Oh yes, Cutler's design theories and beliefs that went into VMS (and others as well - several key developers of VMS were brought in by Microsoft for the development for NT) overflowed into NT... of course, consider WNT == VMS with each letter shifted up by one. Food for thought, at least.
I'm sure Cutler's feeling quite shat-upon, since his wish for a pure system was compromised quite heavily by Microsoft's desire for a pretty OS that could win benchmarks (aka pissing contests) and was pure 32-bit internally, not to mention the profit angle... but what can you say? That's business, I guess.
The DOS sessions, the Win32 processes, and the Win16 subsystem (mind you, nearly the entirety of Win9x's GDI layer remains in Win16) are preemptively multitasked. The cooperative multitasking occurs within the Win16 subsystem... but unfortunately, you end up with a LOT of code running in the Win16 process (as I mentioned, nearly the entirety of the GDI layer, and a lot of the user-mode code...) so it sets up ugly contention stuff.
Actually, Win95/98 do preemptively multitask - but only for Win32 code. (And there's still lots of Win16 code left over in Win9x, so you get a horribly ugly combination-kinda-thing going... it's truly evil.)
Just thought I'd make a note - Microsoft has already given up on a port of 32-bit Win2K to AXP/Alpha. They're saying the supposed 64-bit Windows that's being worked on behind the scenes will support the Alpha. (Of course, you can just bet that's gonna require yet ANOTHER almost-complete API rewrite, just like the Win16-Win32 transition.)
So, for the moment anyway, NT'a back to being a one-stop show.
I can't speak on behalf of Transmeta, but 3Dfx (I recently purchased a Voodoo3) has supported Linux to some degree for awhile, and has recently open-sourced Glide.
I don't care about Corel WP too much - I bought ApplixWare. Yes, yes, I know, how dare I? It's not the prettiest, but it's stable, and inexpensive, and I think it's a good product and a good value.
I must stand up in defense of Loki: They are developing open-source stuff and using it where they can. SDL (Thank you Sam!) is open-source, as are the SMPEG and SMJPEG video playback engines which Loki coders have written (for use in the games they port), and the installer that they are using now uses Gtk+ (also ncurses, I think) and an XML description file, and is also open-source. Unfortunately, they can't open source the products of other companies.
Hypocrisy is a subjective thing. Don't be too hasty with the names - you may be anonymous, but it can still come back to bite you in the ass.
Very cute. Even though I don't think that's what it means (probably refers to cloning of the ol' TRaSh-80s)... yikes. He'd probably have a "mini-Bill" created, like Dr. Evil... scary where the mind can take such things, no?:)
Well, that's great... sounds like that wasn't documented though. (I don't know, myself - I don't use NT unless I must, and I certainly don't have it on my home machine. Wish I didn't have to run Windows at all, tho...)
I know that I'd prefer bash-style completion, though...
Only time will tell if they are right. no history can IMHO.
Yes, time certainly will tell - but history is also quite telling. People are slow to change - large corporations are even slower, if they can be changed at all. Microsoft has made claims like the claims that they're now making for Windows 2000 with every release of NT - and in the opinion of many, fell extremely short with each previous attempt. Hopefully they'll get closer to the target this time, but I'm not gonna be placing any bets on it...
On the other hand, you sound as if most of your experience HAS been on NT. Also, you're basically saying "yes, I know NT's history hasn't been good, but ignore its history because history is meaningless."
Security depends on many things - knowledge and ability of the administrator, the quality and care put into the software used, and the willingness of the users to help make the system secure. A sloppy admin will certainly reduce security, of course. But a badly-written/badly-implemented piece of software will as well. A skilled admin may be able to work around some of a piece of software's flaws, but that doesn't make the software better.
Also, try picking up a copy of "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" by Garfinkel & Spafford at your local bookstore - nothing is ever 100% secure, unless no one can use it, which obviates the need for having it in the first place.
So maybe we should drop the whole question of "security"...
NT's security is NOTHING like you'll find on linux or any other unix or similar
Wow, you think? NT has to implement access control on many different types of things... yes, everything's an "object" - but on Unix and Unix-alike systems, everything is a file. That's why NT's security is very different from Unix security - it's just a plain different approach.
On the fact Unix's security is based on 1 superuser which is needed for all daemons? on userrights instead of object rights?
That doesn't necessarily make it more or less secure (unless something in the OS is implemented badly, has some kind of hole, etc.)...
NT is in the US/Canada area already 128bit for years. Windows 2000 will be using 128bit security worldwide.
Uhhh. They'd have to have government permission to export "strong" encryption outside of the US. Also, "worldwide" is a relative term - there're still several nations on the US government's shitlist that they won't allow ANYONE to export crypto technology to (and some like France, where they simply don't permit crypto technology at all). Simply, I think you don't know what you're talking about here.
Windows2000 will use Kerberos strong encryption
Uhhh. You obviously don't understand what Kerberos is - Kerberos is NOT an encryption method, it is a secure ticket-based authentication system. (It doesn't necessarily use "strong" crypto, afaik.) And an "industry standard"? It's certainly a standard, but (a) it's not a standard in "the industry" proper (because far as I know, most Unix vendors don't ship a commercial Unix with Kerberos plugged into it), and (b) Microsoft, of course, is using their own bastardized version of Kerberos, not the standard protocols that the rest of the world uses (minimizing compatibility, as usual).
MS fixes security leaks within 24 hours most of the time. Arguing it takes ages to get a fix are therefor unfounded.
I don't know what planet you've been living on, but Microsoft has taken its sweet time fixing security-related issues. (Unless of course, you're a huge corporate customer...)
Still, unskilled administrators install the basic set [of IIS modules].
"[U]nskilled administrators"? I believe I heard it said best like this (roughly quoted): "If you need point and click to be an administrator, you shouldn't BE an administrator." Microsoft harps on how "easy" it is to admin NT - yet all the people I know who admin NT say "you really need to know what you're doing, not just any monkey in a 3-piece suit can do it"... Next.
IE holes are a problem, but who surfs the net on a production server.
Well, when EVERY Microsoft product requires IE to be installed for installation, and all the help and stuff like that is provided via IE, that's what you get. YASMD. (Yet Another Stupid Microsoft Decision)
but MOST of the system administrators, ALSO on unix, are not people with 10 to 12 years of experience with administrating servers
I don't have 10-12 years of experience (I have 4-5 years of Linux experience under my belt now), but most people I know consider me fairly learned, and I read ORA books, check up on BugTraq, and try to keep up on recent information and issues. You don't have to have a virtual lifetime of experience, but you need to have some, and you need to read up. That's the same whether you're running NT or Solaris or IRIX or Linux or HPUX or whatever.
No-one says unix is unsave because sendmail is crap.
Well, that's very true, but Sendmail is just one MTA - there are several others; also, the bad old days of poor Sendmail security have mostly passed us by. I think the developers of Sendmail learned a LOT from the days of the Internet worm.
if you don't follow the security sites, if you don't apply patches REGULARLY!, if you don't know what to close and what to remove from the system to keep/make it secure, and most important: if you DON'T let a 3rd party, specialized in security, scan your systems for leaks, your system won't BE secure, no matter what kind of OS you have. Admitted: some OS-es have LESS open doors than others, but NO OS has NONE closed doors. Don't forget that.
All I can say to that is this: It's a lot easier to secure a Unix box than an NT box, if you know what you're doing. And by the very admission of NT admins that I've spoken with, you need to know what you're doing on NT too. Besides, with closed source, you never know what ports they're leaving open (at least till you portscan your own box), and that can be dangerous. I'd rather stick with Linux, where I can verify my own security (as well as having someone from outside check it), instead of depending on big daddy MS to do it for me.
Ask all those Solaris administrators currently suffering the DoS worms
Which are those? The main admins I feel bad for are SCO admins (seen loads of recent SCO issues on BugTraq) - and admins of NT 4 systems, who are soon to be orphaned unless they pay big bucks to update to the latest, greatest Microsoft product.
Bashing the FUTURE without knowing what it will bring with the facts of old material from the past is not fair.
It's called history. History is important - those who do not remember it are doomed to repeat it.
If you turn around the roles and people will bash Linux using the hundreds of holes in all the distributions
Not everyone runs the most holey of distros, but Linux security holes do (in general) get patched quickly. I happily run Debian, and have found it to be plenty secure for my needs (masq box/shell server/Web server for a public school district), and any security issues are quickly resolved with Debian, in my experience. NT's holes are just harder for the end-user to deal with - namely because you have to wait for them to come from above. You can't do anything about them on your own.
Your claim that NT security is "better" than Unix security is, IMO, quite false. Look at the history - then tell me what you believe.
I just thought I should point out how on the one hand, you claim to be for "freedom", yet you're calling for the censoring of people who you deem to be troublemakers, flamers and generally difficult and annoying people. You talk and talk about freedom, yet you wish it to be selective.
I've seen some women come out of the woodwork to respond to your previous articles stating the exact OPPOSITE of what you have been - they've decided that if they come across something they don't like, they can either pass it by and keep looking for soemthing useful, or leave if they feel offended. I don't want or expect anyone to leave, but for freedom to work, EVERYONE must be free, not just those you deem "worthy" of freedom. (Yes, as the saying goes, my freedom ends at the tip of your nose, but eliminating the freedom of one group to increase the freedom of another won't solve anything.)
Also, you continue to point to the young white male as the primary aggressor in all this, the main "asshole". I don't like to think of myself as that sort of person, but you certainly make it plain that you think I should. There're assholes in every group - it doesn't end at any particular group boundary (be it gender, skin color, class, age, whatever).
Please end this. I've been patient, hoping you'd wind this series of articles together into some useful point. However, you continue to insist the same thing - young white males (which I am one of) are inherently evil, and their freedom must be restricted to increase the freedom of the other groups who you deem to be oppressed by the young white male contingent.
... they really need to lobby Blizzard and port over some of their games...
I've asked Scott Draeker about this myself (once via e-mail and once @ LWCE in August) - believe me, they've tried. Blizzard is absolutely convinced that there's not enough market for their games on Linux. (yea, like getting their mailserver crashed by Linuxers begging for a port isn't enough evidence...) If you want Blizzard to let Loki port their games, TELL THEM about it! Call them, e-mail them, whatever. Find some way to express to them that yes, the Linux market is big enough, and YES, we want StarCraft!
Just because it's been done before (and even done frequently) doesn't make it a good idea. It's still a poor idea - just a poor idea that's been carried through on for the sake of keeping one's good name intact.
HELLO? McFly? This isn't an issue of encryption - it's an issue of an Internet-based purveyor of a service storing the credit-card numbers of their patrons in an insecure fashion, in the name of convenience. You could have had 1024-bit encryption end-to-end, but in this case it wouldn't have mattered at all.
Let me ask Slashdot readers a question. Suppose you could get a version of Linux that ran 25% slower, but was highly secure, secure enough to run trusted applications in a leakproof environment and untrusted applications in a "sandbox". Would you run it? Would you buy it?
Would it even HAVE to be pay-ware? But that's beside the point - I for one, if I were developing an electronic commerce system and wanted it to run on Linux, certainly would consider such a thing. It's just the right way to do such things.
Umm. You seem to not be aware that the majority of credit-card information transfers of the Internet (all, if you count the places where the site builders aren't head cases) are done via SSL. That certainly helps decrease the chances of someone in between snagging your CC info. I don't trust companies that keep your complete CC info for later purchases - for this very reason.
Oh yes, there's an idea - pay him off to shut up about it, allowing the consumer to be lulled into a false sense of security. They haven't fixed the problem yet - if they haven't yet, and the problem has now been widely publicized, who's to say that even if they HAD paid off the cracker, they'd ever have fixed the problem? Then you have the potential for yet ANOTHER cracker to come along and repeat the same song-and-dance!
To you I say 'wah'. I for one thought it was quite funny. If you don't like it, that's your business, and your decision - you don't have to like it, but please don't whine because others do.
I believe that's correct. But the domain isn't x.com, it's x.org (the official site for the X Consortium, the caretakers of the X Window System codebase). Certainly a special case if ever there was one, wouldn't you agree? Why should they have to go by xconsortium.org or whatever? I know when I think X, I think of X (Window System). Don't you?:)
I'm familiar with the culture. And yes, there're Mac "power users" who know how to get more out of MacOS than the "average" Mac user, but when you're dealing with an OS that's designed ground-up to hide the system's activity from the user, there's only so much you can really do.
Also, are YOU familiar with MacOS? Please keep in mind that it's using cooperative multitasking for all apps and has no memory protection to speak of. (Well, apps actually directly manipulate OS-internal data structures - that's SCARY.) This is one reason why Apple is completely disposing of the existing MacOS codebase, after all. (Okay, cooperative multitasking itself isn't a bad thing - but with heterogeneous, non-reviewed code, it can be a problem...)
The control panels? The control panels don't provide you that much control - that's the thing about using a GUI-only OS like MacOS, you're completely limited to the controls that they can jam into their control panel windows. I've played with the OS enough to get used to it, but I still don't like the interface.
And as to the accusation that all Mac users are idiots - well, probably not all... but most of them want one thing - all the power with none of the responsibility. They want the computer to just "work" while investing as little time as possible in learning how to tell the computer what you want from it. (Just MHO, feel free to tell me to get stuffed or whatever)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yes, Cutler's design theories and beliefs that went into VMS (and others as well - several key developers of VMS were brought in by Microsoft for the development for NT) overflowed into NT... of course, consider WNT == VMS with each letter shifted up by one. Food for thought, at least.
I'm sure Cutler's feeling quite shat-upon, since his wish for a pure system was compromised quite heavily by Microsoft's desire for a pretty OS that could win benchmarks (aka pissing contests) and was pure 32-bit internally, not to mention the profit angle... but what can you say? That's business, I guess.
The DOS sessions, the Win32 processes, and the Win16 subsystem (mind you, nearly the entirety of Win9x's GDI layer remains in Win16) are preemptively multitasked. The cooperative multitasking occurs within the Win16 subsystem... but unfortunately, you end up with a LOT of code running in the Win16 process (as I mentioned, nearly the entirety of the GDI layer, and a lot of the user-mode code...) so it sets up ugly contention stuff.
Actually, Win95/98 do preemptively multitask - but only for Win32 code. (And there's still lots of Win16 code left over in Win9x, so you get a horribly ugly combination-kinda-thing going... it's truly evil.)
Just thought I'd make a note - Microsoft has already given up on a port of 32-bit Win2K to AXP/Alpha. They're saying the supposed 64-bit Windows that's being worked on behind the scenes will support the Alpha. (Of course, you can just bet that's gonna require yet ANOTHER almost-complete API rewrite, just like the Win16-Win32 transition.)
So, for the moment anyway, NT'a back to being a one-stop show.
I can't speak on behalf of Transmeta, but 3Dfx (I recently purchased a Voodoo3) has supported Linux to some degree for awhile, and has recently open-sourced Glide.
I don't care about Corel WP too much - I bought ApplixWare. Yes, yes, I know, how dare I? It's not the prettiest, but it's stable, and inexpensive, and I think it's a good product and a good value.
I must stand up in defense of Loki: They are developing open-source stuff and using it where they can. SDL (Thank you Sam!) is open-source, as are the SMPEG and SMJPEG video playback engines which Loki coders have written (for use in the games they port), and the installer that they are using now uses Gtk+ (also ncurses, I think) and an XML description file, and is also open-source. Unfortunately, they can't open source the products of other companies.
Hypocrisy is a subjective thing. Don't be too hasty with the names - you may be anonymous, but it can still come back to bite you in the ass.
Very cute. Even though I don't think that's what it means (probably refers to cloning of the ol' TRaSh-80s)... yikes. He'd probably have a "mini-Bill" created, like Dr. Evil... scary where the mind can take such things, no? :)
I do hope thou doth jest.
:)
And btw (in case you're serious), I'll be on the right side too... but my "right" side won't be the same as yours!
Well, that's great... sounds like that wasn't documented though. (I don't know, myself - I don't use NT unless I must, and I certainly don't have it on my home machine. Wish I didn't have to run Windows at all, tho...)
I know that I'd prefer bash-style completion, though...
Well, you are talking about Microsoft products - this is, unfortunately for us (but fortunately for their revenue stream) what it takes.
Only time will tell if they are right. no history can IMHO.
Yes, time certainly will tell - but history is also quite telling. People are slow to change - large corporations are even slower, if they can be changed at all. Microsoft has made claims like the claims that they're now making for Windows 2000 with every release of NT - and in the opinion of many, fell extremely short with each previous attempt. Hopefully they'll get closer to the target this time, but I'm not gonna be placing any bets on it...
On the other hand, you sound as if most of your experience HAS been on NT. Also, you're basically saying "yes, I know NT's history hasn't been good, but ignore its history because history is meaningless."
Security depends on many things - knowledge and ability of the administrator, the quality and care put into the software used, and the willingness of the users to help make the system secure. A sloppy admin will certainly reduce security, of course. But a badly-written/badly-implemented piece of software will as well. A skilled admin may be able to work around some of a piece of software's flaws, but that doesn't make the software better.
Also, try picking up a copy of "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" by Garfinkel & Spafford at your local bookstore - nothing is ever 100% secure, unless no one can use it, which obviates the need for having it in the first place.
So maybe we should drop the whole question of "security"...
NT's security is NOTHING like you'll find on linux or any other unix or similar
Wow, you think? NT has to implement access control on many different types of things... yes, everything's an "object" - but on Unix and Unix-alike systems, everything is a file. That's why NT's security is very different from Unix security - it's just a plain different approach.
On the fact Unix's security is based on 1 superuser which is needed for all daemons? on userrights instead of object rights?
That doesn't necessarily make it more or less secure (unless something in the OS is implemented badly, has some kind of hole, etc.)...
NT is in the US/Canada area already 128bit for years. Windows 2000 will be using 128bit security worldwide.
Uhhh. They'd have to have government permission to export "strong" encryption outside of the US. Also, "worldwide" is a relative term - there're still several nations on the US government's shitlist that they won't allow ANYONE to export crypto technology to (and some like France, where they simply don't permit crypto technology at all). Simply, I think you don't know what you're talking about here.
Windows2000 will use Kerberos strong encryption
Uhhh. You obviously don't understand what Kerberos is - Kerberos is NOT an encryption method, it is a secure ticket-based authentication system. (It doesn't necessarily use "strong" crypto, afaik.) And an "industry standard"? It's certainly a standard, but (a) it's not a standard in "the industry" proper (because far as I know, most Unix vendors don't ship a commercial Unix with Kerberos plugged into it), and (b) Microsoft, of course, is using their own bastardized version of Kerberos, not the standard protocols that the rest of the world uses (minimizing compatibility, as usual).
MS fixes security leaks within 24 hours most of the time. Arguing it takes ages to get a fix are therefor unfounded.
I don't know what planet you've been living on, but Microsoft has taken its sweet time fixing security-related issues. (Unless of course, you're a huge corporate customer...)
Still, unskilled administrators install the basic set [of IIS modules].
"[U]nskilled administrators"? I believe I heard it said best like this (roughly quoted): "If you need point and click to be an administrator, you shouldn't BE an administrator." Microsoft harps on how "easy" it is to admin NT - yet all the people I know who admin NT say "you really need to know what you're doing, not just any monkey in a 3-piece suit can do it"... Next.
IE holes are a problem, but who surfs the net on a production server.
Well, when EVERY Microsoft product requires IE to be installed for installation, and all the help and stuff like that is provided via IE, that's what you get. YASMD. (Yet Another Stupid Microsoft Decision)
but MOST of the system administrators, ALSO on unix, are not people with 10 to 12 years of experience with administrating servers
I don't have 10-12 years of experience (I have 4-5 years of Linux experience under my belt now), but most people I know consider me fairly learned, and I read ORA books, check up on BugTraq, and try to keep up on recent information and issues. You don't have to have a virtual lifetime of experience, but you need to have some, and you need to read up. That's the same whether you're running NT or Solaris or IRIX or Linux or HPUX or whatever.
No-one says unix is unsave because sendmail is crap.
Well, that's very true, but Sendmail is just one MTA - there are several others; also, the bad old days of poor Sendmail security have mostly passed us by. I think the developers of Sendmail learned a LOT from the days of the Internet worm.
if you don't follow the security sites, if you don't apply patches REGULARLY!, if you don't know what to close and what to remove from the system to keep/make it secure, and most important: if you DON'T let a 3rd party, specialized in security, scan your systems for leaks, your system won't BE secure, no matter what kind of OS you have. Admitted: some OS-es have LESS open doors than others, but NO OS has NONE closed doors. Don't forget that.
All I can say to that is this: It's a lot easier to secure a Unix box than an NT box, if you know what you're doing. And by the very admission of NT admins that I've spoken with, you need to know what you're doing on NT too. Besides, with closed source, you never know what ports they're leaving open (at least till you portscan your own box), and that can be dangerous. I'd rather stick with Linux, where I can verify my own security (as well as having someone from outside check it), instead of depending on big daddy MS to do it for me.
Ask all those Solaris administrators currently suffering the DoS worms
Which are those? The main admins I feel bad for are SCO admins (seen loads of recent SCO issues on BugTraq) - and admins of NT 4 systems, who are soon to be orphaned unless they pay big bucks to update to the latest, greatest Microsoft product.
Bashing the FUTURE without knowing what it will bring with the facts of old material from the past is not fair.
It's called history. History is important - those who do not remember it are doomed to repeat it.
If you turn around the roles and people will bash Linux using the hundreds of holes in all the distributions
Not everyone runs the most holey of distros, but Linux security holes do (in general) get patched quickly. I happily run Debian, and have found it to be plenty secure for my needs (masq box/shell server/Web server for a public school district), and any security issues are quickly resolved with Debian, in my experience. NT's holes are just harder for the end-user to deal with - namely because you have to wait for them to come from above. You can't do anything about them on your own.
Your claim that NT security is "better" than Unix security is, IMO, quite false. Look at the history - then tell me what you believe.
I just thought I should point out how on the one hand, you claim to be for "freedom", yet you're calling for the censoring of people who you deem to be troublemakers, flamers and generally difficult and annoying people. You talk and talk about freedom, yet you wish it to be selective.
I've seen some women come out of the woodwork to respond to your previous articles stating the exact OPPOSITE of what you have been - they've decided that if they come across something they don't like, they can either pass it by and keep looking for soemthing useful, or leave if they feel offended. I don't want or expect anyone to leave, but for freedom to work, EVERYONE must be free, not just those you deem "worthy" of freedom. (Yes, as the saying goes, my freedom ends at the tip of your nose, but eliminating the freedom of one group to increase the freedom of another won't solve anything.)
Also, you continue to point to the young white male as the primary aggressor in all this, the main "asshole". I don't like to think of myself as that sort of person, but you certainly make it plain that you think I should. There're assholes in every group - it doesn't end at any particular group boundary (be it gender, skin color, class, age, whatever).
Please end this. I've been patient, hoping you'd wind this series of articles together into some useful point. However, you continue to insist the same thing - young white males (which I am one of) are inherently evil, and their freedom must be restricted to increase the freedom of the other groups who you deem to be oppressed by the young white male contingent.
... they really need to lobby Blizzard and port over some of their games ...
I've asked Scott Draeker about this myself (once via e-mail and once @ LWCE in August) - believe me, they've tried. Blizzard is absolutely convinced that there's not enough market for their games on Linux. (yea, like getting their mailserver crashed by Linuxers begging for a port isn't enough evidence...) If you want Blizzard to let Loki port their games, TELL THEM about it! Call them, e-mail them, whatever. Find some way to express to them that yes, the Linux market is big enough, and YES, we want StarCraft!
Just because it's been done before (and even done frequently) doesn't make it a good idea. It's still a poor idea - just a poor idea that's been carried through on for the sake of keeping one's good name intact.
HELLO? McFly? This isn't an issue of encryption - it's an issue of an Internet-based purveyor of a service storing the credit-card numbers of their patrons in an insecure fashion, in the name of convenience. You could have had 1024-bit encryption end-to-end, but in this case it wouldn't have mattered at all.
Let me ask Slashdot readers a question. Suppose you could get a version of Linux that ran 25% slower, but was highly secure, secure enough to run trusted applications in a leakproof environment and untrusted applications in a "sandbox". Would you run it? Would you buy it?
Would it even HAVE to be pay-ware? But that's beside the point - I for one, if I were developing an electronic commerce system and wanted it to run on Linux, certainly would consider such a thing. It's just the right way to do such things.
Umm. You seem to not be aware that the majority of credit-card information transfers of the Internet (all, if you count the places where the site builders aren't head cases) are done via SSL. That certainly helps decrease the chances of someone in between snagging your CC info. I don't trust companies that keep your complete CC info for later purchases - for this very reason.
Oh yes, there's an idea - pay him off to shut up about it, allowing the consumer to be lulled into a false sense of security. They haven't fixed the problem yet - if they haven't yet, and the problem has now been widely publicized, who's to say that even if they HAD paid off the cracker, they'd ever have fixed the problem? Then you have the potential for yet ANOTHER cracker to come along and repeat the same song-and-dance!
Poor idea. Poor, poor idea.
Well, that's stupid. But hey, what can we expect from NSI?
I'd hope porn sites aren't getting domains under the .org TLD. They should be falling under the .com TLD.
To you I say 'wah'. I for one thought it was quite funny. If you don't like it, that's your business, and your decision - you don't have to like it, but please don't whine because others do.
I believe that's correct. But the domain isn't x.com, it's x.org (the official site for the X Consortium, the caretakers of the X Window System codebase). Certainly a special case if ever there was one, wouldn't you agree? Why should they have to go by xconsortium.org or whatever? I know when I think X, I think of X (Window System). Don't you? :)
I second the motion. Anyone happen to have an address for him?
I'm familiar with the culture. And yes, there're Mac "power users" who know how to get more out of MacOS than the "average" Mac user, but when you're dealing with an OS that's designed ground-up to hide the system's activity from the user, there's only so much you can really do.
Also, are YOU familiar with MacOS? Please keep in mind that it's using cooperative multitasking for all apps and has no memory protection to speak of. (Well, apps actually directly manipulate OS-internal data structures - that's SCARY.) This is one reason why Apple is completely disposing of the existing MacOS codebase, after all. (Okay, cooperative multitasking itself isn't a bad thing - but with heterogeneous, non-reviewed code, it can be a problem...)
The control panels? The control panels don't provide you that much control - that's the thing about using a GUI-only OS like MacOS, you're completely limited to the controls that they can jam into their control panel windows. I've played with the OS enough to get used to it, but I still don't like the interface.
And as to the accusation that all Mac users are idiots - well, probably not all... but most of them want one thing - all the power with none of the responsibility. They want the computer to just "work" while investing as little time as possible in learning how to tell the computer what you want from it. (Just MHO, feel free to tell me to get stuffed or whatever)