mac OS X machines, I'd imagine those are being migrated to something else as well... though some people may get clearance for software like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro.
Even for testing/development, they can just run virtual machines.
http://www.tenjou.net/
I'm not as smart as most of you slashdotters, but this seems smart in that they can write their own security updates with Linux, as opposed to waiting for Microsoft to fix them.
Macs are only more susceptible to spearfishing because the monitor and body are one. Ram a spear through that and the whole machine is gone. With most windows machines, spearfishers go for the bright monitor but since the real guts of the machine is in a seperate body, it just requires replacing an ever-cheaper monitor.
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
Security updates are rare.
That's not an argument by itself. When's the last time you updated the walls of your house? If it ain't insecure, don't update it.
By the way, I'm no Apple fan. I just think your arguments are ridiculous.
--
I'm not certain why anyone would care. Ya know, besides the folks who are on the endless jihad against all things MS.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
All their developers working on non-Windows systems developing for a Windows driven world? Sounds like a poor choice to me. I understand they can VM, but they really need to be using real systems with real hardware...
On other news, RedHat announced it does not use Windows on its web servers and Apple announced that no employees use Windows Mobile phones.
Sorry if this is trollish, but Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it has no connection to reality. "Spearphishing" (God that's a stupid term) is an attack on the user, not the machine; it has nothing to do with the OS.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000.
Why yes, 20,000 is more than 10,000.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Except OS X isn't more secure. That's why it's always the first gone at pwn2own competitions.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Are they going to go the way of Go for all of their other development activities?
Moving to MAC and Linux that will eliminate security issues... oh wait?! MAC and Linux have security vunerabilties too? that can't be possible! hopefully i don't get banned from slashdot for suggesting that :)
personally i think it is easier to find vunerabilities in linux, as i can analyze source for bugs. but then once found it's kinda pointless, it's harder to find somebody using linux than it is to find the vunerability in the first place. maybe google will change that.
In any case now google is moving to a malware-proof secure desktop infrastructure they can lay off their security management team who didn't know how to configure Windows in an enterprise environment (despite it being clearly documented with step by step instructions on technet) including the plethora of freely available tools for auditing security configurations...
Employees wanting to stay on Windows required clearance from 'quite senior levels,' one employee said. 'Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO approval,' said another employee."
So what they'll do is get a new linux machine, and install Windows as a "guest" OS in a second partition. It's not that hard these days, and google is reputed to have lots of smart people.
Similarly, my wife telecommutes half time, and is required to run Windows XP at home. She talked to the nice folks at the Apple Store, who explained how to set her Mac up to run virtual OSs, and installed XP in a virtual partition. It works fine. She has since taught a few others at work to do the same, and they're all pretty happy with being able to run a real OS at home and only fire up the Windows that they all hate when they need to do some "work". She gave me her castoff Windows box, which is sitting in the corner running Debian linux and functioning as our firewall/gateway/server machine (and no doubt still listed as another sale to a satisfied Windows customer by MS's bean counters).
And all this is nothing at very new, as far as the computer industry is concerned. Back in 1980, I had a job at a company that mostly used their big IBM mainframe, while the engineers were playing around with unix on some of those funny new "minicomputers". I'd worked on both, so I had the fun of getting together with some Amdahl folks, who delivered their unix that ran on top of VM. We installed it (over a lot of dead IBMer bodies ;-), so that the engineering staff could run their stuff on the mainframe. After a while, the big 360 machine with VM was running at least 10 different OSs simultaneously, with each group using the OS that best fit their needs. Granted, there were lots of fanboys who thought their OS was the one that everyone else should be using, but we just ignored them and went about our jobs. Now it's 30 years later, and the "personal computer" part of the industry is discovering this fantastic new idea called "virtual" computing that lets you run more than one OS at the same time ...
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Windows can be secured. Group Policies disable many of the problems.
Google should hire a seasoned system administrator. Everybody knows to disable autoplay, usb keys, and lock down pr0n sites.
Group policies won't help with the pr0n sites but firewalls and web-proxies can. As much as I love Ubuntu and Slackware, I know my bread and butter gets paid for by Microsoft. So I make sure I know it's workings.
Flash should be disabled and banned. Even Internet Explorer can be secured. Firewalls and proxies can remove some of the threat but next you should ban the Internet mail. You mainly work eight hours so check your mail later.
Again those problem areas:
Pr0n
Flash
Usb Keys
Autoplay media
Training has a big impact on problems.
Also make sure you delete web browsers, email clients, and compilers from your servers.
Linux will end up with these same issues.
All things considered i think the majority of google employees are software developers or artsy UI experts. They don't seem to have the laundry list of sales/marketing dudes and execs who drive the company to use MS because they are incapable of learning to use anything else. Given that their entire server architecture is based on linux i doubt many software developers have a problem with using it as their desktop and the mac fits the artsy niche.
Last time i was in the boston google office (several years ago) i don't recall seeing a single windows machine anyway, they were mostly linux workstations and a few macs here and there. Its not like they really transitioned 20,000 employees, i would guess more like 1,000.
Now what happens to Google's quality control once they're unable to develop and test against their #1 target platform? (being collectively some version of IE on some version of Windows)
I believe this kind of 'THOU SHALT NOT' bullying by IT overlords tends to backfire somewhere down the line, particularly when there are techies and power users having their capabilities trimmed, particularly when those techies and power users are of the caliber that Google no doubt employs.
Sorry if this is trollish, but Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
Why do you think this?
From an overall security standpoint, you have:
No open ports by default.
Users who do not run as admin to run any software
Now consider targeted attacks as you mentioned. You start out with a more secure base that makes it harder to infect the system beyond a simple cleaning. Now if you are really concerned about security, what do you do?
Simple, you access all email and do all browsing through Chrome.
Why do you think Google would not do this? They could say "don't use Safari or Mail,app" and then they base all the use of the computers that spearphishing could come in on, in a platform they control and that they can update every day if they like. I'm sure they use gmail internally so it's not like that's even a switch.
They key is basing that all on a subsystem more resistant to attack to add to the layers of security. And the simple reality is, that currently there just are not a million exploits in the wild showing you how to infect a Mac like there are for Windows today. That alone makes it REALISTICALLY more secure, even if the platform still has vulnerabilities (which it obviously does since all software does).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Something definitely seems wrong with the story. Remember, the system that was compromised at Google was an XP system running IE6 and logged in as administrator. IOW, they made no serious attempt to secure it. From this they jump all the way to banning Windows?
For the sort of targeted attack that hit Google an off-the-shelf Mac system is at least as vulnerable as an off-the-shelf Windows system. Surely Google knows this.
(My take: http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2010/05/google_dropping_windows_for_in.php)
You have to remember, this isn't a general user that can rely on "OS is rare enough in the wild not to really be afraid of mass-reproducing viruses" which is the main reason why mac is considered "more secure" then windows.
Google's problems are with TARGETED malware, specifically tailored for them, not generic mass-reproducing stuff. For this, mac is arguably much worse choice then windows - it likely has similar total amount of critical flaws, being a large general-use PC OS, but amount of flaws that aren't patched/known to anyone but black market sellers is likely to be far higher then those on windows, as on windows, such flaws are profitable enough to exploit with large-scale infections, forcing microsoft to close them up on a regular basis as they come up. On mac OS, you can have similar flaws stay around for much longer time due to far smaller amount of general malware using these flaws. And to this date, the #1 way the flaws come out is through malware using them and getting snagged by honeypot machines on the net.
I would expect that when this rollout is complete, black market for mac OS zero-day flaws will get a whole lot more active then it is now, due to additional value of google likely having a mac machine in an important part of its infrastructure..
Therefore I find it rather strange that *strategic* choice landed of mac OS when switching from windows OS. Linux on the other hand makes much more sense, as google folks themselves can actually tailor the OS to their own needs, including simply sandboxing browsers and other software they deem "vulnerable". I can understand it as a kneejerk "anything but windows" reaction, but in the long run, it just doesn't make much sense.
That's because the hackers want a Mac, not some lame old Windows box.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Macs have been offered at Google all along - all that appears to have changed here is the elimination of Windows as an option.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
It's first gone at pwn2own competitions because it's what people want to own. Duh!
Every OS reaches an end point, not necessarily driven by only one thing.
Apple reached the end with the Apple II, Mac OS9, and moved to UNIX.
How is Microsoft going to break the legacy trail?
They are going to throw a chair through all the Windows, maybe?
How do you get rid of entrenched dispersed foe that attacks everything you do from inside your own OS?
How many tens of millions of user hours are wasted every year on WinPCs just with the security stuff, which still is NEVER enough?
My Guess: Never. They will Bleed Windows until competitors take their market share as users make the choice to abandon Windows.
It is truly a strange situation where the dominant player is also the most attacked and yet in the last 5 years nothing in security seems to change.
Number of in the wild FAQ ready, click and load, virus options for Mac OS X - 0
Ex NSA workers with the skill and time to hack a Mac for the WIN - a few
Number of in the wild malware options for Mac OS X that need a user to input their pw - 100's ?
http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
OS X has all the nice overflows, poor to no memory protection, problems with users ect that most consumer quality OS face.
Just after a set number of years nobody seems to have done much on the Mac in the wild.
Why? Lack of skill, lack of fame, hardware access per hacker, profit or the well coded protection of a Unix like OS?
Linux and Mac have a had a few non rushed, profit crazed, non time limited code reviews done to their basic building blocks over many years.
The only part MS sinks its time and cash into is security marketing.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That's funny. I thought they were smarter than that. I applied to Google and was rejected within minutes by their robot HR department. One of the reasons I applied was because I heard they were using Linux on all of their desktops. Meh!
This is the Financial Times, not the New York Post, Mac OS Rumors, or some random blog. This reminds me of when the Wall Street Journal was reporting that Apple was going to Intel, and Slashdot said, "Never going to happen." Of course, it did happen. Folks, when a major newspaper like the FT, WSJ, or New York Times reports something, it's probably true. Which makes this very interesting. I think the most interesting aspect will probably be that feature parity for things like Google Chrome will probably benefit--no longer will Chrome, or Google Toolbar, or Google Earth lag behind on Linux and Mac, because Google employees are using Linux or Macs, because now Google employees will be using Linux and Macs.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
less exploits are found because less people use it...
So Google employees don't use the client software they themselves produce, considering that a lot of it is still Windows-only?
I would be particularly curious about Google's own GTalk client...
If they locked Windows up securely, all their employees would change operating systems anyway.
You have to get pretty draconian to stop a targeted attack like the Chinese one.
I hear Googlers enjoy having a network cable connected to their computer.
Bender, is that you?!
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Tell me... what IDE runs on ChromeOS? Where's the Emacs for Android? When I see that, we'll talk. Until then, I don't think that Google's going to be able to migrate it's most vital employees (engineers) to "eat their own dogfood." Might be interesting to migrate support staff, but that's not where the heart of Google is.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Microsoft reportedly ditched internal use of Google in 2004.
What took you so long?
I'm not going to argue over which is more secure, because, unlike everyone else here, I don't claim to know.
I just know when someone is making absolutely no sense.
--
Are they going to develop Google Talk for linux?
Most engineers at Google don't even use Windows, it's only the non-tech side. The only engineers that use Windows are the ones that develop client-side things like Google Earth. Google probably has a lot of Windows licenses because there are a lot of non-tech employees, but 10.000? 20.000? Not even close to that many.
Only a minority of their systems were running Windows anyway. They were half Mac and had significant Linux use also. With how Unix-based they are, I was surprised they had any Windows at all.
It is simply unprofessional to use Windows in 2010. There is no excuse. The switching costs on Mac or Linux are tiny compared to what you save in maintenance and training costs later and gain in enhanced productivity. The key is you have to let the user choose which one they want and then you can leave them be to work. A Mac is better than Windows for some users, and Linux is better for the others. Neither needs any significant training if they choose the right one. For some users, an iPad is all they need. I know a couple of business people who switched from XP to iPad and won't go back. They add WebEx and iWork and a Bluetooth keyboard and they're good to go. Ten iPad users can share a single Mac mini with 10 accounts on it for backup and OS updates.
I think we need a kind of certification that says "Windows free" so consumers can avoid companies that use Windows. If you give your personal data to a company that uses Windows you have basically given it to a botnet. Even in the Fortune 500 who have I-T staff and security add-ons they all have botnet infestations. They shouldn't be waiting until they get a class action lawsuit to switch to professional technology.
Anything to get the attention off of the fact you have been traveling the country and capturing network traffic illegally?
Getting the attention off of the fact that you have the worst privacy record of any company in history?
This is Google whining and spreading flame bait. It has NOTHING to do with security.
Cry me a fekkin river Google.
Sorry if this is trollish, but Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks. Security updates are rare. Even if the OS model is better than Microsoft's, it's not a good choice.
Macs are security risks.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Probably windows in a VM I would assume.
OS X has all the nice overflows, poor to no memory protection, problems with users ect that most consumer quality OS face.
Actually not really. It's not as prone to buffer overruns as C++ or C would be, thanks to Objective-C used to write most apps.
Also with Snow Leopard, it has fairly good memory protection at this point.
And the users are more partitioned off, because there are no programs that demand you run as admin the way you find Windows programs that flake out... not to mention no open ports by default.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just after a set number of years nobody seems to have done much on the Mac in the wild. Why?
Because virus/malware writers do it for attention, to show what they can do. When faced with this situation you look at it and go "Do I aim for the Mac/Linux which will effect less then 1 out of every 10 computer users which will have little notice? Or do I aim for Windows that will effect 9 out of every 10 computer users?" If you want attention, you aim for the 9 out of every 10 users. Pwn2Own keeps showing that Macs aren't secure. The hackers don't aim for the Macs to win it since the $10,000 price money would buy a top of the line Mac where the one used isn't the top of the line model, the aim for the Mac because it's the easy target.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
I just spent most of my three day weekend cleaning up some "Antivirus Soft" http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/remove-antivirus-soft that took over my Windows 7 installation. My antivirus software didn't detect it, and I was in Chrome 5 just reading news sites when it took over. After hours of booting into safemode, and scanning every piece of media I had with 3 different antivirus software. I discovered I had 5 different trojans and 2 different keyloggers. This forced me to change 50+ passwords. I don't consider myself an average user who easily falls for downloading malicious stuff. I have been in IT since 1994. I got everything cleaned up, but was left wondering how the hell this happened? So I finally gave up and I am done with windows forever. I have been dual booting for a while, but now I have decided to go all the way. I am doing this in spite that I don't think Linux is as nice on the desktop. Its just not worth it if I am going to do everything I can to be a secure user, and still get infected. So I sympathize with Google on this one. Its so utterly frustrating, that I damn well want to swear off technology period. Una-bomber style.
It has always surprised me how few companies run linux on the desktop. I have personal converted about 30 in the last 10 years, all of which were mom and pop places with less than 100 seats. Google using Chrome would not surprise me. 90% of the office desktop users dont need more than a browser, office platform, and maybe e-mail assuming the company does not have a web based e-mail. I have heard many geeks say it is not ready for the desktop based on a list of reasons but the general office user has such a small software need that it fits nicely..
The last company I migrated over to linux was a rush job. They needed it done in a short window before the inspection of there licences. I set up 1 server with home directory shares in both NFS and Samba, ldap, dns, printers, and DHCP. There were 3 desktop configs, 1) for users that had with firefox, OpenOffice, and google chat. 2) for managers that had that plus planner, and Dia. 3) was for upper management that had everything from the first two plus a few specialized things that one VP seemed to think he needed like bit torrent and an RSS feed reader.
Everyone got the basics like a calculator, archive manager, Notepad, etc.
All in all they run smooth, easy access to pen drives etc. Windows Laptops could be pointed at the server and after logging in would get the users home directory allowing them to easily move data between there laptop and the desktop. The remote home directories and ldap logins meant that users could login at any desktop and do there work. All the desktops were the same for a given group so if one failed it was simply replaced and a new image installed (Totalling about 45 min install time) Top this off with no viruses, spy ware, or bot software and the desktops were locked down with only a couple of open ports. So far every company I have done this for has loved the setup.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it's considered bad form to install your own backdoor on a system that already has somebody else backdoor.
While your assessment of MS is wildly inaccurate for the better part of the last decade it seems like you fail to realize that a lot of issues with OS X don't even require exploits. SMB authentication uses plaintext by default instance despite the fact that it supports IPSec. Course with each release of OS X SMB support has gotten worse and worse. It still works, random disconnects and thumbnails placed all over my network but it still works.
Also, keep in mind that while Linux as a base can be secure it is often not deployed in a manner which is safe. Look at Apache, there is a high frequency of Apache breaches with website defacing due to poor passwords than there were IIS breaches albeit back in the days of IIS 4 things were pretty bad for Microsoft. With process isolation and a number of new security features IIS 7.5 is pretty rock solid however.
Back to OS X, the base OS is mostly secure but again, it's the applications that aren't. iTunes is a nightmare for security on both Windows and OS X. Sorry, Apple products aren't secure, look at the poor security implemented with the iPhone and the newest release of Ubuntu bypassing the pin. This doesn't happen with either my Android or Windows Mobile phones and I know it doesn't happen with Blackberry phones either.
The bottom line is that platforms are only as secure as management cares to make them. Security and productivity are often at odds in corporate America whereas consumer level products just outright don't care about security to make things "Just Work."
Google's approach makes a lot of sense, they'll have 20,000ish beta testers if they can get them all on ChromeOS. I'm not sure why they gave users the option of OS X given the hardcore lock-in that ensues. Seems like they are just making it harder on themselves. If they don't think ChromeOS is ready the go with a distro that will be similar so you can practice deployment skills and be ready when Chrome is. Instead they'll develop two different deployment strategies to handle both Apple and Linux. There are certainly products that do both but now you have two sets of patches to test and deploy.
Actually us googlers don't use traditional network cables anymore.
Ever since we've had the google cloud/brain interfaces installed we
My friend likes Macs. He got his grandpa to use a Mac. So his grandpa went to a website, that clearly looked like Windows, that told him he had a virus! So he tried to download and run the EXE, you know, to fix the virus. Yea, so anyway, his point was something about Windows being insecure.
Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
I assume Google is going to continue to produce software for Windows (Google Earth, Chrome, Google Talk etc) Windows is still the largest single operating system and not producing clients for it would mean losing a huge segment of the software market. So how exactly do they plan on developing, testing and releasing Windows software when there is not a single Windows system in their entire company? Do they plan to compile the binaries to win32 or win64 binaries and then release them completely untested and hope that they actually work as expected on their native platform?
I'm guessing in a Virtual System that has little to no internet access, just enough to test the programs and only running in a virtual session as long as needed so the main system can't be compromised.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
This old myth has never been true.
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less, which completely debunks the idea that being a market leader is the only reason Microsoft products are so shockingly vulnerable to attacks.
OS X is a GUI shell on a BSD layer on a Mach engine. Like any flavor of *nix, it was designed from the ground up to live safely in networked, multi-user environments.
It's an order of magnitude harder to hack than a Windows box, because of superior design. This has been demonstrated over and over for nearly a decade now, yet the MS fanboys continue with the silly drumbeat that Macs are only enjoying security via obscurity.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I wonder what Google uses for an accounting package?
Very hard to find accounting programs that do not require Windows OS.
That doesn't really make sense. We are just reaching a point in time when Google realizes that Apple is a bigger threat to their business then Windows ever was (Windows users have the option of installing alternate codecs, browser, toolbars, etc), and Windows has finally got its security act together, and NOW Google is going to switch from Windows to Mac?
Yeah, seriously. Not to mention testing all their web applications in IE6, IE7, IE8, ...
I suppose they could either run Windows in a VM, or bravely try and do some testing using Wine, but, uh, realistically, if they're continuing to develop software for Windows (and Windows is definitely the lead SKU for most of their desktop apps,) then they're going to need a whole bunch of Windows installs lying around. Maybe they're not counting virtualized copies of Windows?
It was not too long ago that the swap file on OS X was world readable.
Good thinking, but a Mac mini is even safer from spear attacks than a PC tower, especially if you rack-mount it, leaving only a 2" by 5" target made of hard metal.
Although if your machine is at all in danger of getting hit by a fisherman's spear, you probably have even bigger problems due to water damage.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
However, I kind of view this like an article about "Redhat reportedly ditching Windows".. they use Linux extensively, they should have done this a long time ago.
Meanwhile Redhat came out with this RHEV stuff, manager for their new virtualization platform... WTH.. you make an OS, and your management platform from your OS needs a copy of this foreign Windows junk? :)
Isn't it amazing that Google is ahead of Redhat.
Does this mean there will be a stable Linux version of Chrome coming out soon?
And how will Google test their products for Windows users then?
It's great to eat your own dog food and all, but aren't the majority of their customers Windows users? It seems like they would want their software to run well on Windows machines and "eat your own dog food" (if it moves them to ChromeOS or their internal Ubuntu distro) would be a bit counterproductive.
When I was doing some contract work at Sun, about two years ago, Sun was also eating their own dog food, SunRays everywhere. I wonder if Oracle could ditch windows internally?
I suppose Apple has already ditched windows.
I think somebody posted that IBM was going that way. I think it would be a good idea.
Redhat maybe?
Who else?
This is nonsense and probably spam being distributed by linux or mac fan boys. If you look at the hard facts, windows is NOT less secure at all. Those who do study know that Mac is far behind in security and linux depends on which flavour of the month you are running. This article has no substance whatsoever.
This makes me curious from a desktop administration perspective. Windows, for all its problems, has a great ecosystem of enterprise management tools for things like software installation and inventory, hardware inventory, health monitoring and more. All the stuff you need to effectively manage a large fleet of workstations with a few techs is available.
Most developers I know make poor system administrators, so it's hard to believe they take a completely laissez-faire approach to desktop management. Also, Google Docs seems like a really poor substitute for file shares on an enterprise NOS and directory service -- it's the "cloud" equivalent of a peer-to-peer LAN network when it comes to security structures.
This is very true.
Microsoft know that the end for them is coming. Once game developers move full time to Mac (and therefore Linux with SDL), Microsoft will die.
We're all looking forward to it.
I dunno, I think this whole "internet" thing is kind of overhyped, at this point. It's clearly peaked in the marketplace, and public opinion is already starting to turn against it. This time next year, your precious little Internet darling is gonna be so irrelevant that it'll make Vanilla Ice look like Joel Spolsky.
And yet the Pwn2Own competitions keep showing that Macs aren't hard to hack...
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
WOW. To me, that was the news, not that they are trying to wean off it. Funny that despite all the anti MS sentiments and Linux zealots, they could'nt do without Windows till now
"It is simply unprofessional to use Windows in 2010"
I have watched the dev shop where I work transform from a Windows/OSX/Linux shop to mostly OSX or linux running on macbooks. Having the good hardware + the powerful CLI makes using Windows running on some janky hardware seem like a joke.
Now, there are no more fusses when someone has to go into a conference room and demonstrate something on a projector. Plug the projector into the mac and it works. We can remotely pair program via Coda/Bonjour. We can all have full control over our PC without having to worry about always running as admin like you have to in Windows (because on a real OS you can use sudo for sensitive things). The things run forever (I am at about 40 days uptime) with no need to constantly futz around with the OS like you do with windows.
Working there is my first experience with a Mac, and it's nice. I get the power and flexibility I loved about Linux, but I get some of the niceties of a commercial OS (like playing media out of the box, polished UI). My next computer will be a Mac. Having to develop on Windows again would seem, well, as you put it: unprofessional.
blah blah blah
Macs are IMO a WORSE security risk than Windows when dealing with spearphishing and other forms of targeted attacks.
How could this be true? If the system is more secure, and the user is a constant, then it's no worse "when dealing with [...] targeted attacks".
I'd guess - and im not necessarily saying this is correct - that most Mac users have a false sense of security, the sort of 'Macs don't have viruses therefore Macs can't get viruses.'
It never ends well. Sun tried weaning themselves off IBM accounting hardware at one stage - I never read a press release saying they'd accomplished it.
A million personal assistants at Google will all turn frosty pretty quickly if you try to tear MS Word out of their white knuckled little fists.
I just checked a calculator and 20,000 IS more than 10,000. So what do you know? The claim in the article was correct. I hate when snooty people try to "correct" you when you are already correct.
Literally laughing my ass off.
Because it's true.
Perhaps it's easier to find a exploit for a Mac then Windows, there just aren't enough Mac's in the world to make developing one worthwhile outside a competition.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Bullshit. I do a great deal of C/C++, R, C# development on XP and very, very rarely need to run anything as administrator. I can't even remember the last time I had to runas Admin other than installing software.
I had something similar to that - and then an electrical engineer moonlighting as a developer wrote a dotnet crap inventory flat file single user "database". It wrote a file to the root of "C:" drive that told you who had the "database" open so that you could ring them and ask them to close it - thus many had to move back to WinXP with full Admin rights for a bit of incompentently written crapware.
That's the real problem - legacy crapware written from a single user MSDOS mindset that was obsolete before MSDOS existed.
And yet the Pwn2Own competitions keep showing that Macs aren't hard to hack...
I hope you don't have any actually important systems to administer if you depend on some contest to figure out the difference between which system is secure and which isn't. If so, I feel sorry for you employer. Think about this, son. For the entire lifetime of OSX being on the market, how many successful viruses have been released and propagated in the wild? I'll save you the suspense. The answer is zero. Is it because the marketshare is low? No, that myth was busted in the 90's. You see, Mac OS 8 and 9 had much less marketshare than OSX does, yet they had viruses and OSX does not. Why do you think that is, kid?
Asus developed the solution to this, a monitor that was impervious to crossbow bolts thanks to a layer of crystal sapphire: http://hothardware.com/Articles/ASUS-LS201-20-LCD-Monitor/
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Let them eat their own dog food. I wish Google the best of luck. I would love to see an open, nearly free version of all of the popular MS applications that make running a business easier. It would be great to have equivalents of Office, and Project and Exchange.
And it's always been true. In any case, OS X is always the first box to be pwned in recent hacking contests. That's because it's also true that OS X is shot full of holes you can put a tractor trailer through
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less
That is a myth, actually. Go ahead, open Secunia, compare Apache and IIS side by side (just be sure to check release dates to compare apples to apples...), and see the vulnerability count & severity for yourself. Apache has had more known exploits.
If security from targeted attacks was really Google's concern and not just some bullshit story they've cooked up, they'd have to ban OS X too, since Windows is now more secure than OS X is.
All security is through obscurity to some extent. Encryption, passwords etc.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Did you actually read the interviews with pwn2own winners, where they explain the technical reasons as to why it's harder to pwn a Vista box than it was to pwn an OS X box?
Ever think about the possibility that what Google is using internally is a custom spin? It would be logical that they would have a standard set of packages (no flame wars please) to support their business.
Since you are looking at 10K or more systems, no business in their right mind would use only the recommended packages from any one vendor. Add to that the support requirements and you are looking at a sophisticated configuration.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
That OS X is less secure than Windows these days. It'd be a step backwards.
if by "some contest" you mean a computer security contest where skilled systems analysts and security experts meet to discuss holes in computer security, then yes, I'd look to that contest as a pretty good indicator. Where would you look, kid?
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less, which completely debunks the idea that being a market leader is the only reason Microsoft products are so shockingly vulnerable to attacks.
[citation needed]
That's because the hackers want a Mac, not some lame old Windows box.
Sorry, but the contestants do not decide the order in which they attack the target computers. They are allocated timeslots randomly to each system. The Mac fails first because they haven't implemented some of the basic security precautions that the other operating systems have.
How is the above post a Troll?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If Google ditches Windows, it will pressure them to back and/or develop a viable alternative, by which I mean an operating system that will run ALMOST ALL the applications (or equivalents) that I use on Windows. Today, I'm stuck with Windows unless I want to give up some of the software that I use regularly. There are a lot of reasons that more Windows competition is good for PC users, and this may be a giant step in that direction.
No fair modding my comment as Troll.
My point is that when you're developing stuff for the web (as Google most definitely do), you really do need access to various browser platforms to test against.
The most important platforms to test against are Windows/IE because:
Being denied access to Windows is therefore a major PITA for anyone doing web development.
Ford recently announced that its company vehicles will no longer consist of Cadillacs, Civics, and Accords, citing "safety concerns".
And just off the wire, Microsoft has announced they will be dropping all of their Apple servers citing "problems with system reliability".
-David
As a network/systems administrator, Windows has little to no use left on the desktop any longer.
Compared to alternatives (and there are many!) common Windows machines on the desktops are costly and relatively expensive to maintain (in terms of manpower and infrastructure): you've got complex SUS arrangements (due to in-house app compatibility, usually), AD (same reasons, as well as work flow) and malware contentions - just for starters. Compare that to pointing all workstations at (say) a local Ubuntu LTS repository cache or updating from Apple. A lot can be said about Windows ACLs and its other underpinnings, but keeping things secure while allowing users to work is not one of them.
Additionally, the time and (domain) knowledge required to roll a minimalist Linux distro vs. a minimalist, locked-down Windows install (ie a 'thinclient image') is significantly different. With one, you've got a maintainable minimalist system that uses negligible resources to update; the other is pretty much a custom hack which will require significant efforts to update. I'll let you figure which is which.
The average user uses no more than 3 or 4 applications in a large environment, from what I've seen. There aren't many people who multi-role: they've got their own world and aside from a web browser, might touch one or two apps on a given day. For these apps, you've got things like Citrix Presentation Server or Windows Server 2008 remote applications. Centralize the common stuff when you can, so it's easier to maintain, update, etc.
As for Google, my experience has been (with the technical crowd) that those actually developing for Open Source type environments, having your development environment be similar to your production environment is a wee bit helpful. Aside form things like Picasa, I can't see much of a need for Windows; indeed, there's likely not even a preference for Windows at Google, short of the occasional mathematician. The yuppie post-graduate degreed geek seems to prefer Apple.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Apache is more popular than the Windows web server, yet gets hacked less, which completely debunks the idea that being a market leader is the only reason Microsoft products are so shockingly vulnerable to attacks.
Even it were true (and it isn't), it doesn't demonstrate anything of the sort.
OS X is a GUI shell on a BSD layer on a Mach engine. Like any flavor of *nix, it was designed from the ground up to live safely in networked, multi-user environments.
Just like Windows NT, you mean ?
It's an order of magnitude harder to hack than a Windows box, because of superior design. This has been demonstrated over and over for nearly a decade now, yet the MS fanboys continue with the silly drumbeat that Macs are only enjoying security via obscurity.
Please detail the "superior design". You might also want to comment on how OSX has consistently lost out to Windows (and everything else) in contests like pwn2own.
Google announced officially that they're in the process of dropping support for IE6. To me, this means "we're no longer going to consider IE6 in our products and will start notifying IE6 users to upgrade in our web properties as IE6 ceases to work".
Running Windows (for a development environment or otherwise), sandboxed from public networks completely (or even other internal networks, for that matter) makes a lot of sense to me. 802.1q ftw.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re 1 out of every 10 computer users: Macs per OS X got malware and the Windows 7 ect. beta got malware too.
User land size did not seem to matter much.
If OS X is so easy to hack, where is the irc chatter, forum posts, easy and detailed how to guides, uncomment as needed code posts and ready made apps?
Pwn2Own keeps showing that Macs aren't secure from an ex NSA worker.
The USA pumps out many CS, maths, cryptography students. Have they all found gainful employment, never been bored or tempted by OS X?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This doesn't happen with either my ... Windows Mobile phones :) .. yet :)
"“mobile version of the classic Counter-Strike“, the pirated title contains hidden code which has been silently ringing numbers in the Antarctic block, the Dominican Republic, Somalia and other premium locations"
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/06/01/0145232
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Most engineers at Google already use Goobunto or Mac as their work environment. Since it practices what it preaches, most things at Google are done in the clouds, including building and testing code. What does Google need Windows for? Office? Guess what, Google offers something called "Google Apps" and it'd look really bad if it uses a competitor's product. A lot of the tools that Google uses are web services, or are built in-house. Heck, I'd say half of the engineers at Google make products that are used by other Googlers and are never released to the general public.
A long time linux user, I sent in a resume to google HR in India and they
replied asking me to resend in MS Doc format!
They can spend money to fix security issues as they discover them, rather than having no options, monetary or otherwise, other than waiting it out until Microsoft gets off their collective asses and releases a patch.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Unix was not design'd from the ground up with security in mind
I'd look to that contest as a pretty good indicator. Where would you look, kid?
What a fucking stupid question. I'll answer it anyway since it's probably close to your bedtime. You look at the real world. The one where 10's or 100's of thousands of Windows computers get owned daily. The one where the botnets run in the countless millions. Where year after year and release after release MS has consistently failed to deliver a secure product. People are tired of getting lied to. Vista was supposed to be secure. It gets owned regularly. 7 is fairing little better. People are tired of it. And if it takes handing out fucking iPads to stop this ridiculous circus of Microslop then so be it.
BTW, this is the same world where OS X still has exactly zero of these issues. Get your head out of the sand boy and grow up.
Sketchup please. I'll even re-upload my models to the 3d warehouse if I can find them and it still exists.
I despise the use of Unix's good name to give credibility to Mac OS security arguments. Mac OS has goatse-sized gaping security holes borne of misuse of setuid executables, lack of ACLs, and poor memory protection. It doesn't matter how secure the lineage of Mac OS' guts are if they compromise the model. Mac OS is not on par with many Linux distros, Solaris, BSD, or many other Unix-like systems; rather, it is clearly a cut below.
+5 Informative? A lot of idiots on Slashdot today.
I dislike Windows as much as the next guy, but I routinely use "runas" to launch privileged processes on XP from my standard user account. It's much clunkier than sudo, but works fine.
And if you're a Java developer, you rarely even need to do that. Both NetBeans and Eclipse run fine as a standard user.
They always catch you unprepared. You'll get over it - or you won't. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
When's the last time you updated the walls of your house?
Funny you should ask that...
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Perhaps it's easier to find a exploit for a Mac then Windows, there just aren't enough Mac's in the world to make developing one worthwhile outside a competition.
Right. Because tens of millions of potential targets just aren't enough.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
But there are some web-based apps like Zimbra and Gmail which are pretty darned good and that's certainly the direction my organization is looking at as we expand.
There are many businesses with security requirements that make online apps run by a vendor externally a non-starter.
There are plenty of good mail clients but few good calendar programs. Outlook fills that void.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"We're switching off Windows to Linux! We'll never be hax0r3d again!!!" "Hi fives!!!"
No one will ever try to hack Google again, now that they're fully protected by the holy blessed power of Linux! Forget actually securing your network or locking things down...all you have to do is change your operating system...it's just like changing your socks or underwear! You'll never smell bad again!
But seriously. Google hires smart people. I've known some of those guys. Why do they automatically think that throwing out their operating system is going to save them from the scary Red Chinese hackers? It's not. If someone wants your information, they'll find a way, and you can bet the Chinese can hack Linux or MacOS just as fast as they can hack Windows. These guys should know that, it's not even expert advice, it's common sense. If you take the time to secure your servers and enforce data encryption, use a secure VPN tunnel once in awhile, you're going to be as well off with any other OS provided your employees aren't merrily installing spyware and exposing their credentials and accounts. And there are ways to lock that down too if you're serious with any operating system. Ditching Windows is no silver bullet here because there is NO silver bullet concerning network security. Google's people are smart enough to know that, too.
So I'm betting this is more of an excuse to ditch Microsoft and enforce a corporate policy that will most likely wind up with Google mandating that their employees use their secret new Chrome OS instead. It helps because it publically sends a message that Microsoft is "bad" in the process...and considering that Windows is still the primary choice for business out there, it's good for Chrome OS.
You use an iPad in the music studio? I wasn't aware that there were apps that made it useful there.
I think you meant the Mac, which I have seen used extensively in studios due to the high quality of Logic Pro, and I've even seen iPods used as pocket drives, but the form factor of an iPad makes me suspect you got something wrong.
Using an iPad in a music studio feels like mixing paint with a phillips screwdriver: sure, you can do it, but it's not the intended use of the tool and there are other solutions that are much better.
I've got a local virtual XP instance (mostly for dealing with Exchange brokenness, which I haven't had to do for weeks, so I haven't even fired it up). My experience is that rdesktop to a remote host (usually a terminal server) gives better performance, and is useful for poorly-written, nonstandard enterprise/corporate applications (fortunately there are fewer of these with time in my experience). A server pool would allow for occasional access as needed, and Google could presumably work out licensing for CALs. Better than pigging out RAM and disk with a virtual instance. x86/AMD64 based virtual computing still hasn't hit the efficiencies the IBM 360 series boxes had, and GUI shells impose slightly more demanding resource/feedback requirements than something as elegant (coff) as TSO/ISPF.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Feel free to provide some kind of evidence for any of those huge assumptions whenever you can.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Very few Windows programs require admin privs to run after install. There are no open ports by default on Windows Vista +
Also, the certificates make it easier to know if anything wanting elevation is likely to be safe not; Windows will advise as appropriate.
Finally, Mac OS doesn't have a full ASLR implementation; and their NX implementation only works on 64 applications.
http://www.laconicsecurity.com/aslr-leopard-versus-vista.html
throw new NoSignatureException();
The one sticking point I've seen at any organization using Exchange (not "Outlook") is the integration between calendar and email. And yeah, you've got to use Outlook (or Entourage) to benefit from that.
Google's now attacked that with GMail + Google Calendar. One large company I know well is starting its transition this summer. And where most big IT changes are greeted with groans, this one took wild applause at an all-hands meeting. Calendars are already segregated (two different staff directories due to mergers), 150MB mailbox size limit, frequent mailbox f-ups, and the outrage and insult which is OWA.
News shows there are others making the step as well, particularly among educational institutions and younger (growth) companies. Yes, there's some back-and-forth, especially as Microsoft sweetens the pot (read: reduces its operating margins) to buy back business.
As someone who's eagerly waited for over a decade's worth of "The Year of Linux on the Desktop" articles has become mildly aware, shifting mass computing markets takes time and an overwhelmingly compelling argument. The tide for Microsoft has been going one way for over a decade, though, and as its key corporate strength -- monopoly control over the enterprise desktop suite -- is eroded, the chips will fall faster. And that strength is falling in several places: the corporation, the desktop, and the suite.
My only hope is that what replaces it will be a more diverse computing ecosystem. That might just happen.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Actually, since all platforms are hacked at the conference, it shows that the Mac is the biggest prize.
More to the point, the weakness exploited was in Safari (in all but one case) and required user intervention in all cases. For Windows, systems were compromised in ways requiring no user interaction.
So it does actually show that a Mac is harder to "pwn". It's not like the time of pwn2own means anything--the hackers have all prepared their exploits and practiced them for months in advance.
We'll see how long it takes Google to start frantically doing the back-stroke.
I don't think we will see Google doing a backstroke anytime soon. When you think about how badly Google was compromised, and what someone could do to them if they are every compromised like that again. What are their options.
1. Find a way to live without Microsoft and all the software that will ONLY run in a MS Environment.
or
2. Give to it, take the easy way, run MS software and just expect that you can survive any system breach no matter how badly you are compromised.
If it takes 5 years and a billion dollars, I am sure it will be worth it to Google in the long run. Also note. Google is not "talking" about switching. They are not trying to get a better price from Microsoft. They just quietly started to mandate that MS is not an option any longer.
vi +
On Slashdot, you can say things like "Ever heard of the Jazzmutant Lemur?" and everyone will either claim (honestly or not) to be familiar with it, or scramble to find out about it, since clearly it must be something important to know about, or our fellow Slashdotter wouldn't be mentioning it here.
The same question might not go over as well if asked of a helpful policeman, a greengrocer, a veterinarian, a priest, a schoolteacher, the school counselor the teacher refers you to, or the helpful men who the counselor calls to have you fitted for a new sweater with arms that fasten in the back.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
"I'm sorry, but the credibility of you as a computer user just went right out the window." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, @11:01PM (#32413948)
You are truly "sorry". I state that, because IF you could read properly, you'd note those are the words of another, not myself, quoted... that's all.
APK
P.S.=> Learn to read please, because your credibility in your literacy alone went out the window... apk
No, NT mixed the GUI and the Kernel.
provided there's a reasonable JRE (running on Dalvik might take a while). Emacs ought to be a recompile away.
The same way other companies do it...
We have no production windows systems, no windows systems which are used for day to day tasks...
What we do have, is a small handful of windows systems (mostly virtual machines) sitting in an isolated test network which are used purely for testing purposes and windows-specific development.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Geesh guys if you think MSFT rips you off with software prices you should see what Google charges for advertising compared to bing! Bing is much cheaper to advertise on
There are reasons for this: you don't want to tell to your competitors about a competitive advantage, and also you don't want to alert crackers looking for a famous scalp to have under their belt.
I know of Linux Desktop installations of 500 workstations, and is not a geeky shop, it is a well established firm in the Financial sector.
Like those there are many.
"I call BS. You can tell me that Windows 7 is more secure and has fewer venerabilities than the Linux kernel." - by fwarren (579763) on Tuesday June 01, @06:24AM (#32416342) Homepage
You are free to argue with my source then, in SECUNIA.COM, ok? I didn't tell you anything "on my own" ONLY, I merely cited facts + figures from a known & respected website that keeps statistics on security vulnerabilities on various Operating Systems and softwares also.
(Secunia provided the stats, facts & figures I used regarding the security vulnerabilities present in both Linux 2.6.x &/or Windows 7, so again - please take it up with them.)
SECUNIA happens to be one of the BETTER & more reputable sites that collect & report on this kind of information for many wares and OS' too though.
----
"But when you add it all up, you have to decide which one you can turn your workplace users loose and and keep secured." - by fwarren (579763) on Tuesday June 01, @06:24AM (#32416342) Homepage
You are also free to argue with the sources I cited via quotes of users' experiences after security hardening their Windows machines, and those of their customers, families, and friends as well (and their experiences were and have been years of uptime as well as far less malware infestations (and those are only a TINY SAMPLE of what folks wrote in my guide's after they applied them too no less)).
APK
P.S.=> The user THRONKA @ xtremepccentral.com posts there regularly, you can contact he there via "PM" (private messaging) & he responds usually fairly quickly.
Kings Joker's email is walburgerj@yahoo.com, and he takes emails in regards to that quote of his I use (preceed the email subject-line with "APK" so he knows this is about his findings and experiences using a HOSTS file alone, because he is testing their effectiveness ONLY on an unpatched Windows 2000 setup no less).
As is, he gets great results by only using a HOSTS file that blocks KNOWN BAD SITES &/or SERVERS which he gets from me via email, daily (and yes, I update it daily, from sources that are reliable & reputable, and my guide lists them at its termination too)!
Now - his "main problem" is usually using javascript &/or downloading executables from sites he doesn't know well, and he will tell you that much even!
(Hence, his comment of "if you follow apk's advice" in full, which he does not, because of this test he is doing now and for the last 1/2 yr. now on HOSTS file use alone on an unpatched older no longer supported Microsoft Windows NT-based OS)
He has done well only using a SINGLE PART of what I noted in my 12 points security guide for Windows NT-based OS users (of modern variety in 2000/XP/Server 2003, and yes, VISTA/Windows 7/Windows Server 2008))).
He isn't using the "full gamut" of "layered security" concepts my security guide entails & extolls, but he's doing FAR BETTER THAN HE USED TO just by using a custom HOSTS file only... apk
I'm pretty sure they aren't and cannot ban windows. How can you expect to develop windows software without windows?
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Linux is and always has been a very attractive target for hackers... Years ago, linux/unix is all people would target because the only windows machines online were typically end user systems connected to dialup lines, while servers connected to faster lines were typically unix of some kind.
Also unix has a usable CLI by default, whereas the windows cli is pretty poor... When you're breaking into a machine on the internet, and are relaying your connection through machines in multiple countries in order to cover your tracks, cli is really the only option as any form of gui would be unusably slow by this point.
However, the days of redhat 4 with buggy ftpd, imap, pop3, bind etc services running as root by default are gone... Modern unix systems are much harder to attack, run a lot less by default, and what does run has less privileges. People these days target buggy webapps and insecure passwords in order to get into unix machines.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Windows has a reasonably well designed (VMS based) kernel, with a lot of legacy cruft on top of it... Most of this stuff MS have added on top of the original vms-derived kernel have significantly weakened the intended security model... things like the networking protocols (google for the windows auth model is broken), the password hashing algorithms, the presence of multiple versions of various apis...
Some of the security features are implemented in userland and are trivial to bypass, one example being the function to "disable" the command prompt.
It also has an extremely complicated security model which is very much overkill for the vast majority of cases, and results in people simply ignoring it.
Not to mention all the additional complexity designed to work around the design flaws without breaking compatibility, like the transparent path/registry redirection thats designed to allow poorly written apps to think theyre able to write to arbitrary locations without actually letting them do so... The first principle of security is KEEP IT SIMPLE... The more complicated you make things, the harder it is to keep it secure. On the other hand, windows has always been extremely complex, and this seems to be by design to make it difficult to clone - after all, ms were not at all happy that dos got cloned.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
you win whatever computer you hack. Would you even bother trying to win a wintel box? I wouldn't.
BTW, Macs aren't really obscure anymore. I mean, Apple's market cap _is_ more that microsoft's after all.
so how come google earth still doesnt work right with ubuntu. And don't give me that zulu sudo crap. I've never been able to just download Earth from google or repositories and have it work straight out of the box on the last four versions of ubuntu.
You're right: google should give all employees an iPad.
Yes... :)
Brand New :)
http://www.extreme.ba
The point's already been made that Google probably uses Enterprise level software but to the statement that windows dominates (pardon my paraphrasing) here's a useful list. Even in the Free/OSS category there are a number of mid-market offerings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software#Free_and_open_source_software
note that this wiki entry needs some eyes so it seemed worthwhile posting OT. ;)
Please. The *NIX world isnt much better in terms of security. They hacked YOU Google, not Windows. You could hid behind a steel curtain and they'd still get you. Good luck with that.
The alleged supplier wasn't Nigeria, but Niger, a landlocked country to the North.
In the last few years, we've replaced every single Windows laptop or desktop with a Mac. We still run windows in the server room, and terminal servers for the apps that won't run on Mac OS (Quickbooks enterprise and our student information system).
Office runs just fine on Mac OS. Yes, entourage is a crappy replacement for Outlook, but it mostly does the job. The next version of Office for Mac OS is rumored to have a feature complete version of Outlook to replace entourage.
We still take security precautions like running real-time anti-virus, using good firewalls, VLANS, and web-content filtering.
Macs can replace Windows in many common office scenarios. Terminal server can also help bridge the application gap between Windows and Mac OS.
-ted
and thus google starts fucking with your head. The perfect workplace becomes a place of terror.
This is Google we're talking about here.
If they're forcing googles to ditch Outlook, Excel, etc and all the other crutches they've been using for business software, what do you think these guys are going to do?
THEY'RE GOING TO PROGRAM NEW SOLUTIONS! Come on, this is Google, a major software house, that you know, has the objective of creating a competitive online alternative to Office?
This move was probably done to force programmers and office staff to get used to Office alternatives and eventually come up with their own solutions. Foster creativity through adversity.
This would be a stupid move for say, a banking firm, but this is a major software engineering house. Sure , they'll go weeks, months, maybe even years running inefficient office software, but eventually one of their engineers will get sick of it and come up with something that works.
All security is through obscurity to some extent. Encryption, passwords etc.
Right, but in that case the "obscurity" is something the attacker can't discover simply by inspecting the publicly available software that you use.
The Mac's default configuration was hacked. That was day 1.
Windows wasn't hacked until they added flash to the install..
"You missed the point. It was a First Post." - by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday June 01, @12:29AM (#32414582)
I get the feeling you're trying to "berate" the fact it was Kings Joker's only post on that forums. If that IS the case here? Well, then write Kings Joker yourself via email, IF you wish, as to what it is he is doing and what his results were and still are:
walburgerj@yahoo.com
He'll "fill you in" as to what he is testing (the efficacy of a custom HOSTS file alone, vs. applying ALL of the 12++ points my layered security based guide for securing modern Windows NT-based OS (2000/XP/Server 2003 & yes, even VISTA/Windows7/Server 2003)).
Preceed your subject with "APK" and he'll know what this is about. I also told this to SanityInAnarchy when I replied to he also in fact, thus, you pretty much can deduce I have nothing to hide here and everything to gain by this really.
Also, I have his permission to use him as a quoted testimonial to the effectiveness of that guide, and, especially as regards custom HOSTS files usage, so... feel free, absolutely, to write he & ask he questions about the testimonial of his I quoted in fact, please.
(Which, in & of itself, HOSTS files are not only a HUGE speed gainer online, but they're also a simple but effective security boost also (that others 'of note' such as "Spybot Search & Destroy" also use, besides myself, alongside places like mvps.org too & many 1000's of others also) in that it works on one of the simplest principles in the world, of "You can't get burnt IF you can't go into the malware kitchen", & my HOSTS file I send him everyday, after updating it from reputable & reliable sources, everyday? Works & is current)!
It works on that very same principle of "you can't get burned if you don't go into the kitchen/fire", & he's actually testing it out for me for years now, and is "living proof" it is effective...
(Fact is, Kings Joker's been my "Lab Rat #1" in fact, because he used to get 200++ malware infestations a month, & also because he's NOT as "proficient" with PC's as say, my other user testimonial quoted in THRONKA (from xtremepccentral.com) is, because he is a pretty fairly skilled tech & network admin, professionally!)
APK
P.S.=> Additionally: Yes - He only posted once, this is true, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't understand how that is of relevance here... apk
Or you trying to be funny, or are you just hypnotized by the M$ eye-candy?
A few things you might try sometime in the future:
GMail
Zimbra
Evolution
GroupWise 8
Notes
Regards;
Actually that does not proof anything. If you know 100 security flaws (even just in theory) of Windows 7 and you execute such in front of TV in 5 min. Will it proof that Windows 7 is shit? No, it only proofs that YOU KNOW HOW TO USE KNOWN HOLES!
If I pick my wanted cracker and I give Mac OS X in front of them, I could bet they could not hack it in a week. If I pick a person like asshole who runs security consulting firm what is focused to Mac OS X security, of course he/she can brake Mac OS X faster than I can type this message. BECAUSE THEY KNOW ALREADY THE HOLES!
Linux was dropped form the competition because it was just too difficult to hack. Not even the asshole who you are referring winning those competitions can not brake them. Because HE DOES NOT KNOW A SHIT.
If Mac OS X is weak, then you should be able to crack it in a hour, when it is taked out of the box.
With Windows, that is easy. The first user is by default Admin. UAC does not protect against malware (7/10 goes trought without warnings). And you can get existing malware code from web in few minutes and use it to crack Windows 7 security.
They used to do administration on Vaxes and development on UNIC workstations until PCs hardware and software got good enough to do that all on PCs. This switch happened in the mid-1990s.
It's certainly not all that hard to disable the administrative shares, but it's alot harder than it should be, totally undocumented until it became a problem, and the pertinent point should be why the hell were they on in the first place???
Google's apps all target a web platform. As long as the browsers are sufficiently standards compliant, testing on windows could be limited to QA and to the browser developers.
*sigh* back to work...
not sure whom exactly this shill is 'turfing for, but pretty obviously astroturfing. By ignoring all of the nuances of the 'statistics' used, and pimping guides to follow steps to do what should be done by default, our friend here has tipped his hand. Poor attempt, want another try?
This is incorrect. Unix was not designed for security from the ground up. Unix predates the internet by decades. In the 70's and 80's, networking your unix machine meant networking it to other unix machines in the same building. Those other machines were used by people you knew and worked with. If they did something antisocial on the network, you could go knock on their door and politely ask them to stop. For this reason, unix has historically had very poor network security -- by modern standards. For instance, people were still using rlogin well into the 90's -- sending their passwords unencrypted over the network. There was a difference between how unix historically handled network security and how windows handled it, but it was definitely not a matter of ground-up design. Unix adapted more quickly and successfully to the internet. Also, a lot of the security problems on Windows are related to attempts to make it easy to use, whereas unix was never originally aimed at people who had minimal computing skills.
Find free books.
"turned into a liability"
Windows has always been a shoddy liability. Unfortunately MS has an incredibly good marketing team, that can literally sell fridges to Eskimos.
Really???!??
How much does Microsoft Fridge 2010 cost, and what's it's energy efficiency rating? :)
Agreed, how many Apache servers were 'hacked' due to being poorly set up or having insecure password.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
Google Reportedly Ditching Bing. "It's a security measure. We don't feel secure promoting a competitors product."
Eating one's dogfood... If there is one definitely failed management policy, its "eating one's own dogfood". I've worked in various companies that have ballyhooed how wonderful their product was and harped that they used it internally. If they just realized it was the failed policy of Russia, then they probably wouldn't do it.
What it has meant where I've seen it done (like Google), is that management _mandates_ the use of their own products, which is a whole lot different that the employees naturally selecting the most useful tools. I think it should really be called "going Ostrich", because what you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand, your product will always seem best to you if you don't try anything else!
Please stamp out this FAILED POLICY!!! Its monopolistic, non-competitive, anti-american and outright foolish!
... and *laptops* and desktops with windows 7 are still being offered as an option. Posting this anonymously for obvious reasons of course.
While the risks that you list are all true, GPO is not the ultimate solution you make it out to be. It's not all that difficult to completely circumvent domain level policies. It keeps the honest folks honest, but you still need monitoring, change management, network level security, and strict HR policies to really enforce security. And you're right; this isn't just an MS thing either. As much as I like linux it also needs the same sort of attention to keep workstations secure.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
The "eat your own dog food" concept worked just fine. I worked at Sun in the 90s and as far as I can remember I never used a spreadsheet there. We arranged our data in plain text files and sorted it with shell scripts, and we did this walking uphill in the snow both ways, sonny.
Seriously, there were word processing, Visio, and powerpoint equivalents in Solaris, and for apps that just had to run in a Windows environment, an emulation environment (name?) that sort-of worked, and I think a few people that really really needed them had Macs.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
"not sure whom exactly this shill is 'turfing for, but pretty obviously astroturfing. By ignoring all of the nuances of the 'statistics' used, and pimping guides to follow steps to do what should be done by default, our friend here has tipped his hand. Poor attempt, want another try?" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @10:50AM (#32418432)
See subject-line above, because if this "reply" of yours (minus any TECHNICAL data mind you) is "the best you've got"? Then, I am clearly doing OK here vs. my "naysayers", like yourself.
APK
P.S.=> Now, I could turn what you said around, and simply state that this kind of accusation you've sent my way, minus ANY technical detail on YOUR PART, is truly "the best the 'Pro-*NIX' crowd around here has (well, other than SanityInAnarchy, he did a decent enough job of things & HE ACTUALLY AGREES WITH ME IN THE END THAT ANY OF THESE OPERATING SYSTEMS CAN BE SECURED BETTER THAN THEY ARE, BY DEFAULT!).
Anyhow - I am still awaiting SanityInAnarchy's further reply to my return reply to he...
However, he's an exception, I'll give him that & I won't "lump him in" with "the likes of you" (especially those like yourself that don't have anything pertinent to say on the technical aspects of this)
SanityInAnarchy @ least (see his reply) usually gives me a good 'run for my money' & keeps it technical typically in these types of tech debates @ least (again, vs. those like yourself)... apk
i like linux but it doesn't run all windows based apps. lets face it, you can't give up everything on windows today, there just isn't support for all apps on linux yet. until wine is made to run better windows apps, many people just cant leave. take sap for instance. there are just too many office tools unavailable.
"Why don't you sign up for a user account?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, @02:44AM (#32415402)
See subject-line above, because apparently? I can ask the same of yourself! Now, you want to know WHY I won't sign up here as an "almighty wannabe elite that's easily tracked for "trolling" 'registered user'" on this website? Simple:
"I can tell you post here a lot simply because all your posts are in the same style." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, @02:44AM (#32415402)
That's it, in a nutshell: See, first of all - I have my "regular fanclub" of what I call the 'Pro-*NIX' crowd here, as well as Firefox fanboys too! They easily recognize my posts, & tend to 'down mod' without any solid technical reasons... proof is here in fact, this week (for only 1 of many this type of thing has happened to me here about that were just like it) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1669064&cid=32389776
Heck, it's happening again today (& only SanityInAnarchy gave me a decent tech debate of all my naysayers here thusfar, but at least HE I can respect, he makes a few points, I countered them in my reply to he & I am awaiting his responses in kind... he keeps it on a "gentlemanly level" (usually), & technical, where it ought to be!) in my post being FIRST UPMODDED to +1 INSIGHTFUL, & later, clearly, someone downmodded it -1 (but the INSIGHTFUL PART still remains, showing another "hit & run" downmodder doing his 'thing' to my posts as they typically do, without justifying it technically!)
Nope, I cannot respect people that "hit & run" downmod... especially without giving reasons why. It clearly shows they are just part of my "downmodding troll fanclub" I have here which I noted above is all.
(Why they do it, I have NO idea really... it's like they cannot stand being "wrong" & sometimes, being "wrong" only HELPS YOU, in that it shows where you need to 'shore up your skills')
Still... I feel they do this, because they are fanboys of FF or Linux, & specifically on webbrowsers, it's because I like Opera over FF is why, Opera's FASTER on all accounts, & typically has less security vulnerabilities present than FF does - it did weeks ago in the GERMANY WARNS AGAINST FIREFOX, and it still does currently as of today also!)
Both are good webbrowsers, but FF's usually the one that shows more "security vulnerabilities" (in fact, see SECUNIA.COM on that account today when you are able & you'll see what I mean here too).
Secondly, whenever I've "gotten the better of" naysayers I have here, on technical issues?
Heck, I've had them 'threaten me' that if I ever registered here, they'd "mod all my posts to oblivion" (not that THAT would matter to me, I don't "live for moderation points", lol, & I can actually put up around 120 of them in seconds where I was modded up +1-+5 easily (which even a +1 is TOUGH for us AC's to get, because /. lists our posts as "hidden posts" if javascript is active in the webbrowser used)).
Lastly (& this one takes the cake)??
I've also had the moderators here close threads where I was getting the best of a user (clone53421) on Germany's warning against FireFox -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1640368&cid=32111672 !
(The mods here, sopssa specifically in fact, saw me putting up the DOM error that struck in FireFox 3.6.2, & it was an early issuance to fix the 3.6 bug in FF no less, & that too turned up yet another bug (DOM problem) in Firefox, forcing 3.6.3 to issue from Mozilla)...
So, when I tried to post that fact? The 3rd security error in 1 week for FF, where Opera had ZERO?? Heh - The mods (sopssa & red flaya here specifically) closed the thread 2 WEEKS EARLIER THAN IS USUAL in fact, because I
Still in beta, I see...
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
All security is through obscurity to some extent. Encryption, passwords etc.
No, passwords and keys are *secrets*. If you embed the secret with the "secured" payload, then you are doing security through obscurity -- e.g. DRM. However, if the secret is not part of (or transmitted with) the payload, then the payload is truly secured by the secret.
Three main reasons I use Windows:
1. Familiarity (I've been using it since I was a kid)
2. Video Games
3. It works. (I tried using Linux a few years ago but had difficulties in getting even small things to work.)
Now I'm halfway through college and will be using Ubuntu for research I am doing with a professor.
Favorite comment from http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/04/18/1557220/Why-Linux-Is-Not-Attracting-Young-Developers
Chrome OS. eat your own dog food : ))))
This attitude works if you are some joe blow user worried about being part of some zombie attack, but fails miserably if you are some high value target such as a bank or a military. You can't rely on reports of known malware because a real attack isn't going to be "known". OS X does have these issues. It is far from perfect and when you have a web browser that allows drive by downloads for two years, I really have a hard time trusting them with the security of the rest of the system.
How is objective-c any less prone to a buffer overrun than C++?
You do R development? Who are you? Are you available for contract work? Would you be interested in converting some R code to C?
Finding a developer than knows R well enough to be useful is like pulling teeth.
Using all caps in such an arbitrary manner doesn't add emphasis to your post, it just makes you look unprofessional, and as if you can only get your point across by yelling louder than the other guy. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but using it with such force blunts the nib :)
Flaming respondants also makes you look idiotic. Sorry but there it is.
If you're so sure of your position, how about losing the anonymity.
old troll astroturf copypasta is copypasta is copypasta
This guy "gig" is an astroturf, be warned
How is objective-c any less prone to a buffer overrun than C++?
Because more strings are likely to be C null-terminated strings in a C++ program, where pretty much every string in an Objective-C application will be an NSString.
Yes I know C++ also has string collection classes, they just aren't used with as much consistency.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"you have to count XP vulnerabilities as current." - by Just Some Guy (3352) on Tuesday June 01, @12:18PM (#32419748) Homepage
Windows XP support's is DONE/OVER WITH (by Microsoft), see here:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173
(That is WHY I kept this comparison STRICTLY to Windows modern builds, vs. the most modern kernel build of LINUX, in 2.6x, ONLY!).
"And don't forget that you can still buy XP machines new off-the-shelf today" - by Just Some Guy (3352) on Tuesday June 01, @12:18PM (#32419748) Homepage
Where is this? Does Microsoft condone this I wonder, especially considering they no longer support XP?? I see that support for the current builds and service pack level for XP is done, again, as of 04/2009!
That is why we are comparing the "latest/greatest" from Microsoft (Windows VISTA/Windows 7/Windows Server 2008) & the Linux camp's 'latest offering' & only PARTIAL @ that, because no OS shell is even considered, and LINUX's kernel shows more bugs than Windows 7 in its ENTIRETY no less as well!
(I used the latest from LINUX, in kernel 2.6x... again, that's NOT counting their OS shells like KDE or Gnome even (whereas you ARE on Windows), or their Window manager systems either, which would most likely COMPOUND what the Linux kernel's showing in version 2.6x even moreso, which is more than Windows 7 does in its whole build being considered here...).
APK
P.S.=> Additionally, based on what you stated? Then, by YOUR reasoning? I can include all older models of LINUX too & their vulnerabilities in kernel's below 2.6x (as well as their GUI shell (KDE or Gnome usually), & tty terminal shells like BA$H too)... apk
"Using all caps in such an arbitrary manner doesn't add emphasis to your post, it just makes you look unprofessional, and as if you can only get your point across by yelling louder than the other guy. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but using it with such force blunts the nib :)" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @01:11PM (#32420512)
First of all: See subject above, & realize this - You're clearly OFF TOPIC, period, as there is no "english grammar & spell check or writing style" forums section here that I know of (care to show me there IS one?).
Secondly: Are you the "master of posting online"?? Is there some "rules" that says I cannot write things here in a certain way (though it may "offend YOUR 'sensibilities'", oh well!)???
(You may be a 'sheep' & "follow the crowd", but it doesn't mean we all do, or that the 'crowd' is correct either!)
----
"Flaming respondants also makes you look idiotic. Sorry but there it is." - by fireylord (1074571)
on Tuesday June 01, @01:11PM (#32420512)
Flaming? Look, I use CAPS as EMPHASIS... not shouting, first of all. Secondly?? Well - The down mods of my posts, done without a computer sciences based technical merit behind them... that's NOT looking "idiotic" & unprofessional??? Sorry, it does to me.
Oh, & when (IF is more like it) you can show us your PHD in English, then perhaps, I will listen to that type of "last resort of the fallen troll" b.s....
Otherwise, please - DO give us a break.
----
"If you're so sure of your position, how about losing the anonymity" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @01:11PM (#32420512)
I've answered that for others here in this very exchange, AND, with VERY GOOD REASONS:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32419316
Take a read, be enlightened...
APK
P.S.=> HOWEVER, ABOVE ALL ELSE HERE? This isn't a "legal correspondence" such as my last will & testament, nor is it 'english class' or a paper in academia for a grade... it's only a forums post!
ALSO, until you can show me an "english grammar & spell check or writing style" forums section here on /., as well as rules on the style you write in when you post here (and a PHD in English to YOUR credit, as well as proof you are the "master of posting online", lol?) Well... It truly appears that YOU are off topic! apk
Cloud computing is definitely a big thing in today's IT market but i just cannot see running an entire PC off the cloud security and reliability being an issue plus bandwidth issues. Internally I could see Google just using MAC or linux but I doubt they will ever totally remove windows especially not with software venders that only make products for windows unless they are going to develop every app they need internally.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
See subject above, & like I said to SanityInAnarchy (who @ least kept it on a computer sciences based TECHNICAL level, unlike the "grammar, spellcheck, & writing style wannabe PHD in English trolls here", ala -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32421842 )?
So, as I said earlier in reply to SanityInAnarchy?
Ahhh, lmao - Yet another TECHNICALLY UNJUSTIFIED "mod down"!
(So... is this the "BEST" the 'best of /.' has in their replies?? Apparently so!)
APK
P.S.=> Ahhh, lol: First - I don't think you trolls who are downmodding me understand that I can bypassthe "10 posts per 24 hour" unjust/unfair limitation upon us AC's, so, like I said in my subject-line above? KEEP BLOWING YOUR MOD POINTS, because I'll make you go through all of them, it doesn't bother me in the slightest (besides, I have well over a 100 upwards moderations I can post proof of here in seconds flat too, & it's far more difficult for us AC's to get modded up, because /.'s default is to HIDE AC posts as "hidden posts" when javascript is on, and by default in most webbrowsers, it is)).
All in all though, besides the above? Well, it's TRULY a PLEASURE seeing you have to pull "the last resorts" of trolls in unjustified mod downs with NO Computer Sciences based technical merit behind them, or the worst one really, in having to resort to "writing style critiques" (see URL above I just posted), lol... pitiful! apk
"Flaming respondants also makes you look idiotic" by fireylord (1074571)
on Tuesday June 01, @01:11PM (#32420512)
Didn't you call others shills, first, thus you were the one doing the "flaming" here?
In fact, here is a quote of your own name calling words:
" not sure whom exactly this shill is 'turfing for, but pretty obviously astroturfing." by fireylord (1074571)
on Tuesday June 01, @10:50AM (#32418432)
(See your first post here . It appears you're the idiotic one, throwing names around here. Not even a nice try, on your part, and you are certainly the pot calling the kettle black!)
"Or he has some of the world's best optimized code. You try doing the browser on 400 hertz." - by mestar (121800) on Tuesday June 01, @02:51PM (#32422012)
Man... As I stated to shutdown -p -now here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32418012
"(Fact is, Kings Joker's been my "Lab Rat #1" in fact, because he used to get 200++ malware infestations a month, & also because he's NOT as "proficient" with PC's as say, my other user testimonial quoted in THRONKA (from xtremepccentral.com) is, because he is a pretty fairly skilled tech & network admin, professionally!)" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, @10:15AM (#32418012)
That's REALLY the reason I chose he as a tester - he ISN'T expert on PC's... most folks sadly aren't, & those are the kinds that make the "PERFECT TESTERS" of anything PC security wise imo @ least!
APK
P.S.=> He made a mistake, but, then again? He never stated he was an expert on computing either...
King's Joker's basically your "ordinary regular joe" type user is all...
Additionally, & I feel this is pretty important to add?
King's Joker is running a Windows 2000 based system, without any security hacks, or patches in place (he's only using a SMALL FRACTION of the security guide I posted in fact, in a custom HOSTS file only) & yet, he is experiencing FAR LESS HASSLES by malwares than he used to, even without keeping an antispyware or antivirus running resident!
(Fact is - This is a test he & I are and have been doing, for around 1/2 yr. now in fact, to see how effective a currently updated HOSTS file, really is (and it's working well for he - he goes thru antivirus/antispyware scans with currently updated antivirus + antispyware programs and shows FAR LESS (IF any @ all) malware infestations than he used to, @ a nearly UNBELIEVABLE 200++ infestations a month (see why I picked he?)))... apk
"You misspelled "2014" (reference: the page you sent me)." - y Just Some Guy (3352) on Tuesday June 01, @03:53PM (#32422758) Homepage
Ahem, B.S. (I copied this exact link I posted earlier from MS themselves, so who are you trying to fool here?):
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173
In fact, again - See there, mainstream support from MS themselves, ended for XP on 04/2009 (and will end TOTALLY as of next month in fact).
So much for THIS trollery from you next below:
"The rest of your invalid reasoning can be similarly dismissed." - y Just Some Guy (3352) on Tuesday June 01, @03:53PM (#32422758) Homepage
Really? Ok then, dismiss anything I posted to SanityInAnarchy here then:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32416552
OR, before that, here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32413754
APK
P.S.=> Oh, and a question: Do you even CSC, CIS, or MIS degree? How about a certification even (A+ or MCSE will do nicely for some of this, but a CISSP would be better & MORE REFINED for the links above I am waiting for SanityInAnarchy to reply on though)... have YOU personally ever accomplished anything noted by others in respected publications in this field as decent?
I do... would you like to see them? I probably have done more than you have around this field that's been noted well by others in it than you have while you were still in diapers! See here:
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored
Ah yes, all you need to break into Windows is have it be on the net.
Per my subject-line above?
----
Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
"Microsoft will offer Mainstream Support for either a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product's general availability, or for 2 years after the successor productExtended Support is not offered for Consumer, Hardware, and Multimedia products."
----
Note: XP is Consumer grade Operating System material... for one thing. For another?
----
YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR EXTENDED SUPPORT:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy
"Requires extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending."
----
So, mainstream support which I cited? IS what 99/100 folks WILL use (& it would be STUPID to go and purchase an OS that MS is about to drop mainstream support for, and especially in light of the fact Windows Server 2003, Windows 7, & Windows Server 2008 (heck even VISTA) show less security problems than XP does!)
(Of course, nobody ever said you were smart... my guess here? You're just a tech, IF that! So much for you trying to use the "EXTENDED SUPPORT" part for XP here, lol!)
APK
P.S.=> Ah, yes: Another "/. techie" trying to "outfox me & play expert" by changing the rules we are using firstly, and secondly, you're probably YET ANOTHER ONE OF THAT "ILK" (lowly, lowest of the low in this field imo @ least, because all your kind does, and same with network admins & engineers largely too, is USE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE ME (software engineers/programmer-analysts) WRITE FOR YOU TO MERELY USE (your kind? Creates nearly NOTHING of worth, & certainly not stuff that's been to respected trade mags & books/newspapers as my work had many times while you were still in diapers is my guess here on that account)).
Yes, my guess here is that you're just doubtless another minus degrees in CSC/CIS/MIS, & possibly even certifications to your name in the computer sciences!
The end result? You're just falling on your face, in "trying to change the rules" here...
I say this, because I kept my comparison STRICTLY to Linux's latest offering (shows more security vulernabilities than Windows 7, Microsoft's "latest/greatest" does, even though it's ONLY THE LINUX KERNEL BEING SHOWN, not its shells like KDE or Gnome (& their vulerabilities, which would make the security vulnerabilities on Linux go even HIGHER than the core/kernel itself has))... apk
The switching costs on Mac or Linux are tiny compared to what you save in maintenance and training costs later and gain in enhanced productivity.
For companies that don't run everything through Google/Cloud services there are very real software costs. What about backwards compatibility - applications that are more than 3 years old?
For some users, an iPad is all they need.
For some users, a calculator and a pad of paper is all they need.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
Once game developers move full time to Mac
Since OSX runs all the latest and greatest hardware and has a huge install base of users that love buying the latest games?
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
offtopic indeed, sorry but i wasn't aware of an ontopic/offtopic police force around these parts.
I could take the original post of yours that I replied to and merrily dismantle it line by line, but why should I waste my time when it's a poorly written mess that doesn't really deserve proper reading? Not so much a wall of text as a wall of text thats had a dumptruck driven through it. If you want people to take your points seriously, write them in such a manner that people can actually follow the flow of your post easily.
I wasn't the one getting all shirty because people on slashdot can see straight through the bullshit you've posted there, and aren't bothered about your precious internet feelings. Nerdrage much?
Capitalising words puts the emphasis on how poorly you are doing at putting your point across, it does not add emphasis to the point you are making.
You couldn't enlighten me with a flaregun pal.
Only for unusually small values of "All". The following are a few examples of Google apps that are that (while in some cases they interact with the web) do not "target a web platform", but instead run on a desktop OS (usually, and in some cases exclusively, Microsoft Windows) or (in one case) the add-in environment (rather than the "web platform") of a browser (often, Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows):
Google Chrome
Google Desktop
Google Toolbar
Google Earth
Google SketchUp
You speak of vulnerabilities and percentages. You are speaking of the KNOWN ones. You think there are only 16 vulnerabilities in Windows 7?
Your Average Joe
One of the rules of moderation means you can't post on the same discussion. So of course the mods haven't posted their rationale. But I'll give you a hint:
"Open Sores" (lol)
That's how you started this conversation. Are you surprised you got downmodded? Oh, and people get downmodded for trolling about "M$", also.
It's not about technical justification, it's about playing nice. You're being a dick, so you got downmodded, whether or not you're right. Don't be a dick, it's not hard.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Do I have to put a humour tag on everything now? yeesh.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
if I have the sourcecode to an operating system, I have a FAR easier time of finding bugs in it than I would on a closed source OS, & for instance, using "fuzzers" (or worse, disassembly via debuggers) on it during pen testing...
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing.
You want to claim that this is somehow equally useful to good and bad people -- I respectfully disagree. See, even if I did try to find bugs in Windows, using all the tools you mention, I still have to go through Microsoft to get them patched, and it's Microsoft who will be doing the patching. And Microsoft has been known to sit on vulnerabilities for months without releasing a patch, or even acknowledging their existence until there's an embarrassing enough exploit.
By contrast, with Linux, I can provide the patch in the same post which discloses the vulnerability.
wouldn't you rather have a vulnerability found and fixed, or even found and marked "unpatched" on Securina, than found and exploited (hidden) elsewhere?
Microsoft has their regular "Patch Tuesday"
And what does that have to do with my question? Answer my question.
Workplace espionage happens man...
Not from a local DoS. Say it with me: Local. DoS.
It's still very not good. It still should be fixed. But it's not even in the same category as, say, remote escalation.
A security vulnerability is a security vulnerability.
Are you seriously implying all vulnerabilities are equally dangerous?
Local or not, you can take advantage of it, especially if a malware (or worse, a malscripted website's javascript does it, and that RUNS LOCALLY ON A USER'S MACHINE IN THEIR WEBBROWSER
Now you're just a moron.
No, JavaScript exploits would most likely be classified by Securina et al as remote exploits. It's local code, but it's sandboxed. Unless there's a vulnerability in the sandbox itself, JavaScript can't exploit local exploits.
Or just go read the exploits. Look, I did almost all the work for you. Most of them are fucking C system calls, which are about the farthest you can get from a sandboxed script.
Want proof? Go read the Windows Aero vulnerability. It was classified as a remote vulnerability, despite being techincally "local escalation", because an image viewed in a webpage could lead to said escalation.
Now, you note "local exploit". Think that doesn't happen in the workplace, on the same local area network?
Um, no, that's not what "local" means. "Local" means "on the same machine", which usually (though clearly not always) means physical access. Yes, it's still an issue, but having your webserver owned by someone who had a shell account is a lot easier to deal with than having it owned by some random bot over the Internet, and it's a lot less likely to happen.
And remember, we're talking about Google, and specifically, what people are running on their workstations. That makes all of these pretty much irrelevant -- from what I can tell, Google employees truly get to own and admin their own workstations, so they don't really have to share.
NOT ALL LINUX DISTROS USE SeLinux or AppArmor either
So what? I thought we were comparing the best and latest.
"Modifying video output could be very bad, but also very hard to exploit in a way to make it worse than rickrolling you. And again, local.
See my last paragraph in reply above - same ideas apply here too.
What? No they don't. You don't once explain how this is not very hard to exploit in a way that's worse than rickrolling you. Hint: That part has nothing to do with it being local.
Which are just like what you'd n
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Windows has a reasonably well designed (VMS based) kernel, with a lot of legacy cruft on top of it... Most of this stuff MS have added on top of the original vms-derived kernel have significantly weakened the intended security model... things like the networking protocols (google for the windows auth model is broken), the password hashing algorithms, the presence of multiple versions of various apis...
As opposed to UNIX, which has been having "cruft" heaped upon it since the day it was conceived !?
Some of the security features are implemented in userland and are trivial to bypass, one example being the function to "disable" the command prompt.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I can't imagine it being seriously considered a security barrier by anyone.
It also has an extremely complicated security model which is very much overkill for the vast majority of cases, and results in people simply ignoring it.
So by your logic Windows 95 is better than UNIX because it has a simpler security model ?
Not to mention all the additional complexity designed to work around the design flaws without breaking compatibility, like the transparent path/registry redirection thats designed to allow poorly written apps to think theyre able to write to arbitrary locations without actually letting them do so... The first principle of security is KEEP IT SIMPLE... The more complicated you make things, the harder it is to keep it secure. On the other hand, windows has always been extremely complex, and this seems to be by design to make it difficult to clone - after all, ms were not at all happy that dos got cloned.
Or maybe it's just that complex problems demand complex solutions.
Ummmmmmm using anything Microsoft is "insecurity".
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
thanks..
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Link?
'We're not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort,' said one Google employee
You know, for such a quote, I would have expected at least a position. If Google's janitor said that, it doesn't mean much, but if their CTO said that, it's another story.
"Yet more evidence of trollish behavior." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:59PM (#32426314)
What 'trollish behavior' is this on my part? I am not the one downmodding with no reasons here. Someone else is to me. All I am doing is getting the better of YOU, on technical issues, as per usual!
----
"Accounts are free" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:59PM (#32426314)
They come with a price: YOU are EASILY TRACKED for TROLLING, whether YOU realize it or not... me, by way of comaprison? I am the ONLY thing here that is FREE (Truly Free).
----
"you deliberately sign your posts to allow yourself to be tracked" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:59PM (#32426314)
LOL, that's to show that I can be as free as a bird, and still post here as much as I like (without being tracked around as you are under your "elitist registered user account") - pretty simple!
(I can also collect up credits on my upwards mods this way too, by signing off on my posts - that way, nobody can say it was or wasn't me that was modded up)
----
"yet you refuse to sign up." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:59PM (#32426314)
No, I refuse to be an easily tracked for trolling sheep is all... which any "registered user" here, clearly is.
----
"Then you deliberately bypass limitations like this -- pretty obviously breaking the rules." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:59PM (#32426314)
Show me these "RULES", ok? I have been doing this for YEARS here, bypassing the 10 posts per 24 hour limit unfairly imposed on us registered users, so show me a "rules" that says I cannot do this... ok?
APK
P.S.=> I have asked others before to show me such a rule, EXPLICITLY WRITTEN, and I have yet to have one produce proof of it... So please - Do NOT try to "snow me", you don't possess the intellect to do so... apk
"One of the rules of moderation means you can't post on the same discussion. So of course the mods haven't posted their rationale" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @07:52PM (#32425830)
Well, then the "mods" here ought to be a little less of "zealots" &/or "fanboys" here then... pretty simple, per what you noted below!
----
"That's how you started this conversation. Are you surprised you got downmodded? Oh, and people get downmodded for trolling about "M$", also." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @07:52PM (#32425830)
LOL, what a piss poor reason for modding me down. Like I said above, and I will add this to it -> GROW UP!
(As far as trying to tell me that others here actually favor Microsoft? Who the heck are you trying to fool?? The packs of Linux &/or FireFox + ANTI-MICROSOFT fanboys here is KNOWN ALL OVER THE INTERNET!)
So, who are you trying to fool here? Me?? I've been around here for oh, 8++ yrs. or more, & I know the score here...
APK
P.S.=> By the way, quit contradicting yourself (this quote says it all):
"it's about playing nice." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @07:52PM (#32425830)
Sure is, and I will be nice until it's time, to NOT be nice (such as when others start calling me names, and up until now, you didn't but, as usual? You have reverted to that, see below, your own words):
"You're being a dick, so you got downmodded, whether or not you're right. Don't be a dick, it's not hard." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @07:52PM (#32425830)
Doesn't matter to me IF I get "downmodded"... especially for reasons like you are noting, lol, that I have basically "upset the ANTI-MICROSOFT, FireFox, + LINUX fanboys & zealots" around here. They ought to GROW UP! apk
"Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
You really don't "get it", do you? Do you write code (if so, I'd like to see an example as proof of it, and I don't mean scripts (equivalents to batch files)??
If, for instance, I see a sscanf? I KNOW it can be buffer-overflowed (many C/C++ compilers have had a problem with it in the past and probably in the present too - I haven't checked lately, but that's a GLARING EXAMPLE of how easy it is to spot, in SOURCECODE, vs. disassembly or taking time for 'fuzzers' to work), for example...
That?
That is MUCH EASIER TO SPOT, in an app with its SOURCE OPENED (rather than assembly dumps in a debugger or taking the time to run a fuzzer) than going at a closed source app or OS.
(I seriously don't think you have any background in this IF that is "the best you have" in reply, otherwise, you'd have known about spotting things like sscanf having buffer overflow problems...)
---
"Not from a local DoS. Say it with me: Local. DoS." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
LMAO - what on EARTH makes you think doing a LOCAL DOS is any more difficult OR DIFFERENT than a remotely done one? NOTHING! You're STILL DENYING SERVICES FROM WORKING RIGHT!
(LOL, man... I don't think YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IP WORKS IN A DOS or DDOS, do you? I can still "suck up" connections from say, a webserver, and render it essentially inoperative & unable to field ANYONE's requests, from within a local network, same as I can remotely!)
---
"However, this is something which could potentially be exploited anywhere between you and an SSL-enabled server. This is an "anyone on the local wifi" exploit, which are, well, serious." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
POTENTIAL & ACTUAL? Big diff. for one thing. Secondly, I don't use Wi-Fi (I never have trusted it is why, & I'll "wait it out" until it's more "proven" because I long ago figured this type of thing would happen to it, and it has (wouldn't be a 'first' for me either... SSD use? I was long ago into it (see lists below), and only NOW is it "coming into its own", finally)
---
"You want to claim that this is somehow equally useful to good and bad people -- I respectfully disagree." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
See above...
---
"See, even if I did try to find bugs in Windows, using all the tools you mention, I still have to go through Microsoft to get them patched, and it's Microsoft who will be doing the patching." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
Well, they DO the patching: Again, every 2nd Tuesday of the month (and, you can bank on it that the 2 problems in Windows, especially because they're stated as remotable exploits, will be patched (those are the ones MS doesn't just "sit on", especially when they don't have a 'workaround')).
The AEROGLASS interface issue is EASY to get around though - you turn off AEROGLASS (& personally? I do that anyhow & run Windows 7 on the GDI/User32 display method (it seems faster & is PROVEN over time is why)).
---
"And Microsoft has been known to sit on vulnerabilities for months without releasing a patch, or even acknowledging their existence until there's an embarrassing enough exploit." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
IF there is a valid effective workaround, they concentrate on the problems that do NOT have one... pretty simple! See the above on AERO, you will get my point.
---
"You just described how easy it was to fix an exploit. I was describing how diffic
"APK, is that you?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
It's not, you "know my style" by now (I quote you, in bolds with quote marks etc. et al, & I 'sign off' on my posts, always (well, 99/100 times, unless I f'up & forget to or am in a hurry (rare)).
----
"All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course. The question is where the exploit is triggered from." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
Yes, finally, LOL! I love it!
YOU FINALLY NOW ADMIT THIS:
Only, you didn't (or rather, lol, WOULDN'T) admit it to me in our other exchanges here!
You now, finally, admit that even a "remote classified exploit", such as let's say, a bogus DIV tag in a malscripted webpage with an invisible frame and bad code or a bad binary sent your way in it, can f' you up, & once script starts running? It's local, period, & run locally in the browser's javascript engines, locally.
(Nuff said... I love it! Nothing like a "GOOD WIN" to start my day out on...)
APK
P.S.=>
"You know what? I'm going to assume it is, since he can't be bothered to register. And he wonders why he's downmodded..." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
Oh, so I am being "down modded" for NOT REGISTERING here? Uhm, no thanks...
In this very thread in fact, I've explained IN DETAIL AND WITH EXAMPLES -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32419316
WHY I won't register here (being threatened by others, crooked moderators, & more... for what? So they can track & troll me once I "got stupid enough" to be a 'registered wannabe' here?)
I won't DO that, ever, because of that which I noted AND HAD EXAMPLES OF IN THE URLs above no less!
(Yes, I have my 'regular trolling fanclub' around here, & you're fast proving you're a member of that "exclusive group" lol, here with your name tossing & more, @ least)
I have had packs of them online from others sites, and yes, from here even on /. (clone53421 in fact as an example I can prove no less) follow me trolling me to other websites even -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1640368&cid=32085128 !
After that? Do you THINK I WANT TO REGISTER, to be even EASILY MORE TRACKED FOR TROLLING (as you are)?
(No thank you!)... apk
"You speak of vulnerabilities and percentages. You are speaking of the KNOWN ones. You think there are only 16 vulnerabilities in Windows 7?" - by Your Average Joe (303066) on Tuesday June 01, @07:10PM (#32425438)
I can EASILY say the same of LINUX you know... use your head!
So sure, I can especially state the same, for Linux, because SECUNIA's stats I used are ONLY FOR THE LINUX 2.6x KERNEL, not inclusive of its Window managers, GUI shells like KDE or Gnome, or even tty terminal shells like BA$H & more like the apps it ships with... whereas when SECUNIA does Windows analysis? IT INCLUDES ALL OF WINDOWS PARTS such as the analogs to the parts of LINUX I just noted!
(Again - SECUNIA shows more security vulnerabilities, for LINUX 2.6x kernel ALONE, in the way of security exploits, than does Windows 7 IN ITS ENTIRETY, both in current builds for BOTH mind you (which is where we kept it here no less)).
APK
P.S.=> Well, I know 1 thing by this point (as per usual with /. fanboys & zealots for FF or *NIX variants): Once you "get them on the ropes" with technical info. & provable data? They start the "name tossing" ad-hominem attacks (not valid logical argument)... so, I have to say it, as I usually do here, in the end -> "too, Too, TOO EASY", just too easy... apk
The original story was:
http://blog.arcanum247.net/post/2009/09/15/OS-X-106-Snow-Leopard-fails-to-improve-ASLR-remains-easier-to-hack.aspx
Since then, Pwn2Own 2010 showed that ASLR in Vista/7 is not as good as it was thought, though still he says:
Windows 7 is slightly more difficult [than Snow Leopard] because it has full ASLR
and finally:
No, Linux is no harder, in fact probably easier, although some of this is dependent on the particular flavor of Linux you’re talking about. The organizers don’t choose to use Linux because not that many people use it on the desktop. The other thing is, the vulnerabilities are in the browsers, and mostly, the same browsers that run on Linux, run on Windows.
Google will lose track when some are not using Windows and Microsoft will lost trance when some are not using Google. It is smart to eat your own dog food, but if you only eat your own dog food you will not know where you are...
"I could take the original post of yours that I replied to and merrily dismantle it line by line, but why should I waste my time" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @05:42PM (#32424404)
Yea, right... per my subject-line above? Read it, "drink it in, & digest it", lol... lot of "talk" from you, but no action! Anyone can 'talk' but few walk the walk.
(I'll give SanityInAnarchy this much - at least HE tried, and doesn't just "TALK" like you do!)
---
"I wasn't the one getting all shirty because people on slashdot can see straight through the bullshit you've posted there, and aren't bothered about your precious internet feelings." - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @05:42PM (#32424404)
LOL, what gives you the impression that I am getting "shirty"...
---
"Nerdrage much?" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @05:42PM (#32424404)
Again, what gives you the impression that I am "nerdraging"? I am NOT the person tossing names here rampantly (until others do to me first, and then sometimes not on my part), others are.
---
"Capitalising words puts the emphasis on how poorly you are doing at putting your point across, it does not add emphasis to the point you are making" - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @05:42PM (#32424404)
Yea, well... like I said to you before? Prove to us you are "the master of posting online" & show me some rules on this website that state I can't use caps to emphasize things (or bold etc.)... fact is? I'll write as I please, that's that.
---
"You couldn't enlighten me with a flaregun pal." - by fireylord (1074571) on Tuesday June 01, @05:42PM (#32424404)
I don't need a flaregun, but it's not my fault you're that "dense"... so, quit trying to give me orders. It's not your place to do so, period!
APK
Funny how no one thinks this is a move to reduce cost - no matter how negligible it may seem.
LOL, what a piss poor reason for modding me down.
What, you don't think moderating for content is a good idea?
Put another way: If you and I met face to face, and you started insulting my clothes, laughing here and there for good measure, I wouldn't want to hang around you. You might insist that I know it's true, and that I should listen to you, you're a fashion designer, whatever, but if you start off with "That shirt looks like dog shit," I wouldn't be inclined to listen, and I would be inclined to tell people you're a dick.
That's how moderation works. That's why we have things like "troll" and "flamebait". Having technical content doesn't automatically mean you're not a troll.
Sure is, and I will be nice until it's time, to NOT be nice (such as when others start calling me names, and up until now, you didn't but, as usual?
As usual, you started that. Also, saying "You're being a dick" is not namecalling. It's a slightly ruder way of saying "you're being obnoxious", which is not even a personal insult. This, however, is: If you got out more, you might realize that people say "Don't be a dick" to each other often enough, without taking it personally.
Doesn't matter to me IF I get "downmodded"... especially for reasons like you are noting, lol, that I have basically "upset the ANTI-MICROSOFT, FireFox, + LINUX fanboys & zealots" around here.
Again: People who use terms like "M$" tend to get downmodded. People who create posts which are 50% inflammatory bullshit, 10% interesting, and the other 40% just a boring repeat of those 10% get downmodded on pretty much any topic.
As far as trying to tell me that others here actually favor Microsoft?
I didn't say that. Learn to read. Hint: It's right there above.
Extra hint: The mods are pretty good, most of the time, at moderating based on content -- on how you say what you're saying, and whether or not it's actually interesting, insightful, etc -- whether or not they personally agree with what you're saying.
I've seen people say things very pro-Microsoft and anti-Linux, which were modded +5 insightful, and I agreed with the mod. You write like an autistic 12-year-old boy, so even when I agree with you, I'd also downmod you.
Yet you seem to assume that every single moderation is "I agree" or "I don't agree". Nope, this isn't Digg.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We have a custom student information system built on Access and SQL server. We run it on a Terminal Server farm. This allows Mac clients to run the software, and it also allows remote access via an SSL VPN appliance. Terminal server was built for stuff like this. Many medium to large firms use terminal server to reduce end-client support costs, this also has the side effect of making the migration to Mac clients easier. -ted
"Also, saying "You're being a dick" is not namecalling. It's a slightly ruder way of saying "you're being obnoxious", which is not even a personal insult. This, however, is: If you got out more, you might realize that people say "Don't be a dick" to each other often enough, without taking it personally." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Wednesday June 02, @12:43PM (#32433552)
Oh, really? I felt you were calling me a "penis" basically (lmao)... but, what about your also calling me a "MORON" here ->
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
I don't think you're going to be able to successfully "double-talk" your way out of that!
---
"Put another way: If you and I met face to face, and you started insulting my clothes, laughing here and there for good measure, I wouldn't want to hang around you. You might insist that I know it's true, and that I should listen to you, you're a fashion designer, whatever, but if you start off with "That shirt looks like dog shit," I wouldn't be inclined to listen, and I would be inclined to tell people you're a dick." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday June 02, @12:43PM (#32433552)
Well, then you had best "thicken your skin", because sometimes? Folks have opinions (which are weak compared to verifiable facts is all). Heck, I am currently helping the folks over @ the "Open Sores"! Well, guess what?? See what I just wrote... I help guys on projects of that very nature in fact, see here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3690136
and, more below... AND, over time? On many other freeware apps too when I had time to do so!
(So, yes, I may call it that, in "Open Sores" but it's NOT necessarily a "put down" on my part either... just facts that IF you have sourcecode, it's FAR easier to spot bugs in than attempting to do so via fuzzers or debuggers on closed source... but doesn't mean I don't LIKE "Open Sores", either)
UltraDefrag 64's a great opensource project is why! The FIRST 64 bit defragger for Windows NT-based OS is pretty cool imo!
(So - I helped by first (minor here) sending them a better icon, which he said "looks like SHIT" even though others liked it on the forums there (a moderator iirc)... As you can see there? Well - I didn't mind it. I can take it, as it's opinion only!)
I did that part on appearances, because many of their users don't like the interface Dmitri uses (I don't mind it @ all, it's on par with others like it in fact), but the icon did need help imo to HELP WITH THAT FORM OF CRITIQUE THE OTEHRS THERE GAVE HIM!
Now, I also am in process helping them improve defrag times hopefully, via offering the dev the ability to alter his CPU timeslice priority control API's, http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3690136 and some tips/pointers on when you can't "get more" out of your code? You go after HOW YOU PROCESS DATA http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3369133 (I ran into this many times over the past 20++ yrs. now coding here is why, & it tends to get GIANT gains, by working algorithms, rather than being obsessed with code optimizations).
That? That is more "major" form of aid imo @ least (his driver does most of the work, but this can help, some (I've seen it give code I have written a 15%++ gain in completion times before, but there are BETTER ways to do that, & I also offer him that as well in another thread there -> ).
You know, you "busted my balls" for using the term "Open Sores", but they CAN be that, per the ssc
It's not, you "know my style" by now (I quote you, in bolds with quote marks etc. et al, & I 'sign off' on my posts, always...
I don't know you well enough to take you at your word for that.
YOU FINALLY NOW ADMIT THIS:
Only, you didn't (or rather, lol, WOULDN'T) admit it to me in our other exchanges here!
What is it you think I claimed?
You now, finally, admit that even a "remote classified exploit", such as let's say, a bogus DIV tag in a malscripted webpage with an invisible frame and bad code or a bad binary sent your way in it, can f' you up
Yeah, I never said a remote exploit couldn't happen. I also never said someone who'd used a remote exploit to gain local access couldn't cause havoc with a local exploit. Getting me to "admit" something obvious that I was never arguing against is not a victory for you.
Also, that's your strawman limit. Sorry, ignoring the rest of your post.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's obvious what you admitted in that your remote exploits you said were that only are indeed local ones. You did write this
"All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course. The question is where the exploit is triggered from." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
Didn't you?
I think that at this point you can cease attempting to troll this anonymous coward akp because he has literally destroyed every argument you have tried on him and he did so without your near constant name calling either. I have seen yourself and other try to get a piece of he and each time it ends the same way, in your constant name calling or other trollish maneuvers such as spelling checking or writing style criticisms which have no bearing here at all I think. This is a computer forums section and that is the knowledge that needs to be accurate and that counts. He certainly has shown that when you are rattled in your game you crumble and reduce yourself to name calling and spell checking at best. This is my take on this, like it or not.
Once more I have been reading thru this and your name calling has been your downfall here as well as your inferior knowledge in computing sanityinanarchy. He's correct that using open source code is far easier to spot possibly insecure code in than is using a debugger or a fuzzer to find it instead. It takes much less time for an experienced programmer that's been taught to find errors such as the example the anon coward provided in sscanf, which may not be the best example, but it struck his point home. Yes, Open Source is useful in that if you can code you can even make your own fixes, provided they do not cascade and ruin other code that is. For the malware maker though, open source code in actual code itself instead of in assembler dumps in a debugger or attacking a program with a fuzzer is a far better way of finding vulnerabilities in code and I have been programming for over 40 years now (no longer professionally though, I am retired) so this is just the voice of experience speaking here and not in agreement with yourself sanityinanarchy. I have to go with the anonymous coward apk on this account. Your name calling was what made me realize however that you are frustrated into attempts at trollish logic and such so you can stop now and save some of your dignity at this point in this debate sanityinanarchy. Learn to lose gracefully and to not attempt taking on your betters in this field who have more experience and knowledge than you obviously do.
I think that at this point you can cease attempting to troll this anonymous coward akp because he has literally destroyed every argument you have tried on him
Bahahaha... you didn't even change your style much, APK. Same style of quoting me, only without the bold and the signature.
But of course:
It's obvious what you admitted in that your remote exploits you said were that only are indeed local ones.
Erm, what?
Here, maybe I can say something unambiguous even to your quote-mining, for once:
A remote exploit is an exploit which can be triggered remotely, without having access to an OS-level user account on the system being attacked.
A local exploit is an exploit which can give an OS-level user account the ability to do more than they should.
Based on the above definitions, if a hypothetical system had only local exploits, but no remote exploits, then no one could exploit the system unless they already had some sort of access.
And based on that, remote exploits are generally more severe than local exploits.
What about this is untrue, or inconsistent with my position throughout, or has been "destroyed"?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Another appeal to authority" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday June 02, @03:56PM (#32436418)
First of all, it's actually an "appeal to an INCORRECT authority" in LOGIC -> http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=%22appeal+to%22+and+%22incorrect+authority%22&d=4832907750084657&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=c163bdbb,ed2a044b
Appeal to Authority - An authority is appealed to and it is an incorrect authority
(Which you certainly are in an INCORRECT authority, as you have no PHD in English on the note of critique of my writing style here, not that's it's my "last will & testament" or a paper for a grade in English class here either etc./et al & apparently the same holds true as far as your authority in Computer Sciences as well).
Also? Well, Appeal to Authority is a perfectly valid argument form if the person cited indeed an expert in their field saying things that people of similar expertise would also say, & compared to you, as far as CSC, CIS/MIS is concerned? Well, I am that CORRECT authority. How so?
You're obviously no authority on this subject as I suspected, since you fail to produce a PHD in English to your name/credit, nor do you obviously possess one in CSC, CIS, or MIS either (of which I have a degree in the first, & concentrations/minors in the latter from 2 degrees).
As far as LOGIC is concerned, which I took in academia & did pretty well in? Well, I wonder if you even have (though this is off topic, I am fairly certain you haven't, & you are trying to go "off topic" to 'defend yourself' now, in meandering in that direction).
However, you've now gone SO FAR OFF TOPIC? It's not worth conversing with you anymore... Especially after your Ad-Hominem attacks complete with name calling directed my way here, nigh constantly at this point, along with your accusing me of posting as others now!
(LMAO - in computer oriented topics? I don't have to resort to that, as I've actually done the degree work (which yes, included LOGIC as part of the requirements on the CSC degree work, but then, I don't think you know that because you have not DONE it yourself)... & I have nearly 2 decades of this type of work on MANY levels professionally (sometimes to even 'great acclaim' per the partial lists I showed you - so, on this topic, the one this post's about? I surely am far more of an authority than you are, & it showed as I just annihilated each technical point you tried to make, & others even saw my points in them)).
APK
P.S.=> If you haven't noticed? Others here are not exactly "taking your side" in case you haven't noticed, so, I'll let them "do the talking/be the judges" here is all, since you've gone way off topic... "too, Too, TOO EASY!"... apk
"That entire run-on paragraph was pretty much a straight reiteration of what APK feels are his best arguments - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Wednesday June 02, @08:42PM (#32439518)
Per my subject-line above? That man said it better than I did actually, & though he critiqued my usage of sscanf which I used earlier? It still makes my point for me... so, in the end??
Well, if you can't handle the heat in the kitchen SanityInAnarchy? Get out of it, while you still can with SOME dignity @ least, as the man said. He even noted you have to toss names as an invalid form of argument (logical fallacy) & as far as this science is concerned (which you have meandered gigantically off topic in now)?
I am a CORRECT authority, degrees + professional time & all (heck even doing well enough that others in respected publications such as Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro, & even those at Micrsoft Tech Ed) noted it as decent enough!
Plus my points here apparently made points with others also, per those you are now attacking (as is your usual).
APK
P.S.=> Yes - The person you responded to reiterated my points, because they're correct on my part... Again:
"Open Sores", despite my ribbing on it using that term, which obviously "rattled you in your game" to the point where you had to toss names my way? I do like & even try help those "into it"... been there myself in the realm of freewares in fact, before "open source" got popular!
(Which again, I try even help guys who do projects in them, such as UltraDefrag 64 & many other freewares over time as well)
"Open Sores" works BOTH WAYS as I noted - it can work FOR YOU (IF you know how to code that is, I don't think you do, because you failed to realize this & only "see the side of the (usually) LINUX crew here" who are mostly just TECHIES or at best, network admins tops usually), OR AGAINST YOU, and in the case of those with malicious intent? It can REALLY work against you!
E.G.-> Why do you think SO many attacks against Windows come from China? In case you don't know it, MS made a deal with them and supplied them the source to Windows NT based OS (iirc, it was Win2k), & this has payed off badly (at first, but imo @ least? I think this is only going to HELP MS, because the Chinese hacker/cracker types will run out of holes one day, and they're actually doing MS a favor, by exposing what MS themselves cannot find! Best "security research" there is, and they're in essence, helping Microsoft in doing so!)
(That's because hacker/crackers can determine what I did and know what to look for, such as the sscanf I noted as an example thereof)
Heck - on 'crackers/malware makers' etc./et al? Well... a lot of them, nowadays?? They are NOT just "script kiddies" anymore - I know, I go to where they are to figure out "how they think"!
That's WHY I did the articles on securing Windows NT-based OS, & I have since 1998 (Article #1 @ NTCompatible.com in fact, & even NeoWin (a place nearly as full of trolls as this place is no less) rated it very well -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text (& that's the OLD model, that only got folks to a 70/100 score on CIS Tool analysis... my latest model? Will get you very close to 100 (I have a 99/100 here in fact))... apk
Since Linux has made itself a viable desktop alternative within the last 3-4 years and Apple has claimed roughly 8 percent of the desktop market, this was inevitable. No company or government entity wants to be at the mercy of another, they realize, they personally do not have the ability to make Windows safer, cheaply. Why recreate the wheel when you can just buy a new one, better yet one that's free!
First of all, this is pretty illogical of you, and you're contradicting yourself in it (and what's below in fact, again vs. your OWN words):
Bahahaha... you didn't even change your style much, APK. Same style of quoting me, only without the bold and the signature." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Wednesday June 02, @08:39PM (#32439496)
And, you don't quote others? See many of your last few posts in fact (guess I am a "bad influence" on you, eh?)
---
Ok, now onto your contradicting your OWN words:
"A remote exploit is an exploit which can be triggered remotely, without having access to an OS-level user account on the system being attacked.
A local exploit is an exploit which can give an OS-level user account the ability to do more than they should. Based on the above definitions, if a hypothetical system had only local exploits, but no remote exploits, then no one could exploit the system unless they already had some sort of access. And based on that, remote exploits are generally more severe than local exploits." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Wednesday June 02, @08:39PM (#32439496)
You said that, & earlier here to others, you said this:
"All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
They do, and they ALL really "boil down" to being LOCAL in order to work, period.
Please - make up your mind, & be consistent at least (and I don't mean being further consistent in your ad-hominem attacks & name tossing around here directed my way)... others noted it, and now? Well, see what others said here to you, & "drink it in and digest it".
APK
P.S.=> You're hilarious at this point... one contradiction after another! Between this & your ad-hominem attack name tossing directed my way (and probably to others agreeing with points I have made here)?? Please... apk
b>
"You're a jackass with regular frequency" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:54PM (#32426278)
LOL, man... see subject-line above: I could write a book on you, and you hilariously tried to use LOGIC on ME?
Once more (for the what? 10th time now??) You're violating a basic tenet of it in using name tossing with "regular frequency" directed my way, which is outright hilarious, while you go further & further off topic here!
That really only shows you're frustrated that others agree with me, and that you cannot produce proof of your successes in the art & science of computing (which, by contrast, I can with ease & in seconds, from respectec publications - you?
You can't even produce 1, and you certainly cannot produce proof of your even possessing a degree in CSC, CIS/MIS etc. et al (not even a certification to your name no less)).
Ah man... "too, Too, TOO EASY!" as per usual for me, especially vs. you (everytime).
APK
That's an ad hominem attack per subject above and in many other replies directed your way. So your attempts at defending yourself against your own misuses of logic (or rather your convenient to yourself only uses) are useless. You violate your own attempts at the use of logic by calling others names and you have repeatedly done that here in name calling and other forms of attack at the man, not the actual topic.
Your also not realizing that Open Source code can work against security by providing a quicker means of obtaining things to attack, such as the sscanf fault in C compilers is where you went wrong on that account. It is far simpler to find errors to attack on the part of the malware maker or cracker out there via source that's open, than it is trying to do so with debuggers or fuzzers.
Fact is, You aren't worth reading anymore after all your name calling and evasions.
"Don't be a dick, it's not hard." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @07:52PM (#32425830)
Per my subject above? That's a logical fallacy in & of itself, and you tried to use your "so-called LOGIC" against me?? Please - you're violating one of its major tenets right there, for the what, 20th time or so now, in your near constant name calling & such???
Also - you should go and obtain a Comp. Sci. degree, because if you don't realize that "Open Sores" can work against you? You're really "out of it" man...
(lol, yes, I know - that 'Open Sores' rib of mine "sets you off" hugely - that's your problem, not mine)
However, by the SAME TOKEN, per evidences I have produced?
I am actually OUT THERE:
1.) HELPING OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS (UltraDefrag 64 -> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3369133 and here also -> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3690136 )
2.) Writing up security guides that, since 1998 online, actually help others vs. the crackers out there, & that have topped 350,000 views, have been made "essential guides" & are in 15/20 forums its on's "top viewed" posts, and often are rated "5/5 stars" & the like... and even got me PAID over at PCPitstop for writing it up no less (per my lists below as a single example thereof):
3.) And, a LOT MORE, while you were still in diapers in this area I suspect, see below:
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10,
That's the exact opposite that most security experts are saying these days.
Sorry, you're full of myth.
Our company offers users a choice, internet connectivity with linux or a MS desktop without internet connectivity. What do you think that the result has been?
Per my subject-line above? That man said it better than I did actually,
Oh please. I mention something about how interesting it is that the other AC shows up, with precisely your voice, exactly when it's most convenient for you -- like immediately after I remark how curious it is that the previous AC has disappeared.
This is a pattern with you. I honestly can't remember having a discussion with you and seeing someone with an actual account show up to support you, but I do remember ACs showing up at convenient times.
I am a CORRECT authority, degrees + professional time & all
None which you can demonstrate with any certainty.
Notice how I never claimed any particular background or expertise until you demanded that I prove I was "at least" a programmer. By contrast, you've brought up your credentials at every opportunity, complete with a quote from Ozymandeus.
That shows both an ego problem and a lack of a real argument. Your arguments can't stand on their own, so you back them up with volume and credentials.
"Open Sores", despite my ribbing on it using that term, which obviously "rattled you in your game" to the point where you had to toss names my way? I do like & even try help those "into it"...
That's basically equivalent to saying "Niggers, lol. But seriously, some of my best friends are black." It doesn't save you -- yet clearly you feel the need to repeat it over and over, which makes any attempt to have a discussion with you both boring and time-consuming.
Yes - The person you responded to reiterated my points, because they're correct on my part...
Which means they should, at best, be modded "redundant". Saying the same shit over again, nearly verbatim, adds nothing to the discussion. Respond to what I write, or add something new, and you're actually worth reading again (maybe).
In fact, new rule for this discussion: When I see you repeating an argument I've refuted, without addressing my refutation, I'll refer you to the refutation and then stop reading your post. You clearly have more time to waste on this than me.
"Open Sores" works BOTH WAYS as I noted - it can work FOR YOU ..., OR AGAINST YOU
Refuted. The only "new" argument you bring to the table is this:
IF you know how to code that is,
Open source doesn't require that it be your own code at all. The description of me personally fixing a security hole is a hypothetical. The point is that whoever discovers the vulnerability can exploit it, fix it, or report it. Thus, there's not only the worldwide community of amateurs and paid developers from all sorts of corporations, there's also the opportunity of someone who stumbles on a vulnerability and can write a patch.
In a worst-case scenario, where the community has all-but disappeared, an organization which wants to use an open source product can continue to improve it, while an organization wanting to use a proprietary product is stuck with abandonware. (Ask anyone who still has to use MS-DOS -- in fact, FreeDOS is alive and well.)
And that brings this all the way back to the topic at hand. Google can hire people to work on Linux if they don't feel the community is doing enough about security. With Windows, again, it's all up to Microsoft.
I don't think you do,
Still too lazy to look me up, aren't you? Of course, I have no intentions of making it easier than it is, as I don't look forward to having you troll my contributions and code reviews.
Why do you think SO many attacks against Windows come from China? In case you don't know it, MS made a deal with them and supplied them the source to Windows NT based OS
Oh, I'm sure that played a role. But of co
And, you don't quote others?
Most people don't quote others by adding a "-by" and a timestamp. In fact, I've never seen anyone but you do it.
Ok, now onto your contradicting your OWN words
You are really going to have to explain how these contradict.
All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course.
What about this contradicts the definitions I gave?
They do, and they ALL really "boil down" to being LOCAL in order to work, period.
Another failure at basic logic.
They all boil down to being local in order to work. However, that does not mean a local exploit "boils down" to being a remote exploit.
Basic composition fallacy on your part: All tigers are cats. That doesn't mean all cats are tigers.
You have not yet provided a shred of evidence or argument that local exploits are as bad as remote exploits. Please state whether you believe local exploits are just as bad as remote exploits.
You're hilarious at this point... one contradiction after another!
You just made a composition fallacy. Not even that -- composition fallacies are slightly more sophisticated than the mistake you made. Calling me self-contradictory after that is downright projection. I hereby dub you the NephilimFree of computer security.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It seems you don't realize what they are, even though I've explained them to you at least once.
You're violating a basic tenet of it
Swing and a miss. Ad-hom is far from a logical axiom. It's not even always fallacious. When it is, it's a specific case of non-sequitur.
you cannot produce proof of your successes in the art & science of computing
There is a difference between "cannot" and "don't care." While we're on the topic of logical fallacies, half of what you say is an Argument from Authority.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yeah, and that's not even counting all the volunteer sysadmins they get from running Windows all over the enterprise.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
My understanding is that the Windows BSD based network TCP/IP stacks (as in the parts routing packets in the kernel rather than userland utilities) were written back in the Windows 3.11 and NT 3.1 days and were 3rd party addons. The core network stack shipped in the box has apparently not been BSD derived (and MS has claimed to have rewritten the stack several times since) - only the userland utilities so there are substantial differences and behaviour (perhaps that's why they fingerprint differently to tools like NMAP?).
QUESTION:
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
---
(I'd like to see your answer to that, you have avoided it here strangely enough - of course, you'll do your "patented evasions" of that, as per usual!)
APK
P.S.=>
"Ah, but now we're back to only your word for that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:56PM (#32453694)
Windows NT Magazine is the forerunner of Windows IT Pro (current title of that magazine, they changed it over time, as the name of Windows NT based OS' changed), ask their editors if you wish (this is how I know you are MUCH YOUNGER than I am actually, or, you'd have known this most likely). You are also free to write Mr. Eric Dickman, CEO of SuperSpeed.com, as to work & ideas I did for their company as EEC Systems circa 1996-1999.
"Kind of circular, isn't it? You're so knowledgeable because you were published in WELT, and WELT is so great because you say so?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:56PM (#32453694)
PC-WELT is the equivalent of the USA's "PC WORLD" magazine, & I never called them "great" - quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated... You have done this before to myself in debates as well.
I only named where my wares/works have been published internationally, which by now, it's obvious YOU have never done the same (and you never will or you would have done so by now)... that's all!
"Stating facts doesn't make the act less egotistical" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:56PM (#32453694)
To use your own tactics, first of all, I only stated facts (& I never said any of these mags was great, quit trying to put words into my mouth I never stated) & facts, despite what you say trying to lessen some of my accomplishments around this art & science, ARE FACTS... period!
"Are you going to claim you have a perfect life?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:56PM (#32453694)
WTF? LOL, man... you are REALLY "reaching" now, aren't you? You try to put words into others' mouths... on a "perfect life"? Who the heck HAS such a life?? Nobody I know... please - give us a break, & answer the question I asked above is all. Thank-you! apk
"Refuted." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, @09:10PM (#32453366)
No, you avoided my question. Here, I'll phrase it better for you now (2nd time I have today in fact, I want to see you answer it is why):
Are you trying to tell us that using debuggers' assembly language dumps/traces OR even fuzzers is easier and faster than looking for bad coding practices in actual sourcecode or faulty instructions like sscanf in C compilers is?
This is what I was asking of you... answer it!
---
"The point is that whoever discovers the vulnerability can exploit it" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, @09:10PM (#32453366)
Which is PRECISELY what I was saying about "OPEN SORES", lol... if you have the code, you can find vulnerabilities to exploit them, FAR FASTER THAN USING DEBUGGERS/DISASSEMBLERS or FUZZERS ON CLOSED SOURCE CODE, period... but, answer my question above first, before you reply to this!
---
"China has had Linux's source all along. Why don't we see similar attacks on Linux machines?" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, @09:10PM (#32453366)
Again - not enough people use LINUX to make it worth writing attacks for. Again, hacker/cracker types are like PICKPOCKETS: They gather where the most people they can victimize are (which is Windows, then MacOS X, in terms of market share & users for them to victimize from "one shot" (one codebase for attack))... pretty simple! MacOS X used to be able to say "We are more secure than Windows is" & on TV no less. Also, no, they were only less used, & thus, less attacked... once their market share & use counts went up?? So did the attacks on MacOS X...
There's no denying it!
---
"None which you can demonstrate with any certainty." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, @09:10PM (#32453366)
Ok, proof I went to a top-notch school in the US Northeast (where I also was a letterman athlete as well, for a top-notch athletic program in their Lacrosse team (many time national champ, many time divisional champ, & runner up THIS year too)):
http://www.lemoynedolphins.com/sports/mlax/history/mlaxletterwinners
Go to the "K" section, you will see my name there, 1985.
As to the magazines? You can either research their issues, or as I said here before in another reply today?? Write Mr. Eric Dickman, CEO of SuperSpeed.com (whose works appeared in Windows NT mag, forerunner of today's Windows IT Pro mag no less (as good as WIRED, & better in that it's more specific to computers which is our topic here, than WIRED is (which you cited in WIRED mag, but you've never BEEN IN, lol, either)), & ask him if I was paid to do work on their SuperCache I/II program, making it 40% more efficient/effective and if they bought out my sourcecode for it, for reparameterizing their block device driver for said boost in efficiencies/effectiveness... ask him if I laid out the ideas on how to use their SuperDisk program in database work, which took their program to a finalist position @ Microsoft Tech Ed 2000-2002, 2 yrs. in a row no less, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement.
You're going to "eat your words" boy, as usual.
---
"Oh please. I mention something about how interesting it is that the other AC shows up, with precisely your voice" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, @09:10PM (#32453366)
First of all, "my voice"? I am not speaking here, I am writing. Also on that note, care to show us your certification or degree in forensics that qualifies you as an expert on identifying the writing styles of others??
---
"exactly when it's most convenient for you -- like immediately after I remark how curious it is that the previous
"It seems you don't realize what they are, even though I've explained them to you at least once." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:33PM (#32453578)
LMAO - YOU'RE GOING TO "EXPLAIN WHAT ADHOMINEM ATTACKS ARE" to me? HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN & PASSED A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGE ENVIRONS BOY?
(Answer that please - & by the way? I have, during CSC degree work no less... have you done the same??)
ADHOMINEM = YOU ARE "ATTACKING THE MAN", not his arguments, period... & thus, you have been doing AD-HOMINEM ATTACKS UPON MYSELF, here in this exchange (and before when I have debated with you), rather than attacking my points.
Ad-Hominem attacks are a violation of valid logical arguments by the way (of course, you'd have to have actually TAKEN a logic course to know that, & I wager you have not, and because of that? I am fairly certain you do NOT have a CSC degree (or even CIS or MIS ones either)).
---
"Swing and a miss." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:33PM (#32453578)
Don't you mean that for yourself? When you can show me you have taken and passed a formal LOGIC course in collegiate academia, then? Then, We MAY listen to you/give credence to YOUR WORDS!
APK
P.S.=>
"There is a difference between "cannot" and "don't care."" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:33PM (#32453578)
Just as I suspected, and now I know to be true: You have NOTHING like this very partial list of accomplishments in respected publications in the field of computer sciences as I do (which I did while, again, I suspect you were STILL IN DIAPERS):
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than th
Per subject line above: Ad-Hominem is "to the man" attacking the MAN rather than his points (or the points of this debate)... care to debate THAT (since you have nothing left but attempts at defending yourself by going off topic further & further here)?
"You clearly didn't read my post, nor have you looked it up." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:58PM (#32453704)
LMAO: Ok "google child"... listen: I don't have to look it up!I have actually TAKEN AND DID PRETTY WELL IN A FORMAL LOGIC COURSE DURING CSC DEGREE WORK... have you? Obviously not - All YOU have, is "GOOGLE UNIVERSITY" (like so many of your younger age group have apparently).
(I.E.-> I possess degree work which says I am an expert of a certain level in LOGIC by having taken & passed logic during CSC degree work.)
Again - Since you toss names, you are "attacking the man" (myself) rather than points (which IS "Ad-Hominem" & invalid) I have made in this discussion (you have called me all kinds of names here out of frustration, repeatedly no less, thus demonstrating your frustration for one thing, and that yes, you use ADHOMINEM ATTACKS (which are invalid grounds in logical debates)).
Your offtopic b.s. & NAMECALLING (adhominem attacks) + other insinuations only show your frustrations here... clearly, you do NOT possess the intellect to debate with myself, nor have you achieved even a FRACTION of what I have in this art & science (per the very partial only lists of my favs I have put up here, which I accomplished I suspect while you were only in diapers and many times on my part no less).
LOL, all in all? "BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME", you'll need it (and a CSC degree to go along with it, lol!)
APK
P.S.=> I've actually taken & passed (did well in fact) a formal LOGIC course in collegiate academia during CSC degree work... have you?
"You should know from our previous discussions that if you don't read my post, I don't read yours." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:58PM (#32453704)
First of all: I quote each point of yours, usually POINT BY POINT, & I answer each point I quote in reply (which you have given me static on here before in this exchange (about the fact I quote others in my replies no less, lol!)).
So, how can I NOT READ YOURS?
(NO, it's obvious you are trying to avoid answering questions I ask of you, & points I MAKE... not the reverse!)
Secondly: I am not sure you CAN read properly, and I am fairly certain at this point that you have NOT actually taken & passed logic in a formal collegiate environs, where I have during CSC degree work in the past! apk
"Most people don't quote others by adding a "-by" and a timestamp. In fact, I've never seen anyone but you do it." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584)
on Thursday June 03, @09:23PM (#32453476)
LMAO - oh, THIS is HILARIOUS - take a look at each of YOUR POSTS, or mine (or anyone's). Each time you make a posting here? IT SAYS "BY [insert name here]"... learn to READ, please!
(Each time I post, I just highlite your name in the posted by section of your replies, just like when I quote each point you make and answer them (99/100 times))
Others do the same obviously as it saves time, & cites who said what, in order to show EXACTLY what point of theirs I am disputing AND DISPROVING (which not only makes it clear as to what's being said, but also who said what etc.)...
So - What's wrong with that?
By the by: It also proves I read your points and answer (and defeat & disprove) each one YOU MAKE, every time, with facts no less, unlike yourself!
---
"They all boil down to being local in order to work. However, that does not mean a local exploit "boils down" to being a remote exploit." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:23PM (#32453476)
Ahem: "Yea, right"... did you say THIS below, or not?
"All exploits eventually touch the local system, of course." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @09:05PM (#32426374)
?
APK
P.S.=> This "takes the cake" though from you:
"You just made a composition fallacy." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Thursday June 03, @09:23PM (#32453476)
Your REPEATED name calling is Ad-Hominem attack upon myself, and you're trying to tell ME (someone that's taken & done fairly well in LOGIC in collegiate environs during my CSC degree work no less on my part) what valid logical arguments are? Please...
Again: HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN & PASSED A FORMAL LOGIC CLASS IN COLLEGIATE ACADEMIA? I have... did pretty well @ it too! apk
SanityInAnarchy, I am not apk. Get that notion out of your head right now. I quote others and so do you from what I have witnessed here. I also hightlight a user's name from their own posts when I quote and it keeps the word "by" in it. You are obviously frustrated into calling others here names as well and for someone who tries to employ logic in his arguments, your attacks of others in calling others here names indicates this and also shows you performing a logical fallacy called ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the topic at hand. I post when I am done with my days in school and I will post as often as I like. I posted as an anonymous coward so that you cannot harass myself as you are others here now with your false accusations and your illogical logic plus calling others rude names. Grow up.
SanityInAnarchy, I am not apk. Get that notion out of your head right now. I quote others and so do you from what I have witnessed here. I also hightlight a user's name from their own posts when I quote and it keeps the word "by" in it. You are obviously frustrated into calling others here names as well and for someone who tries to employ logic in his arguments, your attacks of others in calling others here names indicates this and also shows you performing a logical fallacy called ad hominem, which means attacking the person and not the topic at hand. I post when I am done with my days in school and I will post as often as I like. I posted as an anonymous coward so that you cannot harass myself as you are others here now with your false accusations and your illogical logic plus calling others rude names. Grow up, please.
I came in here on my initial post that shows LINUX's 2.6x kernel ALONE (not counting the things Windows has analyzed no less such as its GUI shell & more, vs. an OS core/kernel alone in LINUX's security vulnerabilities counts @ SECUNIA) has MORE SECURITY VULNERABILITIES THAN Windows 7 does, and that "Open Sores" code works AGAINST open source (because it's far easier & faster to an experienced coder to find instructions to take advantage of this way than using debuggers &/or fuzzers against closed-source code is), & you then tried to use your "illogic logic" on me (me, who's taken & done fairly well in LOGIC in collegiate academia, which I can show I have done, whereas you cannot?)? Please.
When you can come up with one of those (see my subject line)? Get back to us... "m'kay"??
For Pete's sake, lol: You seem to think that you "know everyone & everything @ /."... do you spend entire days/weeks/months here now everyday, for as long as this website's been around or something??? If so, YOU NEED A LIFE!
I mean, look at your replies... what am I supposed to believe:
"I did notice that. Did you notice that it doesn't insert that after each quote? Again, I have never seen anyone else quote in the way you do." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @03:20PM (#32462270)
Did you also notice I use bolds & caps quite often too? I don't see others do that, but then, I don't spend my entire life here as it seems you imply you do.
---
"Then why is it that practically no one on Slashdot does that, except you and one random person who stumbles on your thread? The funny part is that you then want to lecture me about keeping some dignity." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @03:20PM (#32462270)
Heh, after I just thoroughly took your "points" here and tossed them into the garbage bin? After I showed everyone here you aren't an expert by anyone's standards in anything you SEEM TO IMPLY YOU THINK YOU ARE (minus any degrees that say you are, minus any published accomplishments in respected trade oriented books or magazines on your part, and certainly minus any serious years to decades of professional experience in them as well)??
Please... see subject-line, drink it in, & digest it.
---
"Then try employing some" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @03:20PM (#32462270)
Incredible: You come on here, tossing names MY way ('attacking the man', & thus, you're using a logical fallacy in that alone, & it's called an "adhominem attack"), & you have the NERVE TO SAY THAT? Again, per myself & others here replying?? Give us a break.
You became SO "frustrated here", you constantly "tossed names" my way. This is "attacking the man", & that is an "Ad-Hominem" attack, and illogical!
APK
P.S.=> Try use facts as I did, & perhaps others will listen and give you some credence. Go get a degree in English (since you like off topic "grammar, spelling, & 'writing style'" last resort of defeated trolls' critiques (lol), or forensics (for your "writing analysis", lmao), and most of all, a CSC degree... especially before you try to "take me on", because for the 3rd or 4th time you've tried this on me, over a couple years now???
You STILL HAVE "NONE OF THE ABOVE" & you wonder why nobody takes YOU, seriously?
Please, do yourself a favor boy... Put a little time into those things so folks take you seriously, instead of burning away your life here on /., as it seems you actually imply in the response of yours I am responding to now!
(Maybe then, you'll be able to show as I can, that I have each of those things to MY CREDIT, whereas, you do not (and you don't see me tossing names your way, because I don't have to - I use facts & figures from respected sources, though in essence because of the above, I am one myself)) ... apk
I came in here on my initial post that shows LINUX's 2.6x kernel ALONE (not counting the things Windows has analyzed no less such as its GUI shell & more, vs. an OS core/kernel alone in LINUX's security vulnerabilities counts @ SECUNIA) has MORE SECURITY VULNERABILITIES THAN Windows 7 does, and that "Open Sores" code works AGAINST open source (because it's far easier & faster to an experienced coder to find instructions to take advantage of this way than using debuggers &/or fuzzers against closed-source code is), & you then tried to use your "illogic logic" on me (me, who's taken & done fairly well in LOGIC in collegiate academia, which I can show I have done, whereas you cannot?)?
You started your name tossing, directed my way here, repeatedly.
In case you didn't know it (lmao), you're violating LOGIC in that alone, & it IS called an "adhominem attack", because you're attempting to attack & discredit myself, rather than solely concentrating on the technical points of this discussion nearly constantly too, throughout this exchange (Additionally, it is I who has the degrees, experience, and accomplishments in this art & science by the score on each count, whereas, you? You do NOT!)...
Please - give us all a BIG break (from your trolling) already, especially after this:
"Proving that you can copy and paste doesn't show you actually understood what was said." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @03:23PM (#32462328)
I cite others of good repute (such as SECUNIA.COM's security vulnerabilities stats noted just above for instance) to bolster my points is all. What is wrong with that? Oh, I get it: It makes YOU LOOK BAD because you can't disprove those stats... "we get it now" (lol).
Man... hilarious. Like I said before, I could write a BOOK on your trolling.
Most of all, when you can do a list like this (very partial on my part)?
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
Then, MAYBE, you can talk, as to myself "not understanding what was said" on the subject material (computer sciences oriented topics,
As per usual, all you have is your "speculations" (more like more THINLY VEILED ad hominem logical fallacy based illogical attacks of myself, rather than the points I made here) even after that guy told you off.
Let's look at this ANOTHER way, shall we? Here we go:
CAN YOU PROVE HE IS MYSELF, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT?
(No, you cannot, period!)
You're REALLY reaching... lmao! Especially with this:
"surely you can show me where you're getting this from." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @06:27PM (#32464632)
ANY STANDARD DEFINTION (which is tough from LOGIC, as it's largely considered a "pseudo-science" by many still sadly, even though it has a HUGE following in Discrete Mathematics even using it, along with digital electronics also, what with its lack of standardizations such as the Universal Quantifier notation which varies, logician to logician for example) of AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy where one attacks "the man" and not his points rather in a debate) which you used here constantly in off topic name calling directed my way here backs what he said... I put up a couple here, and now I will just do so again for that guy, just to silence your further b.s. here:
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy):
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem
Nuff said...
---
"Really, APK's "voice" is pretty blatant, especially compared to most others here." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @06:27PM (#32464632)
Thank you. It ought to be compared to MOST OTHERS HERE, because many are like you: No degrees, no years to decades of professional hands-on experience "in the trenches" doing the topic material here (CSC related, which I have the degree work in & you do not), as well as a list to their credit on CSC related grounds in reputable publications over time per this VERY PARTIAL LIST TO MY CREDIT (of which again, you have not even a FRACTION of to your credit):
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made
"Even if I was calling you a name, attacking the man is not automatically argumentum ad-hominem" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @04:10PM (#32463058)
You did call me names here, derogatory ones, repeatedly out of frustration at being unable to discredit myself or my source (SECUNIA.COM largely)... &, 'Ahem' - per my subject line above: "BEG TO DIFFER", & so does this material from an educational institution as well, apparently:
---
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy):
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem
---
Nuff said... on THAT account!
---
"If that's true, you should realize that what you're doing here is an Appeal to Authority -- and yes, you're using it in a fallacious way." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 04, @04:10PM (#32463058)
LOL, oh "sure, sure"... you mean myself being in possession of dual degrees around CSC &/or CIS/MIS (from a TOP NOTCH NORTHEAST US SCHOOL NO LESS) doesn't qualify myself as "expert", especially in comparison to yourself with nothing like that to your credit?
Do you mean my having worked in this field for over 16++ yrs. now professionally & doing well enough in it (see list below)??
Yea... right:
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
Especially compared to you, who cannot evidence any of the above himself??
Heck - I am "THE EXPERT", and, an authority on the subject of computing! Especially since an accredited & highly reputable educational institution or two state that I am per actual degrees, 1.5++ decades of professional successful
Sad.
No, not reading and responding to a post which has a fallacy -- one I've repeatedly pointed out to you -- in the subject.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Why is it that you think repeating (or summarizing) the same arguments is going to accomplish anything? When you start making points again, I'll start countering them again.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
...then "PROVE" I don't have a PhD in Computer Science, with a minor in Math and Philosophy.
If you can't, then maybe this can stop being an argument about who has the better credentials, and start being an actual discussion. Remember, I didn't start pointing out your sock-puppeting until after you'd started your appeal-to-authority campaign.
Please, take THIS advice - Don't waste all your time here!
That's probably the most intelligent thing you've said, because you truly are a waste of valuable time, of which I have very little this week.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You SURE you want to "take this train"? I attacked you ONLY AFTER you repeatedly performed an Ad Hominem attack on myself (in your outright blantantly calling me a moron, dick, & other "choice words"), and now?? Now, you're using yet another LOGICAL FALLACY (Tu Quoque on myself, invalidating your arguments yet again:
"However, you have been guilty of exactly this, haven't you? It seems every single claim I make, you counter with "Where's your degree that proves you have a right to say that?" You did it right here:" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
FORMAL DEFINITION OF THE "TU QUOQUE" LOGICAL FALLACY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.
(Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser!)
---
"You might not think that's a good argument. You even brought some points against it. But it was there, and it was even a new argument, something you never seem to bring. The claim that I was "reduced to" ad-hom is demonstrably, factually wrong." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
Not according to the definitions of ad hominem I obtained from an educational institution (which shows your constant name tossing directed my way here IS INDEED an ad hominem attack, in attacking myself rather than the points I brought up here) and now even moreso, in your use of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy as well (which is, yet another form of AD HOMINEM ATTACK).
So much for your "illogic logic"...
APK
P.S.=> I came in here demonstrating that LINUX 2.6x, the "latest/greatest" from LINUX has more security vulnerabilities in its KERNEL ALONE, not counting the things Windows 7 (MS' "latest/greatest") has checked also, in Window Manager subsystems, other command interpreters, & more THAN WINDOWS 7 IN ITS ENTIRETY DOES! Not only that, but I also submit & HAD YOU ADMIT TO IT NO LESS, that "Open SORES" code has a disadvantage in that hacker/cracker types can find security vulnerabilities in it far more quickly because it is OPEN SOURCE sourcecode, than you can in a closed source sourcecode binary by attacking it with fuzzers OR, step tracing it with debuggers/disassemblers... for this on my part, you began to direct a concerted AD HOMINEM attack on me? IS that the "best you've got"?? Apparently so... well, it's invalid! apk
"And I never said you did! Fail." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:23PM (#32469090)
First of all: You DEFINITELY tried to imply it.
Secondly: What EXACTLY were you implying?
It seemed to myself, after reading your words in your near constant ad hominem attacks on myself (which is, of course, invalid in logical debate no less) that you were trying to say that when I said what I did on "Open SORES" sourcecode being open works against it in that hacker/cracker types use it, much as I noted, in looking for bad coding practices!
(Those such as passing SQL parms in a URL, or the sscanf faulty C instruction to find exploitable sourcecode errors in ANY application is far faster than attempting to find such vulnerabilities in a closed source system (such as MS products) & that "Open Sores" actually only is useful to those that are PROFICIENT IN C/C++ since most of LINUX is written in that/those languages).
You didn't even DENY my points above, not with anything I could not tear apart in seconds @ least (and, I did so).
I.E./E.G.-> "Open Sores" is ALSO REALLY ONLY USEFUL to those that can CODE IN THE LANGUAGE USED, themselves, & proficiently in said programming language as well ON THEIR OWN IN ORDER TO PERFORM A "FIX"!
(imo @ least, but then, I am that "informed opinion", degrees, professional experience, & also some acclaim over time as well (whereas by way of comparison here? You have none of those things to YOUR credit/name)).
Funniest part is, how often I see the "Pro-*NIX" crew here use that, & I often then wonder this:
"How many of you here actually CAN code proficiently in C/C++, & how many of you are intimately familiar enough with LINUX in its entirety to fix your security vulnerability WITHOUT damaging another portion of said code & thus, the OS itself?"
Fact is - I strongly wager that the majority of those using that to "win debates" here, cannot code in C/C++ to save their LIVES... much less fix the security vulnerabilities they have only HEARD of (let alone discovered on their own)...
No, ALL I did here, was this:
I came in here demonstrating WITH VERIFIABLE FACTS FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE (in secunia.com security vulnerabilities data) that LINUX 2.6x, the "latest/greatest" from LINUX has more security vulnerabilities in its KERNEL ALONE, not counting the things Windows 7 (MS' "latest/greatest") has checked also, in Window Manager subsystems, other command interpreters, & more THAN WINDOWS 7 IN ITS ENTIRETY DOES!
(Toss on KDE &/or Gnome GUI shells errors, or those in say, BA$H, & you'd see even MORE security vulnerabilities errors in LINUX than the kernel alone shows, which is more than Windows 7 does IN ITS ENTIRETY (which of course, includes Windows' explorer shell, its commandline tty term interpreters, & Window Mgt. subsystems)).
Not only that, but I also submit & HAD YOU ADMIT TO IT NO LESS, that "Open SORES" code has a disadvantage in that hacker/cracker types can find security vulnerabilities in it far more quickly because it is OPEN SOURCE sourcecode, than you can in a closed source sourcecode binary by attacking it with fuzzers OR, step tracing it with debuggers/disassemblers...
For this on my part, you began to direct a concerted AD HOMINEM attack on me? IS that the "best you've got"??
Apparently so... well, it's invalid, see below in my "p.s." section!
---
"There's still the part where you have to tie that to these posts. I could log on as AC and claim I'm Steve Jobs, but that's irrelevant unless I can prove I actually am. Proving Steve Jobs has credentials is beside the point." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:23PM (#32469090)
Well, you asked for proofs of where I have been shown in publications of respected & some notoriety in this art & science of computing, & I told you who you could write in th
"Note that I do continue to attack your ideas. Furthermore, here's an explanation:" by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
My ideas are simple, and you don't even DENY the ones on "Open Sores" code being easier & faster to find errors (than using a fuzzer or disassembler/debugger on closed source programs) in bad coding practices, or faulty instructions (such as the sscanf error I noted) in the languages the OS or app are written in (largely C/C++ in LINUX case no less, & sscanf IS A C COMPILER INSTRUCTION WITH PROBLEMS OF BUFFER OVERFLOWS NO LESS, a major source of security vulnerability)...
All I did was point that out, and the fact that though many "Pro-*NIX" people rant "I have the sourcecode, I can fix it"...
To they (and you, as I asked here before)? I ask this: Can you even code to make that fix in the language the sourcecode is in?" (most can't), & it's why I asked if you code PROFICIENTLY in C/C++ (LINUX is largely written mostly in these languages).
Also, for YOUR sources? Try to cite an educational institution, as I did, next time!
(That'd lend your "forums logic sources" (lol) a "bit more credibility" next time... you need it, see below & in your other replies here also, failing yet again on YOUR part (where you are now using another logical fallacy in "Tu Quoque" this round, which is of course, yet another form of an 'ad hominem attack' on myself, rather than my points)).
---
"Those "personal attacks" (to the extent that they were -- "don't be a dick" has never been a personal attack) were not attempts to undermine your argument -- I could do that well enough on my own." by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
Oh please - you OUTRIGHT CALLED ME A MORON!
(AGAIN - The day you can produce as many decent accomplishments as I have in respected publications centered on Comp. Sci. as I have is the day you can call me that, as well as the day you can produce multiple degrees around CSC/CIS/MIS as I have to my name/credit also, topped off with as many years as I have in professional experience in this art & science on MANY LEVELS to my credit as well (which makes me a CORRECT AUTHORITY per logic no less, whereas yourself, by way of comparison? You have NONE OF THE ABOVE YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE AT ALL...).
---
"However, you have been guilty of exactly this, haven't you?" by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
TU QUOQUE, another form of 'ad hominem attack', is coming from YOU (yet again - and yet again, another INVALID FORM OF LOGIC FROM YOU ONCE MORE) right there... & guess what?
THAT IS ALSO INVALID IN LOGICAL DEBATE!
(I asked this of you, and you failed to answer it -> HAVE YOU EVEN TAKEN AND PASSED A FORMALLY ADMINISTERED LOGIC COURSE IN COLLEGIATE ACADEMIA? Obviously not, because you are making one logical fallacy BLUNDER after another...)
---
"Now, I'm not saying this in itself is an airtight argument, but it's also one that addresses your claim that merely having the source available naturally leads to a less secure system." by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @12:12PM (#32469052)
No, it leads to being able to find SECURITY VULNERABILITIES IN AN OPEN SOURCED APP (meaning having actual sourcecode, vs. only a binary executable for instance) FASTER THAN YOU CAN IN A CLOSED SOURCE EXECUTABLE USING FUZZERS or DISASSEMBLERS/DEBUGGERS (which it is, just a fact)... that's all & it's correct!
(You can stop your usual "putting words into my mouth I never said")
---
" I never once claimed that vulnerabilities are harder to find in open source. My claim was that the fact that vulnerabilities are easy to find in open source makes it more secure in the long run." by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday J
"No, not reading and responding to a post which has a fallacy -- one I've repeatedly pointed out to you -- in the subject." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @11:28AM (#32468820)
First of all: You definitely have NOT taken LOGIC in a collegiate environs (all you have is "GOOGLE U" but with no understanding of how that logical fallacy actually works, lol) per your name tossing directed my way, and your further Tu Quoque logical fallacy errors here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474408 now that only prove you are far from an authority on LOGIC, just as you are FAR FROM AN AUTHORITY ON COMPUTING, period.
Also, per your statements now & in regards to LOGIC (Appeal to Authority):
I'd have to be an INCORRECT AUTHORITY for that to happen, & so would my sources (like SECUNIA.COM)... and, in neither case am I, or SECUNIA.
I actually have degrees AND extensive CSC oriented coursework beyond them as well, and more than a decade & a 1/2++ of professional experience in computer sciences work on MANY LEVELS to my credit, around this subject in CSC & CIS/MIS as well, so... by way of comparison, do you?
No. You do NOT.
From your ad hominem & tu quoque (ad hominem again) attacks directed my way? No way you could have, because you'd have known you would be violating logical debate in using those "tactics" of yours... period!
(LMAO - & you laughingly tried to use your "illogic logic" on ME? Please...)
---
1.) You haven't even taken & passed a LOGIC course during ANY degrees in collegiate academia
2.) Nor do you even have professional experience in this field of computer sciences you can demonstrate on many levels
---
(As I can to #1 & #2 above, & often enough as well on my part, to GOOD acclaim by others in respected publications, commercial softwares I have written portions of, and technical contests/tradeshows such as MS Tech Ed)...
So much for that!
APK
P.S.=> Face it: You do NOT possess the intellect necessary to get the better of me in logical debate, nor do you possess sufficient academic or professional experience to even BEGIN TO ATTEMPT to show you are more of a 'correct authority' on the subject of computer sciences than I am... period (and, you KNOW it, and now? So does anyone else reading your replies)... Ah, gotta say it, as-per-usual vs. /. trolls - "too, Too, TOO EASY", just too easy! apk
"Why is it that you think repeating (or summarizing) the same arguments is going to accomplish anything? When you start making points again, I'll start countering them again." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @11:40AM (#32468884)
To show what I did here that "set you off", which led to you going off topic & violating logical debate rules in your NUMEROUS ad hominem attacks on myself when you were frustrated is what!
It seems that you are just another "disgruntled *NIX fan" & also an "open SORES advocate" that really is NO AUTHORITY on your part... you also went way, Way, WAY off topic here, and tried to use your forms of "LOGIC" on me (more like "forums ILLOGIC", see below, lol):
First your name tossing was evidence of your ad hominem attacks on myself here, in these "choice quotes" of your own words (no taking those back now, is there? LOL!):
---
"you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
---
That's only 1 of your many "name tossing" ad hominem attacks you directed my way here in this exchange...
To others reading here? LOL... "Wait, wait - it gets BETTER!"
Heh - you FURTHER COMPOUNDED THAT AD HOMINEM ATTACK "ILLOGIC LOGIC" of yours yet more, with your use of the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474408
(LOL, "logical blunders galore")
TOP THAT OFF WITH THIS QUOTE OF YOURS (pot calling the kettle black as usual from you):
""The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @11:40AM (#32468884)
Yes, so KEEP MAKING THOSE LOGICAL ERRORS, and tell us that, ok?
Let's see - & make a list here (for "posterities sake/future reference")!
---
You tried the "usual 'troll tricks' that only fool the weak & undereducated, of:
1.) "writing style critiques" of which you cannot demonstrate yourself as an expert in via a PHD in English.
2.) You've also shown us you have nothing that qualifies you as an authority in the computer sciences such as degrees or even certifications to your credit in the computer sciences either, let alone your being unable to demonstrate professional experiences (years to decades of it) in comp. sci. oriented work to your credit (let alone successes in it in GOOD reviews from reputable sources, as I can, in addition to myself actually meeting those criteria of expertise in order to be seen as an actual CORRECT authority on the subject of computer sciences oriented topics here in debate... you, clearly, ARE NOT THAT!)
---
IF anyone here is an "INCORRECT AUTHORITY"? It is yourself. You have NOTHING that shows you to be an authority on the subject of computing (lol, or LOGIC) @ all to your name/credit... period.
Nor are you a licensed Psychiatrist, so until you show us a PHD in Psychiatry or Psychology, and a license to practice it? You can keep your "trite phrases" and insinuations to yourself... otherwise, you're not only libeling myself, but showing you are NO AUTHORITY ON THESE SUBJECTS, whatsoever.
("too, Too, TOO EASY"... just too easy!)
APK
P.S.=> Give us a break - you can't demonstrate YOU personally are an actual "correct authority" (that's what APPEAL TO AUTHORITY in logic demands, a correct authority, so you now know & don't continue to misuse that as well to your own detriment here as you have).... then again, you haven't even TAKEN logic, have you?
You also cannot compete with me in terms of CSC know how (you don't have degrees in the computer sciences such as CSC/CIS/MIS, & you don't have decades of professional experience in it obviously. Additionally, nor do you have anyone in respected publications OR techical trade shows/contests,
"...then "PROVE" I don't have a PhD in Computer Science, with a minor in Math and Philosophy." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Saturday June 05, @11:44AM (#32468904)
No no senor - the "burden of proof" is NOW upon you (especially since you asked of such proofs from myself, and I provided them of my professional decades of experience in the computer sciences AND my education also):
So - Is THAT the "best you have"? Running?? Please...
AFTER ALL - You had ME show proofs (as you tried to invalidate my claims no less, lol) that I went to a VERY REPUTABLE & RESPECTED college, so I did so (Graduated in 1989 in fact), so...
YOU show ME, the same! That's all - You show us all reading those things to your name, won't you, so you at least SEEM a somewhat credible correct authority here on the subject of computer sciences oriented topics?
Ah, you CAN'T, lol...
I also have 16++ years of working and doing well in Comp. Sci. oriented jobs since then (many times to decent acclaim, & all accomplished while you were in DIAPERS, I strongly suspect)...
So, now it's YOUR turn is all!
(Especially on English & Psyche, since you tried the "trollish trick" of "writing style critiques" as well as insinuating I am "insane" etc. et al)
However, those? Those are NOT as bad as your LOGIC blunders in:
---
1.) Your ad hominem based (violating logic right here no less) name tossing attacks you directed MY WAY HERE:
"you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
AND, repeatedly, on your part (that is only a single sample of many here, along with "snide insinuations" on your part to even more of them directed MY WAY (obviously the "best you have" is this only, and YOU TRIED TO USE "LOGIC" on me? Get a course in LOGIC why don't you, & quit the "forums illogic" stuff, it only backfired on you here many times))
2.) Also, lastly (LMAO), your "latest/greatest" logical debate tenet violation in your misuse of "Tu Quoque", here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474408 Which is, yet another form of ad hominem attack and yet another proof of your near constant misuse of logic here in debate with myself... you lose!)
---
Get over it - you CANNOT "discredit me" - you do NOT have the intellect, the education, the experience OR the MEANS period, to do so!
Why?
WELL, because you're FAR FROM AN ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT (a correct authority in logical terms) in the field of the computer sciences, period!
(Again - Show us proof of your degrees, but better yet, actual decades of hands-on professional experiences in it, as I can & quite often to decent acclaim (again, while you were in diapers no less is my guess)).
BOTTOM-LINE:
You just do NOT have the intellect, or the prowess in this art & science of computing, to "get the better of me", period.
Once more - Show us otherwise? I'll take that back.
Thing is though, & I have asked this of you, NUMEROUS TIMES, after you had ME DO SO no less, to show us proof of your degree in CSC/CIS/MIS! Your turn now is all... lol, and you?? The "likes of you" don't have thsoe things, period and we ALL know it now.
(The topic at hand is CSC oriented materials, & this is not the "English grammar/spelling/writing style" section of /. (clue - there ISN'T ONE OF THOSE, though you tried that puny see-through/transparent "trollish attack" too, lol, & FAILED hugely in doing so no less))
OR
Proof of your professional accomplishments in this field as well, as I can, with ease:
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC System
"Again: People who use terms like "M$" tend to get downmodded. People who create posts which are 50% inflammatory bullshit, 10% interesting, and the other 40% just a boring repeat of those 10% get downmodded on pretty much any topic." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Wednesday June 02, @12:43PM (#32433552)
Again, who are you trying to "b.s." here? Not I, take a read:
"So, who are you trying to fool here? Me?? I've been around here for oh, 8++ yrs. or more, & I know the score here..." - by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 02, @09:19AM (#32430414)
And, per this article from TODAY NO LESS? So do others (in respected publications no less - take a read):
---
http://infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/faith-in-numbers-six-more-tech-cults-846
(Dated TODAY no less, supporting my points/suppositions on the "open SORES" & "Linux zealots" around here (& other fanboys like firefox fans too))
Faith in numbers: Six more tech cults:
Tech cult No. 1: The Slashdot Samurai /. (Where else?)
Established: 1997
Gathering of the tribes:
Major deities: Linus Torvalds, Neil Gaiman
Some "choice quotes" from said article that merely evidences you are full of it SanityInAnarchy, & that others see what I have here for nearly a decade now (I'll rephrase via a quote of my point in reply you responded to in fact on that note here right now again):
"So, who are you trying to fool here? Me?? I've been around here for oh, 8++ yrs. or more, & I know the score here..." - by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 02, @09:19AM (#32430414)
Ok, that's been MY 'take' on the KNOWN /. anti-microsoft (Pro-*NIX fanboys, firefox fanatics, & open sores zealots etc.), again requoted from the post you just replied to & here was what the folks @ INFOWORLD also realize, the same as myself:
"Pity the fool who wanders blithely into a discussion and says, "What's the big deal with Linux? Windows works just fine." His online remains will later be hauled away in Chinese takeout boxes."
---
LOL, "yea right"...
Funny, but it seems that SanityInAnarchy is the one who was "hauled away in a Chinese takeout box" here, because after all? HE "TOOK OFF"...
(He had to, no questions asked, so, so much for the "/. 'samurai' wannabes" around here... proofs in the pudding & results!)
APK
P.S.=> "too, Too, TOO EASY", & tomorrow (MS 'Patch Tuesday') will doubtless seal off the SSL security vulnerability in Windows 7, as well as the AERO GLASS issue as well (but, this has a working safe work-around already)... apk
You 're not a PHD in computers or logic judging by your bad performance here in both categories and also because of your running out of here.
Tu quoque is a subset of ad-hominem, meaning, again, it applies when one is using this instead of attacking the argument. Of course:
I attacked you ONLY AFTER you repeatedly performed an Ad Hominem attack on myself (in your outright blantantly calling me a moron, dick, & other "choice words"),
In other words, you're overly sensitive when constructive criticism is presented with vulgarity. Contrast to your use of "open sores", which is neither constructive nor actually criticism, but merely abuse -- exactly what am I meant to take away from that?
You've also refused to (or are unable to) make this fine distinction: My use of "dick" was a description of your behavior, not your character.
Tu quoque literally means "you too", which is something you've done pretty consistently, as above. (If you really want to play the "who started it" game, you said "open sores" long before I said "don't be a dick.") But that isn't what I've done -- I have pointed out your blind hypocrisy (to the point of projection) while defending my own position.
You acknowledge that you attacked me. I still have not attacked you -- see above for the distinction.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Read.
it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Where in that does it say that this only applies to incorrect authority? It does not. In logical debate, sorry, but no amount of authority (earned or otherwise) excuses you from justifying your position.
From your ad hominem & tu quoque (ad hominem again) attacks directed my way? No way you could have,
From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all), I could guess the same about you.
Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You really like copying and pasting, don't you?
You clearly are capable of making points, as you seem to be trying to do elsewhere.
Again: I don't understand why you think "summarizing" (summary-by-copypasta?) will make anyone more likely to agree with you. If you don't think that, I don't understand what your motivation is.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No no senor - the "burden of proof" is NOW upon you
You forgot the null hypothesis.
If you said "I don't know that you have a degree," the burden of proof would be on me. I have not said I do, but you continue to say I don't.
Since you are the only one making a positive claim about the existence of my degree, the burden of proof is on you.
Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting. This was analogous -- I am not actually asking you to prove that.
Instead, I'm offering a simple deal: I'll drop it about your sock-puppeting (seriously, who says "judging by your bad performance" except you?) if you drop it about degrees.
However, those? Those are NOT as bad as your LOGIC blunders in:
Let me know if there was anything valuable in that. I don't read you when you copy and paste.
This only FURTHER proves it (SanityInAnarchy is giving up & crumbling...
Or you could take it at face value.
LOL, perhaps I've inspired him to earn a CSC/CIS/MIS degree finally? Doubt it... he strikes me as a big talking slacker actually!
About 3 hours of sleep per night for three nights in a row, and running full steam the rest of the time. Yep, I'm a slacker.
It occurs to me that I could offer you the proof you keep demanding, right now. I could show you what I've been doing this week. I could show you my real name. I could show you a very large software development community which seems to value my contributions, and I could show you how they did so.
But it wouldn't change a thing, would it?
If I met you in person and showed you a PhD, at the very best, it'd get you to shut up. But I can do that anyway, clearly, by simply ignoring the thread. Despite all your appeal to authority, if I showed you authority higher than yours which disagrees with you, it isn't as though you'd instantly reverse your position.
Am I right?
Prove me wrong. Go back to the original, technical topic. Stay focused. Write concise answers, and put them in one place, instead of copying and pasting them everywhere. Make it about finding out what's actually true, actually communicating, instead of just playing to win. ("performance"? Really?)
Or prove me right and paste your Ozymandias bit again. Do you know the rest of that sonnet?
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Wreck. Nice.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:
First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?
Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).
You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).
Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.
(Better luck next time, lol!)
---
"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)
WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???
DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).
---
"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)
Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.
APK
P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk
Ok, "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:
First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?
Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).
You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).
Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
From -> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
That, along with your use of ILLOGIC in your "Tu Quoque" (you too) type tactics here later -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32474586 ? Please... lol! You're making me laugh.
(Better luck next time, lol!)
---
"From your failure to distinguish an ad-hominem from an entirely-aside comment on behavior (not intended as a red-herring at all)" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)
WTF? Who are you trying to fool here?? This, on your part???
DEFINITELY a name tossing ad hominem attack on myself... again, better luck next time (especially on technical issues here, and even though you are trying to "drag this further off topic"? You failed again even where you *THINK* you are "strong"... and obviously? You're not, and merely just another "GOOGLE/WIKIPEDIA CHILD" @ best).
---
"Or you could realize you're on some pretty bad epistemological grounds to make such a claim. Intro to Philosophy would've taught you that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:13AM (#32535010)
Oh, that's RICH: Coming from a no degree to your name "pseudo expert" (where I actually have multiple degrees in CSC, CIS/MIS & more?)... Please, give us a break.
APK
P.S.=> Also, posting DAYS LATER on your part? Did you think I would just let YOU "skate away" & try to pull that puny trick so you can try to "get the last word"? LOL, no way... apk
per this article from TODAY NO LESS? So do others (in respected publications no less - take a read):
Fascinating:
Holy scriptures: The Lord of the Rings; Programming Perl (aka "The Camel Book")
Are you really taking this as a serious article? Seems like the majority of Slashdotters I meet hate Perl, for one...
Pity the fool who wanders blithely into a discussion and says, "What's the big deal with Linux? Windows works just fine." His online remains will later be hauled away in Chinese takeout boxes.
Without, of course, any reference or citation. This article certainly seems to have representation from both sides -- anti-Microsoft, and anti-Google.
I have seen pro-Microsoft comments modded to +5.
Of course, here you go:
How does one recognize a Slashdotter in public? One doesn't, says Malda, because they almost never leave the house.
So clearly, this was an article about humorous stereotypes, not about reality. (Do you really want to know where I've been this week?)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"You forgot the null hypothesis." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)
Heh, YOU seem to have forgotten you used 3 logical fallacies here in your attempts @ "illogic"... So, ok "wikipedia U graduate" (lol), try this definition from an educational institution, instead of your "typical GOOGLE CHILD" sources:
"Now, you started the dick-waving about degrees long before I pointed out your sock-puppeting.I am not actually asking you to prove that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:33AM (#32535272)
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html [csun.edu]
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
I did so when you brought up logic (and other things to try to discredit me, and you can't, because you don't even possess a degree in CSC, CIS/MIS or Philosophy to your name... if you do? Prove you have them) in order to show I am a CORRECT AUTHORITY (per appeal to authority in logic no less, off topic though your dragging it to the arena of logic is, I can run there too, & quite well judging by what is below, vs. your "fine performance" (not, logical violations like MAD on your end was more like it & trying to use what suited you ONLY conveniently and failing on your part there also)).
After all - you forced me into doing so, & it appears that when the shoe is on the other foot and you are asked to do the same?? You RUN, lol!
I replied when you asked I prove my credentials in fact, in order to show that I am more of an authoritative figure on many levels in the subject at hand than you are is all.
(The topic here and this forums section, in case you had not noticed? It is comp. sci. related material, not logic, which you are trying to "save face" in thinking your "strong" in it, and you obviously are NOT judging by how much you blatantly violate its tenets for proper debate as shown here).
First of all, for a CORRECT authority to be correct? He has to have somekind of validity noting he IS an actual authoritative expert (& since I have degrees around the sciences of computing, and you do not?
Well... I wonder who's the "more authoritative" authority here... YOU, with no such things to your name/credit, or professional verifiable experience that even did well in respected publications & more as I have, or I with "all of the above"? Yea, "tough call" that (not)).
You're essentially an incorrect authority, and nobody to cite as expert in other words... see here ->
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
(You can TRY to "drag this off topic" to where you *THINK* you are "strong", but I can run there too, and I will run you into the ground again, but this time, on what YOU consider "your ballcourt" apparently & boy are YOU about to get thrashed yet again, lol).
Here was your other LOGICAL error in debate also:
AD-HOMINEM ATTACK (a logical fallacy which you used here against myself CONSTANTLY in your name tossing attacks no less, some "logician" you are, lol!):
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!")
From ->
I would normally defend the merits of Linux and free software, but I have to disagree with you on the importance of local DoS. A local DoS can become a remote DoS when combined with a network interfacing program that has exploitable buffer overflow.
I once had a signature.
"That's correct. Finally, you acknowledge this." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
WTF? No, you had to CONCEDE that, because I am correct (as well as a correct authority on my part in my possessing degrees around the topic @ hand in the computer sciences, whereas you obviously do NOT have that to your name/credit)...
I.E.-> Open "sores" is it's own problem because it is open and can be used against itself by malware makers & hacker-cracker types.
You were SO begrudgingly UNWILLING to answer that, & so against admitting that on YOUR part, it was not funny... now? Now you finally have, days later (probably after you wikipedia'd & google'd your tail off as per usual, Google child).
---
"And I responded." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Yes, in having to admit I was correct on how "Open SORES" can be used against itself... see above.
---
"Factually wrong." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Oh, really? See above.
---
"And why must it be me myself? When I say "I", I mean "Anyone with the time and skill."" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
This was only to show & expose you in the fact that you "talk a big game" but you have no degrees or certs to your credit, and no years of professional experience (especially well noted as I have by respected publications & more) to your name either... it's to show you are FAR from an "authority" on this subject (& you attempting to drag this discussion off topic into LOGIC? Please... you used ad hominem attacks & tu quoque TOTALLY illogically and to your own detriment on those grounds, off toic as they are, also... lmao!)
---
"I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Sure, sure: "WE BELIEVE YOU" (not).
---
"You didn't even address the content of my sources, did you? Ah, well..." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
No, I just used actual educational institutions on the grounds of logic whereas you by way of comparison? LOL, you used where you "graduated from", in GOOGLE or WIKIPEDIA U, lol! See here anyone reading, for THAT much -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32535326
---
"I can also argue independently of them -- do you know what a non-sequitur is?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Yea, sure... is that why You had to use WIKIPEDIA? Do you even HAVE a degree in LOGIC (let alone CSC, CIS/MIS etc.)? Apparently not. You're NO authority on any of them, and you have to run to WIKI lol, as usual, only to have that backfire on you again & again also as usual here.
---
"Is that really something any self-respecting comp sci major would say?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Are you even a graduate of a CSC or CIS/MIS degree? We'd like to know, so it establishes you as some sort of CREDIBLE authority here is all... lol, & you have avoided that to NO end, repeatedly (gee "I wonder why" (not)).
---
"It'd be a poor system which requires anyone to be familiar with it in its entirety before making a fix. That's the entire point of modularity." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @09:39AM (#32534556)
Uhm, lmao... those modules (classes, objects, units, headers, etc. et al)? They are ALL part of a system, & the parts make u
"You've also refused to (or are unable to) make this fine distinction: My use of "dick" was a description of your behavior, not your character." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @08:58AM (#32534128)
Who are you trying to b.s. here? The "dick" comment is only 1 of MANY AD HOMINEM ATTACKS YOU USED, such as this one in addition to that which you cited above on your part also:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
As I said before?
You YOURSELF often go and violate logic by using that fallacy in your ad hominem attack based name tossing and all your doubletalk in the world doesn't change the fact you are obviously NOT much of a logician when you violate the rules of logical debate in your use of logical fallacies here.
---
"Tu quoque is a subset of ad-hominem, meaning, again, it applies when one is using this instead of attacking the argument." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @08:58AM (#32534128)
Uhm, lol, I know... I cited it here & from an actual EDUCATIONAL INSTITUION mind you (vs. your "wikipedia U" citings, lol):
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32468178
(Additionally, I have taken & passed (did well in fact) LOGIC during my CSC degree work... do you have such a degree to your name/credit, establishing you as an authority on the topic here (CSC related) or even in LOGIC (off topic though it is & you tried to "drag it there" much to your own dismay because I can show where and when with your own words how you violate its tenets for logical debate constantly when it's "convenient" for you)
Yes... you thought I didn't KNOW anything about LOGIC I suspect, is why, which is the oldest troll trick in the world, but "surprise, surprise" I do & have been formally educated in its usage (along with CSC/CIS/MIS related work, the actual topic here and you have no such material to your name/credit either on ANY account here that establishes you as a valid authority figure either).
---
"In other words, you're overly sensitive when constructive criticism is presented with vulgarity." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @08:58AM (#32534128)
No, I merely showed you use logical fallacies like mad, and yet you try to play "logician" with me while violating the rules of logic? LOL, please... and I am only successfully defending myself vs. your illogic and lack of anything showing you are an authority here on any of the subjects @ hand (especially those on topic, you have had to try to go "off topic" into logic and you only failed there as well in ad hominem attacks on myself repeatedly here no less... yea, some logician YOU are (not!)
---
"Contrast to your use of "open sores", which is neither constructive nor actually criticism, but merely abuse -- exactly what am I meant to take away from that?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @08:58AM (#32534128)
Yea, but I actually HELP the "Open SORES" crowd, per my helping those like the UltraDefrag 64 projects numerous times now in code, icons work, & also how to look at data when code opitimizations help you (and each time, the dev there said I was "correct" or "right", mind you). See here http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3369133 OR here http://sourceforge.net/projects/ultradefrag/forums/forum/709672/topic/3690136 as just some examples thereof ontop of my own work in freeware/shareware also, I also helped other devs of THAT nature as well many times over this decade no less also.
---
"That's correct. Finally, you acknowledge this.
WTF? No, you had to CONCEDE that
Show me where I ever said anything other than that.
I never did. I always "admitted" it, always accepted it, and my initial arguments assumed it. You somehow missed this, and needed me to spell it out for you explicitly, multiple times, before we stopped talking past each other on that point.
You then go on to elaborate as to how I scrambled to completely shift my position... really? Were you paying attention at all? Have you even bothered to look at my earlier posts other than to whine about where I hurt your feelings?
This was only to show & expose you in the fact that you "talk a big game" but you have no degrees or certs to your credit,
What, because people with degrees and certs only program in C?
I have. I don't, as a rule, but that's due to personal preference, not a lack of ability.
Sure, sure: "WE BELIEVE YOU"
So what was the point in asking me, if you're going to outright call me a liar?
No, I just used actual educational institutions on the grounds of logic whereas you by way of comparison?
I just replied directly, using more basic logical axioms. I showed, directly, where and how ad-hominem is a fallacy.
You, as usual, ignored my arguments -- actual arguments, not just assertions -- and considered only sources.
Yea, sure... is that why You had to use WIKIPEDIA?
Because I'm lazy, and it's far easier to tell you to go educate yourself, and link to a resource on the topic, than to spell it out for you in painstaking detail, over and over again.
Uhm, lmao... those modules (classes, objects, units, headers, etc. et al)? They are ALL part of a system, & the parts make up the whole and they interact with one another... you can't avoid it
The entire field of software engineering is an effort to avoid it -- to allow the architects to make decisions about how the pieces interact with each other, but to make individual pieces isolated from each other.
Lisp, one of the oldest languages still in common use, is frequently run either compiled or interpreted, depending on which is desired at the moment.
you're just another "Script Kiddie" trying to play "expert" with me...
Is that really something any self-respecting comp sci major would say?
Are you even a graduate of a CSC or CIS/MIS degree? We'd like to know,
Who's "we"? It's just you and me here.
A quick reminder: Your entire reason for being skeptical that I have a degree is that I haven't shown you one, and you doubt the quality of what I'm saying.
By the same token, I doubt anyone with a comp sci degree wouldn't understand such a basic principle about programming language design.
I'm going to have to cut this short here, because you're repetitive and frankly quite boring. Yes, take that as an "ad-hom" if you like, it won't make the rest of this drivel any more interesting.
If you want to continue this discussion, stop making me repeat myself. Stop the dick-waving. Start addressing actual arguments.
Because it's no longer a matter of ad-hom or personal attacks -- several levels deep in this, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the difference between a scripted and compiled language.
So go ahead -- type another response full of "authority" bullshit, and hope I don't notice while you scramble to try to put together some actual response. I won't be responding until you address this point, and I doubt I will then.
Debating you has been in every way more time-consuming, less intellectually stimulating, more frustrating, less productive, and overall a much worse experience than debati
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"You seem to have a remarkably bad track record for proving you are who you say you are. - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:08AM (#32534936)
You FAIL yet again, & use another "no degrees in CSC/CIS/MIS and no hands on years to decades of professional experience in the trenches actually DOING THE JOB", and one JUST LIKE YOU TOO, lol! Jeremy Reimer? He's FAR from an authority for one thing (as you continually try to "attack me" rather than my points here, in your blatantly illogical violations of logical debate in trying to discredit me via ad hominem attacks, tu quoque, & more logical fallacy usage on your part here nearly constantly & to NO avail).
Reimer? He has no decent accomplishments like I have in actual codework & more as I do to my name/credit in commercial wares of "enterprise class" no less as I do, or degrees in CSC/MIS-CIS as I do (again unlike yourself)
?Let's talk about Jeremy Reimer, here are some FACTS:
Jereny Reimer got caught by his ISP, Shaw in Canada, for:
---
1.) Email harassing me
2.) Impersonating me on his website
3.) Death threats directed MY WAY, both from he & his pal Jay Little (which ended up with a detective Felton in B.C. Canada where Reimer lives taking care of the rest for me).
---
"Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:08AM (#32534936)
OH, really? In fact, I even HELP an open SORES (I know that bugs you, lol) project in UltraDefrag 64 when I can... & I never once stated that Open Source is "bad", only that it can be used against itself by hacker/cracker - malware makers & the like... that was all.
(You can quit fishing for your "saviour" here, because your constant use of Ad hominem attacks is your undoing, with you trying to play "logician" vs. myself... you blew yourself out of the water in doing ad hominem attacks in that fact alone!)
APK
P.S.=> So much for your "links", because you're only helping me show those 2 as the undereducated & blatantly unqualified FOOLS they are in this art & science! Thank you in fact... Additionally, thank you for showing us all, AGAIN, that slashdot & its cronies like you, are just not THAT GOOD @ picking "experts" &/or authority figures... apk
Let's talk about Jeremy Reimer, here are some FACTS:
Jereny Reimer got caught by his ISP, Shaw in Canada, for:
Actually, according to what I linked to, he not only didn't get "caught", he actually played you pretty amusingly for a long time, after you'd demonstrated trollish (and litigious!) behavior.
But go ahead, show me the evidence for this. It should be even easier than evidence that you are the same APK.
More AD HOMINEM attacks, from an "authority"?
Ah, I see. For about the past three posts, you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority.
When I call you on appeal to authority, it doesn't mean I think I'm an authority. It means I think authority is irrelevant when you're as obviously wrong as you are.
That is what the Internet does, and Slashdot is an example -- it flattens things. If you're a good communicator, and what you say is valuable, you get modded up, people pay attention. If you suck, nobody cares, no matter how many degrees you have, or how many news organizations you run.
Yet you refuse to admit the corresponding advantage.
OH, really? In fact, I even HELP an open SORES
Doesn't change a thing. You've consistently refused to acknowledge the advantage of having security holes resolved more quickly, because they are easy to find. This is what I was referring to when I said corresponding advantage, because it's one that goes directly, hand in hand, with the "disadvantage" you point out.
(I know that bugs you, lol)
So you admit to doing something deliberately, because you know it bugs me. That's the definition of trolling.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"I never did. I always "admitted" it, always accepted it, and my initial arguments assumed it." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
Is that why you avoided answering to it like mad thru this exchange until now?
---
"What, because people with degrees and certs only program in C?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
No, learn to read please: Linux (we'll use its "latest/greatest" build version in fact, in 2.6x), especially in its core/kernel, is largely written in C as an example... & yes, it's "open sores", but it has more known security vulnerabilities in it than Windows 7 does currently (almost 6x as many in fact, per secunia.com)... it's to show that your "open sores" really "ain't all that" as the saying goes.
---
"So what was the point in asking me, if you're going to outright call me a liar?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
No, I am merely "calling you out" as to any "authority on the subject @ hand" you may have... & like degrees which would establish you as an authority here of some degree? You do not have that either apparently to your name/credit (whereas, I do and multiples thereof along with professional & even "award winning" experiences in the same & more).
In other words? You "talk a big game", but, when "the chips are on the table" & you're asked to prove your hand is strong? You have ZERO/Zip/Squat/Nada... you're no authority figure, per logic no less (where you attempted to drag this off topic no less once you failed CSC related materials & proofs of your 'expertise' in it no less)...
You called me names repeatedly here, and I had to defend myself vs. it, by showing you are NO authority in CSC related materials, nor in LOGIC either (as you violate logical debate rules constantly in your ad hominem attacks on myself).
---
"Because I'm lazy" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
I'd call that a SLACKER (especially from someone like you with no degrees or demonstratable professional experiences in CSC or LOGIC for that matter also, as well as no visible easily shown accomplishments to your name in them either).
---
"The entire field of software engineering is an effort to avoid it -- to allow the architects to make decisions about how the pieces interact with each other, but to make individual pieces isolated from each other." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
LOL, you're trying to tell ME "how it works"? Again, I am OUT THERE DOING IT PROFESSIONALLY & have degrees (multiple ones around it & in it no less) + years to decades of professional experience and to good note in respected publications in the eyes of my peers... you? You have NONE of the above.
(Those without experience or degrees here? NEED NOT APPLY - & that's YOU!)
By the by? You're NOT going to avoid module dependencies... even in single .exe & single sourcecode files in binaries for example? There is STILL dependencies on OS libs for example (NTDLL.DLL in Windows for example), & yes, even in "stand alone .exe files" this exists. It gets WORSE with larger projects and this is another potential "pitfall" of "Open SORES"... you can break things as you "fix them".
---
"So go ahead -- type another response full of "authority" bullshit" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:15PM (#32536756)
You're no authority in CSC, or LOGIC (see below), and "appeal to authority" (an incorrect one with no standing or degrees to your name or pro experience + awards & more as I have)? Shows you are NOT an authority, period, & on any subject here at all whatsoever.
Of course
"That's like saying "I help the Nigger community." Doesn't make it any less insulting or more productive." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:20PM (#32536854)
It seems YOU are the "overly sensitive one" here is all... Open "Sores" (which I help projects in no less & I produced proof of that as well here in UltraDefrag 64) is FAR from using racial slurs (or name tossing as you are quoted in below, & that's only 1 of MANY TIMES you used it no less).
---
"You're the only one here. "Doubletalk" wasn't my intent -- trying to clarify terms is one of the basics of any philosophical discussion. It's clearly needed with you, as you came to the table with entirely different definitions of some fundamental things than me." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:20PM (#32536854)
More "doubletalk" doesn't cover up your blatant violations of logical debate tenets & rules in your constant Ad hominem based attacks on myself here using name tossing & such no less (poor showing Mr. "logician" with no degree, & that? That also shows you're NO AUTHORITY in it either):
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
In regards to that also? Your OWN words no less?? See below:
"But go ahead, keep assuming malice." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:20PM (#32536854)
See above, & try to tell us that with more of your ineffective "double talk & evasions"... ok? LOL!
---
"I'm sure it'll make you lots of friends." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:20PM (#32536854)
Yea, well, who ever said I was here to "comfort you" or to "make friends"? I am not here to make you happy OR to win a popularity contest after all.
APK
"Actually, according to what I linked to, he not only didn't get "caught" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:29PM (#32536984)
LOL, from "Jeremy Reimer" a known troll online? Yes, some "authoritative source", & especially in the computer sciences (ask him if he has any degrees in CSC, CSC, or MIS... lol, he has ZERO, just like YOU in fact, lol!).
Ask him if parts of his website was removed by his hosting provider as well (and his pal Jay Little having his ENTIRE website removed for death threats directed MY way also).
Reimer can't stand on his own merits anymore than YOU can.
---
he actually played you pretty amusingly for a long time, after you'd demonstrated trollish (and litigious!) behavior." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:29PM (#32536984)
LOL, that fool Reimer couldn't play me if I was a piano, on his BEST day... as to litigious? See above, & tell that blatant FAKE like yourself he can try to bring suit on me, ANYTIME, and I will just bring up the emails his own hosting providers, isp, & even police in his area sent me.
Go for it.
---
"But go ahead, show me the evidence for this. It should be even easier than evidence that you are the same APK." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:29PM (#32536984)
Go to Windows IT Pro, ask Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft if I am... he & I used to work for the same company in the 1990's in fact & it's how I know of he (and I have even corrected errors in his work, pagedefrag specifically in fact, and he won't deny this (I had to show him how/when/why he was off on hardcodes to C:\Windows subfolders no less & he even thanked me for in it in email no less in 2003).
---
"Ah, I see. For about the past three posts, you've been under the assumption that I was ever trying to establish myself as an authority." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:29PM (#32536984)
Because you CANNOT do so, and without that? Who are you to even BEGIN to try to get the better of me?? All you have is your wikis and google, but no degrees, pro experience, or noted accomplishments to establish yourself as an authority in CSC related topics (or logic even, which again, you FAIL MISERABLY per your ad hominem name tossing quoted here -> "Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264) and that's only a 'small sample thereof' no less & it CLEARLY violates ad hominem & shows though you TRY to use LOGIC? You violate it like mad... failing badly in doing so BY THE RULES OF LOGICAL DEBATE NO LESS!).
APK
P.S.=> As usual? Too easy... apk
"Never said that, but it is more reliable than some random person's opinion." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:56PM (#32537494)
Which only proves your sources (like, LOL, Jeremy Reimer too), just are not absolutely VALID & validity is important in LOGIC, period... especially absolute validity.
(You cite incorrect unqualified "authorities" (NOT, loL) who are like yourself, & you cannot even BEGIN to establish yourself as an authority in CSC with degrees, pro experience, or awards & being noted well in tech trade shows, contests, & commercial code of "enterprise class" as I, on the converse & by way of comparison here? I can and to my OWN credit, and I don't need "wikis" for that either as you do, Google child).
---
"Are you incapable of understanding the null hypothesis?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:56PM (#32537494)
No, but you are incapable of understanding that you use ad hominem name tossing attacks directed my way, per your own quoted words next below in that regards:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
You cannot even get LOGIC right, because that IS clearly an ad hominem attack on myself (taking it "to the man, rather than his points") period on YOUR part & it is a violation of where you figured you'd be "STRONG" against myself, and you blew it right there above in fact, using that logical fallacy no less.
---
"Worthless -- any student can do that." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:56PM (#32537494)
Students with degrees are better than those minus them (like you)... and his information IS accurate and it is an .edu environs no less also. SO much for you, the "degreeless expert"... next you'll be telling me you are an "armless ambidextrian" I suppose, lol!
---
Too lazy to find out for yourself? Typical." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @12:56PM (#32537494)
Again, the day you can show you've done more than this around this field in the way of accomnplishmetns (along with degrees to your name and decades of well noted pro experiences as I have):
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as T
"Or too busy to deal with you anymore." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:29PM (#32538108)
Funny how you keep trying to 'save face' here in you replying back though, eh?
(Man - You're worse than a woman trying to "get the last word" even when you've been shown to violate your own rules and those of LOGIC!)
Especially, ala your ad hominem attacks quoted here now:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
Clearly this is the "best you've got" & no degrees in CSC (the actual topic which you had to try to go "off topic" on into logic on no less & you FAILED that too per the above quote).
---
"Funny how you complimented me at first for addressing the technical issues." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:29PM (#32538108)
Until you degraded to your usual ad hominem attack that is, shown here (only 1 of many from you no less):
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
When you get burned by your own foolishness? I have noted this pattern in yourself and others here... it violates logical debate rules, which you tried on ME and failed on per the above? Please...
---
Now, when I give you a single technical issue to address, you instead make it all about authority. - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:29PM (#32538108)
You don't have any "Authoritativeness" to your credit... and you tried to shoot down MINE? Good luck... you need it, alongside actual degrees & professional experience by the decade-load + reputable companies and publications citing you as they have myself many times over 16 yrs. or thereabouts.
---
"Go read through the exchange. I never denied it," - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:29PM (#32538108)
You wouldn't ACKNOWLEDGE IT when I stated it first was my point... learn to read! Finally you HAD to no less, because I was correct on it is why.
---
"Are you actually going to give any credence to a degree from Patriot Bible University" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:29PM (#32538108)
Question is, are you? You brought them up, not I... however, at least they have some schooling unlike yourself obviously at a collegiate level (prove me wrong, show me you have that, I'll take it back... things is, you can't and we all know it now. You're NO expert!)
You don't have anything in the way of degrees, professional experience, or work that others in publication noted as good/great etc. et al (and I have all of the above, and for years before you even got out of diapers I wager up to the present no less).
APK
You're the one who dragged it off topic and started up with myself to your own dismay... especially when you tried your "illogic logic" on me, lol, in your near constant usages of ad hominem attacks (& its variants like tu quoque) buddy, first! You shot yourself in the foot with this choice quote on the grounds of logic, this is certain:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
Yea, well... this moron's done this & earned multiple degrees in the computer sciences... have you?
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
(And, because I got LUCKY to have been exposed to some really GREAT classmates, professors, & colleagues on the job over time as well)
---
?
No, clearly, you have not. I am not speaking to a peer here, clearly, and you're certainly NO expert in LOGIC or Computer Sciences either (and lmao, neither are your "sources" in Jeremy Reimer either (ask him if he has degrees in computer sciences, or years to DECADES of well noted professional experience in them in programming or network administration even... clue - he doesn't! Just like you... Some "authoritative sources" you both are (not))...
APK
P.S.=> LOL, this is hilarious:
"According to him, it was you trying to bring suit against him." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:39PM (#32538318)
---
Hello Mr. Kowalski, we have added this evidence to Jeremy's tracking ticket.
Regards,
Acceptable Use Policy Management Team
Shaw High-Speed Internet Service
Shaw Cablesystems G.P.
2400 - 32nd Avenue N.E.
Calgary, Alberta, T2E 9A7
Telephone:
"He's a source of amusement." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
Yes, just like you: A no degree, no professional experience, & no accomplishments of note by others MERE TALKER... hot air!
---
"That's all I assume he's valid for. His experience comports with my own, however." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
Yes, see subject line above, lol!
Especially when you tried your "illogic logic on me in this clearly blatant ad hominem attack on myself:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
---
"Huh. You clearly don't know what validity means in logic. Hint: It has nothing to do with the kind of validation you get by looking at that piece of paper you're so proud of. It's about the structure of an argument and the truth of its premises." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
Yes, sure is... and you're using ad hominem attacks on myself, repeatedly & in many forms?? You're not one to talk about "LOGIC" & what wins logical debates, as shown above in one of your MANY ad hominem attacks directed my way by your own words, quoted above in plain "black & white"... no double talking your way around that now, is there? Nope!
---
"Then prove it." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
I don't have to prove a thing to you anymore. You asked I prove my education, I did so, far better than you have. You asked I prove my expertise here and called me names & more in doing so?? I provided you lists to the contrary (see below in fact as another example thereof).
---
"Your arrogance shines through" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
Your lack of anything showing you are an authority or expert on LOGIC or computing (our actual subject here you dragged off topic no less in your "illogic logic" which was shot down easily by your own adhominem based name tossing attacks & such)... that's easily enough surmised by your replies & evasions here, as well as your lack of expertise on any topic we have discussed (off topic due to you, or not).
---
"Now you assume I'm a student. Can you back that up?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
LOL, can you? Can YOU EVEN PROVE YOU HAVE COLLEGIATE ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE and the degrees that establish one as a valid authority on a subject (specifically CSC, CIS/MIS, or even PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC since you took it there and FAILED HUGELY per this ad hominem attack omy myself -> "Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264) ?
I don't have to back a thing up now, I showed what was asked of me (& other material to defend vs. your baseless attacks & asking of proof of me, where you? YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE A SHRED OF PROOF ON YOUR STATUS in the computer sciences or logic for that matter, off topic though it is).
---
"I gave you a simple task, to discover the truth, and you chose to continue in your assumptions instead. That's lazy." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @01:50PM (#32538544)
I don't obey your orders boy, get it? I mean, lol, who do you *THINK* you are?? My 1st grade teacher or something??? Please... Go get a degree and do as much as I can easily show in seconds I have in this art & science (only a small partial list of mine no less mind you)???? Then, you can call me lazy, BOY!
APK
So now, in order to track this, I'd have to actually talk to his ISP. Of course, all you say here is, "we have added this evidence..."
Jeremy Reimer's nobody anyone respects or takes seriously period
Maybe. I never heard of him until I noticed what he'd done with you.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"But "save face"? Nah. If I was about image, I might have dropped my docs, as you did." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
Per my subject above? You don't HAVE any "docs" to your credit, and certainly not in the forms of degrees or even certs to your name/credit, much less the list of accomplishments & pro experience I do (even by having partially written part of extremely well noted "enterprise class" softwares while you were still in diapers!)
----
"Nope, you haven't seen the best I've got, and better things were said, but they seemed to go right over your head. In one ear and out the other, through the empty space in your skull." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
Yea, sure... this didn't, & you TRIED LOGIC ON ME (illogic logic is more like it, ad hominem attacks are NOT valid in logical debate and anyone can see you were attacking me, rather than my points), and here are your own words doing so (only 1 of many on your part directed MY way no less here thoughout this exchange):
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
"Poor, sad aristocrat, still doesn't understand that this was never about "authoritativeness." It was about truth." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
Truth is NOT as important in LOGIC as validity is, though cogency does end up mattering... however, you shot down your "credibility & authority" in LOGIC (where you tried to drag it off topic once you blew it and had to admit what you did below after I pestered you on it to get to you fess up on that much below) above... ad hominem attacks are your undoing.
(And you called ME arrogant? Get over yourself. You're no authority in CSC related grounds anymore than you are in LOGIC.)
---
"Perhaps the word you're looking for is that those vulnerabilities are more easily found? Even if you assert that I wasn't clearly "admitting" it here, I would think I clarified sufficiently when I said "That's pretty much exactly what I said."" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
Good Lord, you finally had to ADMIT I was correct is more like it on that note... after all, I noted it many times before you did and you finally had to concede I am correct on that much is all.
---
"Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
LOL, you mean, AFTER I SAID IT AND YOU HAD TO CONCEDE I WAS CORRECT ON THAT MUCH (that "Open SORES" works against itself by being very easy to spot possible coding faults or bad instructions in, vs. using disassemblers/debuggers or fuzzers on closed source code)?
APK
P.S.=> Pot calling the kettle black are we?
"And now you suddenly have amnesia about the whole thing." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:31PM (#32539280)
LOL, listen: Go get a degree in CSC or CIS/MIS? Maybe THEN someone will take YOU, seriously... after you began your name tossing ad hominem attacks on myself? I quit taking you seriously at all in fact... apk
"I never heard of him until I noticed what he'd done with you." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:35PM (#32539354)
Of course, Reimer's nobody ANYONE takes seriously in the art & sciences of computing... for starters!
Secondly: Don't you mean what his ISP and HOSTING PROVIDERS did to he, as well as Detective Felton of the BC police for Reimer's impersonating me on his website and making death threats & more directed MY way??
---
"So now, in order to track this, I'd have to actually talk to his ISP. Of course, all you say here is, "we have added this evidence..." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @02:35PM (#32539354)
Please - feel free to do so. I can even forward you these emails if you wish!
Yes, the same evidence that made Jeremy Reimer stop email harassing me, had part of his website removed by his then hosting provider (and his colleague Jay Little having his entire website removed by CrystalTech.com whom you can contact as well in this regards if you wish for his deaththreats directed my way (another "ad hominem" attacker, just like you with your -> "Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264) )
Funny, this "MORON" has done all of this (and earned CSC + CIS/MIS degrees)... have you? See below again for your reference:
"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."
----
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
----
What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10
(And, because I got LUCKY to have been exposed to some really GREAT classmates, professors, & colleagues on the job over time as well)
APK
P.S.=> You lost badly and especially on LOGIC (illogic logic is more like
Good Lord, you finally had to ADMIT I was correct is more like it on that note...
Here it is again:
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source,
Is that where I "admitted it"? Huh?
That was in my first post.
Clearly, that's not getting through your thick fucking skull, so here it is again:
THAT WAS IN MY FIRST POST.
you mean, AFTER I SAID IT
So, I said it in this post. You did not say it in this post. You, in fact, did not mention it until this post.
So where did you say it before me? Again: It was in my VERY FIRST reply to you. It was not hidden behind "doublespeak", it was right there. I even quoted it for you in my last post.
This is where you say "I'm sorry. I was wrong about that." But you won't. You'll whine about ad-hom -- if you acknowledge it at all. More likely, you'll find some twisted way to convince yourself, just so you don't have to admit defeat, because that is more important to you than truth or validity.
I feel sorry for you, dude.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"That was in my first post. Clearly, that's not getting through your thick fucking skull, so here it is again:" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:29PM (#32545744)
Yes, where you ONLY ADMITTED THE "UPSIDE" of "Open 'sores'" ONLY, not the downside I have been noting... you FINALLY had to admit that I am correct that using debuggers/disassemblers OR fuzzers on closed source code takes MUCH LONGER to "hack/crack" (this is where you are missing the boat - how hacker/cracker types can exploit "Open 'sores'" code for their usage... this is the 'flipside' of what you stated first, requoted below now as evidence thereof):
"That's the important part. Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source, a process which leads to a more secure system" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @02:09AM (#32415160) Journal
First of all - that was not a reply to me, note that, so odds are strong I would not read it (you don't KNOW enough in this art & science to make you worth reading (at least not to myself)).
Secondly? Your quote above?? It wouldn't matter to "save your face" here, anyhow, below IS why:
You FAILED to note what I have been stating here ALL along though, which IS THE "DOWNSIDE" of "Open 'SORES'" (yes, I know: It offends you that I use that term, lol, even though I have been doing freeware & helping opensource guys on projects galore over decades now no less) - that, again, is that OPEN SOURCE ALSO LEADS TO AN AVENUE WHERE BUGS CAN BE FOUND FAR FASTER BY MALWARE MAKERS/HACKERS-CRACKERS too, in order to exploit said potential bad coding practices, or even faulty instructions (such as the specific case I noted here in sscanf in C).
You initially stated, & not even to me, what the "upside" of open sores is, not what I faced you with that you HAD to admit, I am correct on!!!
(You did NOT admit that, until I threw it in your face here, several times... nuff said & TOO easy!)
---
So, before you Unleash another wave of profanity as you have above, in trying to b.s. us even more here, little boy?
First of all: Grow up, quit the profanity. It's largely your "tell", & tells me when you are on the ropes badly!
(So please - Don't try to "pull the wool over our eyes" here, I can requote your words and in the order you even have SHOWN me they occurred in no less, and because just as you blew it in LOGIC with your ad hominem attacks (once more, requoted below) directed my way?
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
Well, again: The day you can show you've earned more accomplishments, in respected trade mags, books, newspapers, & tech contests/trade shows & have COMMERCIAL APPLICATION CODE, of "Enterprise Class" nature, TO YOUR CREDIT (as I do, as well as oh, 25 "enterprise class" sized systems you've created that span millions of lines each with TONS of "moving parts" that are interrelated like mad?)?
Well... you know: That'll be the day the "likes of you", can speak to myself, in such a manner!
APK
P.S.=>
"This is where you say "I'm sorry. I was wrong about that." But you won't." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @02:09AM (#32415160) Journal
Sorry? For WHAT?? I just showed, with your own links no less, that ALL YOU "ADMITTED TO" was the "upsides" of "Open 'sores'" code, NOT ITS DOWNSIDE (easier to find 'cracks' in for hacker/cracker types BY FAR, than is using debuggers/disassemblers OR fuzzers on closed source code)... apk
"Well, let me put it this way..." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:06PM (#32545578)
OH, do you mean, like this?
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
?
---
"You accuse me of something" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:06PM (#32545578)
Oh, you mean like this, in one of your ad hominem attacks directed my way here:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
?
---
"You don't bother to find out if it's actually true." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:06PM (#32545578)
Oh, you mean like this:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
?
---
"That's exactly the kind of behavior I mean by "don't be a dick."" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:06PM (#32545578)
Yes, that's right, that's another of your "patented" name-tossing ad hominem attacks you directed my way here. Here's another:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
---
"If you don't want to bother to find out, don't throw accusations, it's that simple." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, @10:06PM (#32545578)
Yes, same with this, albeit now? Again from yourself, & directed my way in your numerous name calling ad hominem attacks on myself:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
?
---
"Another human being. You clearly don't know how to treat other human beings." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Friday June 11, 10:06PM (#32545578)
Sure, sure... sort of like this, from you?
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
APK
P.S.=> Speak for yourself, & PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH! apk
Fun fact: I haven't actually called you a moron since that moment, and even there, what was meant was, "Now you're being moronic."
You have dragged it up in nearly every post, and have continued to throw these accusations at me, as if they mean anything.
But hey, if you want to make it about being right, that's your loss.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yes, where you ONLY ADMITTED THE "UPSIDE" of "Open 'sores'" ONLY,
Oh really?
Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source,
That's not acknowledging that more vulnerabilities are found? What did you think I was saying here? ...Oh, I see:
You FAILED to note what I have been stating here ALL along though, which IS THE "DOWNSIDE" of "Open 'SORES'" (yes, I know: It offends you that I use that term,
Yeah, it does. Why do you keep using it?
You initially stated, & not even to me, what the "upside" of open sores is,
Wrong. I stated both -- the yin and the yang. Found and fixed.
You seem obsessed with separating these two. I presented their sum as a net positive. I did so repeatedly:
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said. I also explained why this is a good thing.
That was in reply to this:
if I have the sourcecode to an operating system, I have a FAR easier time of finding bugs in it
In other words, I was clarifying here that what you said (it's easier to find bugs) is pretty much what I said (it's easier to find and fix bugs) -- and that one naturally leads from the other. The "it works both ways" is both obvious and irrelevant -- the question is whether it's a net positive or negative, and since the finding of bugs naturally leads to fixing them, and since the fixing of them leads to an overall more secure system (including known and unknown bugs), I thought I'd sufficiently acknowledged and addressed your argument.
By contrast, you eventually tried to downplay the "easier to fix" part by asking whether I (a sample size of one) can fix the kernel myself. You also wasted both our time with a slew of posts trying to get me to "admit" something I acknowledged and addressed right away. It's a bit like if you said, "We never see a crocoduck," and I said, "And evolution never predicted one," and you said, "But we never see a crocoduck!" And then, when I finally say what you were looking for, you quotemine me -- "Yes, you're right, we never see a crocoduck, but..." and you say "See?! HE ADMITS IT!!!"
That's not just stupid. That's willful ignorance to the point of dishonesty.
But let's address the part where you actually lied:
First of all - that was not a reply to me, note that,
Erm, sorry, but when the truth is staring you in the face, what do you gain by lying?
This is where I said it. That was a reply to this post. What, was that a different APK?
Or were you talking about a different post of mine? Nope, it seems pretty clear:
"That's the important part. Linux always has more vulnerabilities publicly found and fixed due to it being open source, a process which leads to a more secure system" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @02:09AM (#32415160) Journal
First of all - that was not a reply to me
Looks pretty clear. You're still talking about this post, which is still a reply to this post, which is still pretty clear.
So yeah, I think I'm justified in calling you a moron here. For all your "accomplishments", you've just said something which is absolutely, undeniably, factually wrong, despite the truth being a mere click away from the page you wrote that lie on. Calling you a moron would certainly be more generous than calling you a liar -- which do you prefer?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Fun fact: I haven't actually called you a moron since that moment" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:17PM (#32559638)
The reason you ceased is because in calling names, the act of it destroyed your attempts @ using "LOGIC" is why, and shows you are guilty of using a logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack is why. You defeated yourself on the very grounds you attempted to use on me.
---
"and even there, what was meant was, "Now you're being moronic." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:17PM (#32559638)
No, that's not going to wash now is it? Especially since your own words were quoted...
AND??
You also called me other derogatory things (like "dick" & more also).
(No, no amount of "doubletalk" on your part is going to wash away the fact that you continually call others names when you are "on the ropes" & it gives you away (like a bad tell in poker, everytime)).
---
"You have dragged it up in nearly every post, and have continued to throw these accusations at me, as if they mean anything" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:17PM (#32559638)
LOL: "as if they mean anything"? They're YOUR OWN WORDS QUOTED FROM YOU, that once more, indicate you attempt to use LOGIC on others, and yet you violate it LOGIC like mad... once more - you defeat yourself on the grounds you attempt to use on others in debate in fact!
---
"But hey, if you want to make it about being right, that's your loss." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:17PM (#32559638)
Oh, I proved right enough on "Open 'SORES'" having a very big downside, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32546270 , that YOU had to admit later (only after I pounded you constantly on it) and in the post before that URL? Heh, you even provided me the ammo & evidence to show you had to admit it.
AND
I was right enough in that Windows 7 has less security vulnerabilities in its ENTIRE BODY OF PARTS (2, rated low threat 2 no less, AND with valid effective work-arounds as well, making them essentially NOT exist anymore at all really) than LINUX 2.6xx kernel/core ONLY has (11, but that's NOT counting ones it would have IF things like GUI shells in KDE or Gnome would add onto that, or tty terminals like BA$H as well, etc.- et al) AND that the security vulnerabilities in LINUX are not all fully patchable OR "work-around'able" as those in Windows 7 are either...
APK
"That's not acknowledging that more vulnerabilities are found?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:46PM (#32559816)
Found yes, but, by WHOM is what matters, because malware makers &/or hacker-cracker types aren't going to use security vulnerabilities they find to HELP fix an OS of any kind, but rather to do harm to it and its users!
(Which IS EASIER TO DO, especially via sourcecode being OPEN & in actual programming language source no less via even an editor like notepad.exe or nano in Linux even, than it is using fuzzers &/or debuggers-disassemblers on CLOSED SOURCE CODE... period)
That is what YOU ended up having to admit, and no amount of "double-talk" on your part can change it, because that is how it happened here.
(Who do you think you are fooling? You said what you did, & this is a LARGE part of why I use the quoted words of others, not just to respond to each point they make... it allows ME to catch THEM (you) in mistakes they make in their OWN words!)
---
"Yeah, it does. Why do you keep using it?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:46PM (#32559816)
Oh, I use it as a "Term of endearment" (because as you know, I even help out "Open 'SORES'" projects at times, like UltraDefrag64 as an example I used & many freewares before that over time also) only...
So, on that note then: WHY DID YOU TOSS NAMES MY WAY HERE (dick, moron, etc.) CONSTANTLY? Oh, you stopped, but only after you were shown that makes your use of such "tactics" illogical (via ad hominem attack)...
You realized you had defeated your very own "points" of your so-called "LOGIC" (illogic logic) you conveniently attempt to use ONLY WHEN IT SUITS YOU, even if you violate other logical tenets when you do so... which again, defeats the very purpose of you attempting to use logic in the first place.
---
"The "it works both ways" is both obvious and irrelevant " - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:46PM (#32559816)
No, no senor: It's QUITE relevant to note that "Open 'SORES'" has a HUGE DOWNSIDE in that open sourced sourcecode is far easier to find security vulnerabilities in by the malware maker/hacker-cracker crowd than it would be by using fuzzers &/or disassemblers-debuggers against closed source code (binary executables only etc.)... you hated to have to admit it, but IT IS TRUE, nevertheless (and you couldn't stand that, & tried to evade admitting it, but... as we all can see? YOU HAVE TO NOW, and you had to then earlier here).
---
"For all your "accomplishments"" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:46PM (#32559816)
Yes, that's right: I have them, and that's only a SMALL PARTIAL LIST mind you (I can come up with 2-3x that in fact if not more, those are just my favs)... and you, by way of comparison? You don't even have a FRACTION of my partial list... nor do you have multiple degrees in the art & science of computing as I do either, NOR DO YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATABLE YEARS TO DECADES OF PROFESSIONAL HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE IN THEM EITHER as I do to my credit as well.
(Thus, you are FAR from a demonstratably "correct authority", as in LOGIC's "Appeal to Authority" as well)
---
"Calling you a moron would certainly be more generous than calling you a liar -- which do you prefer?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Sunday June 13, @07:46PM (#32559816)
Either works to show you are guilty of illogic because they are ad hominem attacks, and you thought you'd use "LOGIC" on me? Again, you defeated yourself there as well in your use of name calling ad hominem (attacking the man, vs. his points instead) attacks here, near constantly directed MY way!
APK
"Are you saying you know what I meant better than me?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Monday June 14, @09:46AM (#32564304)
Yes, because you're simply trying to "cover up" for your mistakes in using ad hominem attacks directed MY way @ my self, rather than my points here, such as this "classic" from you:
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
Anyone that can read can make a simple determination of the intent of those words of yours, & they're clearly an ad hominem name tossing attack, directed MY way by yourself, rather than your attacking the points I made (the main ones are these 2 below):
1.) "Open 'SORES'" having a very big downside, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1670694&cid=32546270 , that YOU had to admit later (only after I pounded you constantly on it) and in the post you made, before that URL where I responded to it? Heh, you even provided me the ammo & evidence to show you had to admit it.
AND
2.) I was right enough in that Windows 7 has less security vulnerabilities in its ENTIRE BODY OF PARTS (2, rated low threat 2 no less, AND with valid effective work-arounds as well, making them essentially NOT exist anymore at all really) than LINUX 2.6xx kernel/core ONLY has (11, but that's NOT counting ones it would have IF things like GUI shells in KDE or Gnome would add onto that, or tty terminals like BA$H as well, etc.- et al) AND that the security vulnerabilities in LINUX are not all fully patchable OR "work-around'able" as those in Windows 7 are either...
APK
P.S.=> You can keep trying to "drag it off topic" as you have here, into LOGIC areas (when the topic here is CSC related) and you'll keep failing because of your:
--
A.) Your misuse of logical fallacies such as your name calling ad hominem attacks you directed my way here almost
B.) You cannot show a way to patch or work-around every LINUX 2.6x security vulnerability in FULL (& that's KERNEL ONLY, as to the 11 sec. vulns in Linux 2.6x shown @ SECUNIA.COM, which would go up past that IF KDE/Gnome, BA$H, & other parts of Linux folks use regularly were counting with THEIR sec. vulns added, because Windows 7 &/or MacOS X have those areas omitted in Linux's sec. vulns counts @ SECUNIA.COM counted because folks use them too in Win7 &/or MacOS X, not just the kernel ONLY as is the case @ SECUNIA.COM with Linux)
C.) You had to ADMIT that "Open 'SORES'" has a downside in that open source sourcecode is FAR EASIER & FASTER TO FIND BUGS IN THAT MALWARE MAKERS/HACKER-CRACKERS CAN USE TO EXPLOIT LINUX 2.6x, not help "fix" its problems (not that everyone has that ability anyhow - all users of LINUX cannot code in C/C++ period anyhow, & even IF they can or do? They still have to have an understanding of what it is they are trying to "fix", because w/ out it? You can bust more than you fix, as if the case in larger systems like OS' or larger software projects!)
--
"too, Too, TOO EASY", just too easy... apk
You fail on 3 things here (A being off topic on your part as well):
--
A.) Your misuse of logical fallacies such as your name calling ad hominem attacks you directed my way here 2-3 times now or more...
B.) You cannot show a way to patch or work-around every LINUX 2.6x security vulnerability in FULL (& that's KERNEL ONLY, as to the 11 sec. vulns in Linux 2.6x shown @ SECUNIA.COM, which would go up past that IF KDE/Gnome, BA$H, & other parts of Linux folks use regularly were counting with THEIR sec. vulns added, because Windows 7 &/or MacOS X have those areas omitted in Linux's sec. vulns counts @ SECUNIA.COM counted because folks use them too in Win7 &/or MacOS X, not just the kernel ONLY as is the case @ SECUNIA.COM with Linux)
C.) You had to ADMIT that "Open 'SORES'" has a downside in that open source sourcecode is FAR EASIER & FASTER TO FIND BUGS IN THAT MALWARE MAKERS/HACKER-CRACKERS CAN USE TO EXPLOIT LINUX 2.6x (rather than how much slower that is to do for they, than using fuzzers &/or debuggers on closed source code), not help "fix" its problems (not that everyone has that ability anyhow - all users of LINUX cannot code in C/C++ period anyhow, & even IF they can or do? They still have to have an understanding of what it is they are trying to "fix", because w/ out it? You can bust more than you fix, as if the case in larger systems like OS' or larger software projects!)
--
"I don't know, why did you toss "terms of endearment" my way?" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Monday June 14, @10:08AM (#32564588)
I've always called "Open Source", OPEN SORES (and I have even shown that I've helped GOOD Open "sores" projects out over time, and many freewares before it, like UltraDefrag64 for example)... AND? Hey - you're not called Open Source OR Open SORES, are you? No. Thus, it's no ad hominem attack directed YOUR WAY by myself specifically at you @ all, such as your "classic" you directed my way here with these "choice words" now quoted here again from you, directed MY WAY in an ad hominem attack (& you tried to use "LOGIC" on me? "Illogic Logic" is more like it!):
"Now you're just a moron." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Tuesday June 01, @08:51PM (#32426264)
--
"It's evident in the same breath as mentioning the upside" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) on Monday June 14, @10:08AM (#32564588)
Really? Where did you EXPLICITLY mention in the same words as my POINT "C" above that "Open 'SORES'" has a downside as noted in C above?? You did not, once, because either you had NO COMPREHENSION OF ITS POSSIBILITY OF BEING USED AGAINST OPEN SOURCE THAT WAY, or, YOU CONVENIENTLY AVOIDED IT... take your pick!
--
"Of course, they will eventually be fixed, no matter who finds them." - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday June 14, @10:08AM (#32564588)
Maybe, maybe not, but... I know 1 thing for sure, & that's that Windows 7 has valid workarounds that are effective against its two LOW RATED (2) THREATS @ SECUNIA.COM... per my POINT B above, does Linux 2.6x? No, not fully!
(Additionally/again: That's LINUX 2.6x kernel ONLY mind you, the 11 security vulnerabilities in LINUX would be much higher if KDE/Gnome &/or BA$H bugs were also added, as their analogs to them in MacOS X &/or Win7 are no less).
--
"On the contrary, they are both relevant to your near-constant appeals to authority -- if you are indeed a liar or a moron" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday June 14, @10:08AM (#32564588)
More ad hominem attacks directed my way by yourself? Thanks for proving my point once again...
--
"you are also not an authority" - by SanityInAnarchy (655584) ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday June 14, @10:08AM (#32564588)
When the topic is Comput