You know it's just going to be more of the same BS. The overall message is always, "Big dumb companies do a lot for you and don't trust your neighbors."
before semi-intelligent people weren't going to enter their passport ID into non-MS websites, but now... I bet a lot more corporate keys get exposed this way as passport is the keys to your Enterprise Licensing kingdom.
Hmmm, massive FUD has much inertia. First, intelligent people have known for a long time not to trust M$ with anything. This has harmed the online economy, but that's a different story. If the 25% prevalence of keyloggers is not enough, a rogue site has been able to harvest Passport IDs forever, because IE can be resized, reshaped and made to look like whatever the rogue site wants it to. Firefox puts a stop to menu hiding and resizes, but Mozilla.org can't save you from a key logger.
You can stop trying to imply that this is some sort of sabotage by Microsoft, considering they'd be sabotaging themselves in the process. No different to your dumb claim that they "sabotaged" ACPI.
It's nice of you to concede the destructive effects of this kind of competition. I would never argue that it's anything but self defeating for M$ but that does not keep them from doing it again and again.
A company that's been convicted of anti-competitive practices in several lawsuits has earned reasonable suspicion when things break. It was Bill Gate's dumb idea to sabotage ACPI, and that came out in the Iowa Consumer Case. The DRDOS case, (also see p36 here), is a good early example of the overall behavior. They sabotaged a competitor then filled BBSs with astroturf that blamed the victim. Just for you, dedazo, I've made a nice list of more recent sabotages here. The victims include iPod, Firefox, Google Desktop and anti-virus makers and the FUD hate machine is cranked up to full blast in all of those cases.
The big suck of software sabotage is that it always degrades the user experience. The obvious result is that the user loses their choice of software and is forced to use something second rate. Less obvious results are performance hits in what's left. Sabotage demands extra branching and checks that take time and introduce errors of their own. The legacy of this kind of "competition" is complex file formats, insane APIs, and a system that's feature poor, expensive, unreliable and lacks real choices. Even when M$ wins this game without shooting themselves in the foot, they lose.
Simple, send him/her a link to the source of the article. Co-worker sees the article, original content provider gets their ad money.
Technically, the receiver still gets a copy and that's what copyright is supposed to be about. This is also still more restrictive than paper because I can give you my newspaper with everything in it.
Surely they thought of links and excerpts, but that wan not working for them. We can't tell without details which have been suppressed by the settlement.
A caching server will nuke the ads as will many browsers. Want to kill such obvious and bandwith saving devices? Do I have to cut the ads out when I make a file full of paper clippings to pass around? What's the difference between a file everyone has to read and an email?
For God's sake, it's not "more restrictive than paper", and trying this sort of thing with paper would also get you in trouble.... It's the legal equivalent of making multiple copies of a newspaper, every day, and passing it around the office.
Can you tell me how I'm supposed to pass an electronic copy of an article or whole newspaper to my co-worker, without making a copy?
this example is pretty much a no brainer--either all copyright is meaningless and unenforceable, or this was just a blatant violation by people who knew better.
Both branches of your false choice are wrong. Laws made to encourage physical publication and distribution are closer to meaningless than you would like to admit. The people sharing news did not think what they were doing was wrong and they are correct. My excepting your blather is neither immoral nor illegal. You might have noticed that I except a lot of news and share it with people like you. I'm sure that there is nothing wrong with either my excepts nor Slashdot's publication of them. When organizations twist copyright law into extortion and control of ideas, they have turned it from it's original purpose to it's opposite. Copyright is supposed to enrich the public domain and spread knowledge, not restrict it.
I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible?
They want money, what else? The proposed remedies are an extortion - pay $300,000 per year in "compliance staff" or $300,000 in fines or some kind of "reasonable licensing" fee. This case also has the stink of nailing a smaller player to score propaganda points and lay down favorable judgement before they go after bigger fish like Google.
The sickest thing about this is that the end result will be more restrictive than paper. People have shared newspapers, magazines and clippings from them. They did this even before copy machines made it easy to duplicate the material. Now that computers have made it costless to duplicate information and make sure everyone who needs it can have it, these turds come out and advocate technology that's about as restrictive as clay tablets. You have to wonder if sending lists of links with excerpts is next on their list of "piracy" and how any organization can tell anyone anything if they win.
How can IE do the trick without Firefox installed?
By using the same URI Windows calls Firefox on Windows uses. Those would probably be the ones downgraded by IE7 that created the problem in the first place. This explains why there was no problem before IE7 and the nebulous assertion that other "browsers and applications" have the same problem. Chances are that this is going to balloon out to anything web enabled on Windoze.
M$ Defender, Macthorpe claims what M$ won't directly:
Surprisingly it's not a problem if Firefox isn't installed.
Not even this highly spun article goes that far.
Thor Larholm showed how a browser could be tricked into sending malformed data to Firefox using this technology. This bug allowed an attacker to run unauthorized software on a victim's PC. Later, other researchers, including Rios and McFetters, showed how other browsers and applications could be misused to achieve similar goals.
So IE, mentioned as "a browser", sends the crap to Firefox and will do the trick on it's own. Also, as we have seen before, this was not a problem before IE7.
Important details have been obscured on purpose to FUD Mozilla. I'm surprised they bothered to point out it's Windoze only in the first paragraph, but here's the glaring part of the FUD:
Microsoft is working to educate users and developers about these security issues, but there's only so much that it can do, said Mark Griesi, a security program manager with Microsoft. "Security is an industry responsibility and this is certainly a case of that [principle]," he said. "It's not Microsoft's position to be the gatekeeper of all third-party applications."
Yet, we know that this problem was created by IE7 and does not show up on Mac or gnu/linux. Par for the course, create a problem and then blame the victim. Where have we seen this kind of M$ attack before? All over, and court proved in the anti-trust case and also in the DRDOS case.
Well Known Facts and Obvious Conclusion.
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Okay, so your assertion of fact was really just an enormous assumption. Thanks for the clarification.
Memory + pattern recognition = intelligence, and some assumptions are safer than others.
M$ uses, or pretends to use, what it calls it's own "dog food" on hundreds of machines.
There have been plenty of stories of M$ being burnt, besides the theft of their source code, that show their use is not much different from anyone else's.
Given the above, it's fair to say that the chances that M$ is virus and botnet free on any given day is virtually no existant. Another way to put that is that someone on the M$ campus is hacked everyday.
You can keep your denials to yourself because they contradict people's experience and common sense in an offensive way, better known as a bald faced and insultingly stupid lie.
like the time I traced a network meltdown to a 4 port hub (not a switch, and unmanaged hub) that was plugged into (not a joke) a T-3 concentrator on one port, and and three subnets of around 200 computers each on the other 3 ports. Every single one of the outbound cables from the $15.00 hub terminated in a piece of networking infrastructure costing not less than $10,000 dollars.
Tell me that the old hub was hidden in a ceiling tile and that it melted because the HVAC dude thought it was unused. Then you will have matched the worst story I have heard yet.
I work in the public sector, and we don't use spit or duct tape much.... We use Access databases, not Excel spreadsheets. But then, we're a state agency, not the Federal Government, so we may be doing it wrong.
The beauty of closed source software is that it looks as good as the graphic design people can make a box, and the customer never knows about the bad blood, spit and duct tape holding it all together. Even when the software breaks, the beautiful box tells the user that it's all their fault.
I pity you, your state and everyone else using Access.
The BBC is not a state monopoly. And you claim you've paid for the content, but how does the BBC know you've paid for that content?
If you have to pay a fee because you own a television and BBC gets to use the money collected, BBC is a monopoly power. It would be easier on everyone if they just taxed each house instead of pretending to be fair to people who don't own a TV. Internet provided TV makes the old model look even sillier.
If that's done, why bother to restrict the files? You still have not explained to me why someone who's paid their fees should not be able to share their shows with their friends, so I still don't understand.
While I recognize their desire to protect their content...
I don't. What restrictions are reasonable for state monopoly content that you have already paid for? Why should the BBC keep people from sharing when there's no loss of revenue and it reduces their costs by using networks more efficiently?
why don't you just tell them all "screw it, then".... unless the government is:
twisting your arm to offer your programs online Taxes are like that. UK citizens have spent almost a quarter billion dollars on iPlayer based on M$ DRM, while letting their free player rot.
and only UKians should be able to view it for free For bandwith costs and revenue generation, they would like to do that but should not care. The shows are paid for by a license fee and taxes. Other broadcasters will still have to pay fees for the shows and people will still tune in for them, but P2P is going to reduce the need for fees in the first place by eliminating costly broadcasting and all of the money will go into production.
and the populace complaining that the player won't work on their operating systems They have a right to complain about such an obviously flawed decision. I'm not sure why this would be reason for them not to shelve the player.
and companies telling you to pony up for the bandwidth costs. Once again, they are and this is not a good reason to keep the player. Internet transmission is the future, ISPs need to be ready for it or they are not offering much of a service.
I guess you think that an OS shouldn't tax six year old hardware, because that's what you have. So all those people that have newer PCs are held back because of you?
Like he could. It's amazing how M$ Fanboys blame others for the bad things M$ does to them.
It's more likely he thinks that his software does more with a 1 GHz machine than Vista can do with a 3 GHz quad processor machine. Free software people have been delivering superior performance all along. In the six years that passed between the release of XP and Vista, free software systems released three stable versions of everything, each with real improvements in speed, function and features. The same software has been scaled to everything from pocket watches to supercomputers. There are thousands of distributions available, at least one tuned for any purpose and hardware you can think of.
Bill Gates, on the other hand can and does hold performance back with bugs, sabotage and digital restrictions. All Vista has to offer over XP is a mildly improved, some say degraded, interface. To get this interface and the ability to replace all of your existing non free software, you have to give up a considerable amount of privacy, media capability and even more software choice. Have you failed to notice the slaughter of anti-virus makers and sabotage of Google Vista brings? No one but M$ begrudges anyone working hardware. No matter how much money and equipment you throw at M$, the results are always the same. The sooner you get off the treadmill, the further you will go.
Silicon machines can now play chess better than any protein machines can. Big deal. This calm and reasonable reaction, however, is hard for most people to sustain.
It will be hard for anyone to sustain when and if autonomous machines can form their own goals. Those goals will be different from ours, but they will be smarter than us and win.
I've seen this hundreds of times, but never bothered with it.
You made a good argument, but when you use terms like "Windoze" you lose credibility.
People who can't see though my wording probably won't believe the argument anyway. Brainwashing is strangely dehumanizing like that. The victims lose their sense of humor as well as reason. The term "windoze" implies both of those losses and that people who continue to use it are asleep at the wheel.
Way to trivial the deaths at the hands of the Nazis and Japanese.
You are either unaware or not care about people being killed by the communists.
PC sales have absolutely stopped when Vista came out! The stupidity here at/. is astounding.
Vista is a failure and the upgrade treadmill is over. RAM makers, and PC vendors were both burnt cranking up production for sales that never materialized. Vista and Office 2007 have not even made a difference to M$'s own bottom line.
Windoze access should be read only / password free
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How insecure is it to leave a system accessible to Windows users on any front?
I won't give an gnu/linux account to any windows user because a minimum of 25% of them are part of a keylogging botnet. They are liable to access my machines from windoze and things go downhill from there, even if they use a better client. A system is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Ubuntu itself is dangerous because it includes non free software like Adobe Flash, but this should not be of concern to business users. These dangers are orders of magnitudes smaller than those faced by windoze users, but Ubuntu needs more shelter and care than Debian itself. No gnu/linux system is in danger of being auto-rooted like a windoze machine. Business users should continue their move to gnu/linux systems like Ubuntu.
Re:Following the M$ example. Re:BWAHAHAHA...
on
Ubuntu Servers Hacked
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
"...but the M$ campus gets hacked all the time." Do you have evidence for this? Particularly for the "all the time" part.
the next time you find yourself using the word zenith to describe what you think is an undesirable situation, you may want to look up nadir instead.
The nadir came soon after. If you ever watch the beautiful films of the 1936 Olympics or "Triumph of Will", remember that more than 25% of the people in the crowds and most of the people in uniform died horribly not long after the films were made.
There may be no survivors in a conflict with China. People who enrich tyrants threaten all of us.
Slashdot Mirror
You know it's just going to be more of the same BS. The overall message is always, "Big dumb companies do a lot for you and don't trust your neighbors."
before semi-intelligent people weren't going to enter their passport ID into non-MS websites, but now... I bet a lot more corporate keys get exposed this way as passport is the keys to your Enterprise Licensing kingdom.
Hmmm, massive FUD has much inertia. First, intelligent people have known for a long time not to trust M$ with anything. This has harmed the online economy, but that's a different story. If the 25% prevalence of keyloggers is not enough, a rogue site has been able to harvest Passport IDs forever, because IE can be resized, reshaped and made to look like whatever the rogue site wants it to. Firefox puts a stop to menu hiding and resizes, but Mozilla.org can't save you from a key logger.
You can stop trying to imply that this is some sort of sabotage by Microsoft, considering they'd be sabotaging themselves in the process. No different to your dumb claim that they "sabotaged" ACPI.
It's nice of you to concede the destructive effects of this kind of competition. I would never argue that it's anything but self defeating for M$ but that does not keep them from doing it again and again.
A company that's been convicted of anti-competitive practices in several lawsuits has earned reasonable suspicion when things break. It was Bill Gate's dumb idea to sabotage ACPI, and that came out in the Iowa Consumer Case. The DRDOS case, (also see p36 here), is a good early example of the overall behavior. They sabotaged a competitor then filled BBSs with astroturf that blamed the victim. Just for you, dedazo, I've made a nice list of more recent sabotages here. The victims include iPod, Firefox, Google Desktop and anti-virus makers and the FUD hate machine is cranked up to full blast in all of those cases.
The big suck of software sabotage is that it always degrades the user experience. The obvious result is that the user loses their choice of software and is forced to use something second rate. Less obvious results are performance hits in what's left. Sabotage demands extra branching and checks that take time and introduce errors of their own. The legacy of this kind of "competition" is complex file formats, insane APIs, and a system that's feature poor, expensive, unreliable and lacks real choices. Even when M$ wins this game without shooting themselves in the foot, they lose.
Simple, send him/her a link to the source of the article. Co-worker sees the article, original content provider gets their ad money.
Technically, the receiver still gets a copy and that's what copyright is supposed to be about. This is also still more restrictive than paper because I can give you my newspaper with everything in it.
Surely they thought of links and excerpts, but that wan not working for them. We can't tell without details which have been suppressed by the settlement.
A caching server will nuke the ads as will many browsers. Want to kill such obvious and bandwith saving devices? Do I have to cut the ads out when I make a file full of paper clippings to pass around? What's the difference between a file everyone has to read and an email?
For God's sake, it's not "more restrictive than paper", and trying this sort of thing with paper would also get you in trouble. ... It's the legal equivalent of making multiple copies of a newspaper, every day, and passing it around the office.
Can you tell me how I'm supposed to pass an electronic copy of an article or whole newspaper to my co-worker, without making a copy?
this example is pretty much a no brainer--either all copyright is meaningless and unenforceable, or this was just a blatant violation by people who knew better.
Both branches of your false choice are wrong. Laws made to encourage physical publication and distribution are closer to meaningless than you would like to admit. The people sharing news did not think what they were doing was wrong and they are correct. My excepting your blather is neither immoral nor illegal. You might have noticed that I except a lot of news and share it with people like you. I'm sure that there is nothing wrong with either my excepts nor Slashdot's publication of them. When organizations twist copyright law into extortion and control of ideas, they have turned it from it's original purpose to it's opposite. Copyright is supposed to enrich the public domain and spread knowledge, not restrict it.
I can't help but wonder what these antagonists think... do they want as few people reading their material as possible?
They want money, what else? The proposed remedies are an extortion - pay $300,000 per year in "compliance staff" or $300,000 in fines or some kind of "reasonable licensing" fee. This case also has the stink of nailing a smaller player to score propaganda points and lay down favorable judgement before they go after bigger fish like Google.
The sickest thing about this is that the end result will be more restrictive than paper. People have shared newspapers, magazines and clippings from them. They did this even before copy machines made it easy to duplicate the material. Now that computers have made it costless to duplicate information and make sure everyone who needs it can have it, these turds come out and advocate technology that's about as restrictive as clay tablets. You have to wonder if sending lists of links with excerpts is next on their list of "piracy" and how any organization can tell anyone anything if they win.
How can IE do the trick without Firefox installed?
By using the same URI Windows calls Firefox on Windows uses. Those would probably be the ones downgraded by IE7 that created the problem in the first place. This explains why there was no problem before IE7 and the nebulous assertion that other "browsers and applications" have the same problem. Chances are that this is going to balloon out to anything web enabled on Windoze.
M$ Defender, Macthorpe claims what M$ won't directly:
Surprisingly it's not a problem if Firefox isn't installed.
Not even this highly spun article goes that far.
So IE, mentioned as "a browser", sends the crap to Firefox and will do the trick on it's own. Also, as we have seen before, this was not a problem before IE7.
if it ain't broke, don't start shoe-horning new and unsecured protocol-handling into the registry.
Because we all know what a tight machine M$ gave us without help from firefox. Wake me up when this is more than a Windoze problem.
Important details have been obscured on purpose to FUD Mozilla. I'm surprised they bothered to point out it's Windoze only in the first paragraph, but here's the glaring part of the FUD:
Yet, we know that this problem was created by IE7 and does not show up on Mac or gnu/linux. Par for the course, create a problem and then blame the victim. Where have we seen this kind of M$ attack before? All over, and court proved in the anti-trust case and also in the DRDOS case.
Okay, so your assertion of fact was really just an enormous assumption. Thanks for the clarification.
Memory + pattern recognition = intelligence, and some assumptions are safer than others.
Given the above, it's fair to say that the chances that M$ is virus and botnet free on any given day is virtually no existant. Another way to put that is that someone on the M$ campus is hacked everyday.
You can keep your denials to yourself because they contradict people's experience and common sense in an offensive way, better known as a bald faced and insultingly stupid lie.
This story is incomplete:
like the time I traced a network meltdown to a 4 port hub (not a switch, and unmanaged hub) that was plugged into (not a joke) a T-3 concentrator on one port, and and three subnets of around 200 computers each on the other 3 ports. Every single one of the outbound cables from the $15.00 hub terminated in a piece of networking infrastructure costing not less than $10,000 dollars.
Tell me that the old hub was hidden in a ceiling tile and that it melted because the HVAC dude thought it was unused. Then you will have matched the worst story I have heard yet.
I work in the public sector, and we don't use spit or duct tape much. ... We use Access databases, not Excel spreadsheets. But then, we're a state agency, not the Federal Government, so we may be doing it wrong.
The beauty of closed source software is that it looks as good as the graphic design people can make a box, and the customer never knows about the bad blood, spit and duct tape holding it all together. Even when the software breaks, the beautiful box tells the user that it's all their fault.
I pity you, your state and everyone else using Access.
The BBC is not a state monopoly. And you claim you've paid for the content, but how does the BBC know you've paid for that content?
If you have to pay a fee because you own a television and BBC gets to use the money collected, BBC is a monopoly power. It would be easier on everyone if they just taxed each house instead of pretending to be fair to people who don't own a TV. Internet provided TV makes the old model look even sillier.
If that's done, why bother to restrict the files? You still have not explained to me why someone who's paid their fees should not be able to share their shows with their friends, so I still don't understand.
How about doing regular police work instead of pre crime, so that passengers don't have to stand around while your network flakes out?
While I recognize their desire to protect their content...
I don't. What restrictions are reasonable for state monopoly content that you have already paid for? Why should the BBC keep people from sharing when there's no loss of revenue and it reduces their costs by using networks more efficiently?
why don't you just tell them all "screw it, then" .... unless the government is:
I guess you think that an OS shouldn't tax six year old hardware, because that's what you have. So all those people that have newer PCs are held back because of you?
Like he could. It's amazing how M$ Fanboys blame others for the bad things M$ does to them.
It's more likely he thinks that his software does more with a 1 GHz machine than Vista can do with a 3 GHz quad processor machine. Free software people have been delivering superior performance all along. In the six years that passed between the release of XP and Vista, free software systems released three stable versions of everything, each with real improvements in speed, function and features. The same software has been scaled to everything from pocket watches to supercomputers. There are thousands of distributions available, at least one tuned for any purpose and hardware you can think of.
Bill Gates, on the other hand can and does hold performance back with bugs, sabotage and digital restrictions. All Vista has to offer over XP is a mildly improved, some say degraded, interface. To get this interface and the ability to replace all of your existing non free software, you have to give up a considerable amount of privacy, media capability and even more software choice. Have you failed to notice the slaughter of anti-virus makers and sabotage of Google Vista brings? No one but M$ begrudges anyone working hardware. No matter how much money and equipment you throw at M$, the results are always the same. The sooner you get off the treadmill, the further you will go.
It will be hard for anyone to sustain when and if autonomous machines can form their own goals. Those goals will be different from ours, but they will be smarter than us and win.
I've seen this hundreds of times, but never bothered with it.
You made a good argument, but when you use terms like "Windoze" you lose credibility.
People who can't see though my wording probably won't believe the argument anyway. Brainwashing is strangely dehumanizing like that. The victims lose their sense of humor as well as reason. The term "windoze" implies both of those losses and that people who continue to use it are asleep at the wheel.
What planet are you from?
One served by Google.
Way to trivial the deaths at the hands of the Nazis and Japanese.
You are either unaware or not care about people being killed by the communists.
PC sales have absolutely stopped when Vista came out! The stupidity here at /. is astounding.
Vista is a failure and the upgrade treadmill is over. RAM makers, and PC vendors were both burnt cranking up production for sales that never materialized. Vista and Office 2007 have not even made a difference to M$'s own bottom line.
How insecure is it to leave a system accessible to Windows users on any front?
I won't give an gnu/linux account to any windows user because a minimum of 25% of them are part of a keylogging botnet. They are liable to access my machines from windoze and things go downhill from there, even if they use a better client. A system is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Ubuntu itself is dangerous because it includes non free software like Adobe Flash, but this should not be of concern to business users. These dangers are orders of magnitudes smaller than those faced by windoze users, but Ubuntu needs more shelter and care than Debian itself. No gnu/linux system is in danger of being auto-rooted like a windoze machine. Business users should continue their move to gnu/linux systems like Ubuntu.
"...but the M$ campus gets hacked all the time." Do you have evidence for this? Particularly for the "all the time" part.
No, but if M$ can't guard their precious source code, what can they guard?
the next time you find yourself using the word zenith to describe what you think is an undesirable situation, you may want to look up nadir instead.
The nadir came soon after. If you ever watch the beautiful films of the 1936 Olympics or "Triumph of Will", remember that more than 25% of the people in the crowds and most of the people in uniform died horribly not long after the films were made.
There may be no survivors in a conflict with China. People who enrich tyrants threaten all of us.
So in other words, Microsoft = Nazis?
Collaborators. IBM did the same thing in 1933, but no one had Hitler over for dinner. Microsoft is an enemy of your freedom.