And any comment that fails to mention that Steven Speilberg directed the movie version of Catch Me If You Can while mentioning the totally unrelated comment is probably not very good.
Dude - get a grip!
>>>The summary extract on the front page has nothing to do with the rest of the summary or the article.
Not sure what your point is, please clarify.
What summary? What extract?
There was a grammar book written which has a list of words called 'lost causes'.
It is words who true meanings were mangled, but since they are so heavily used, impossible to return to the tgrue meaning.
While the true def. of fallacy is reason based, it is used to refer to any misconception./jay
>>> but I understand "the realities of security" well enough to know that a broken product will not perform as well as a less-broken (notice I didn't say non-broken) one. That's a reality of security too. So you still don't get it. Windows is automatically broken and Linux is not? What reality of security are you in?
>>What other explanation do you have for this? It is not an opinion or a subjective judgment that, say, OpenBSD is more secure by design than Windows XP, for example; it is a cold, hard fact, backed up by years of testing and usage. I invite you to try the above experiment; I have, though on a much smaller scale. That's is great. But another reality is that windows desktops outnumber OpenBSD desktop by about 5000 to 1.
>>>And what has me convinced he is an MS apologist is the line about the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative." For someone to say, in effect, "grow some balls and realize security is vendor-independent" followed by "this company [which is known worldwide for its failures of security] has a plan! Joy!" is self-contradictory at best. The guy wrote: It took lots of people kvetching loudly for many years for Microsoft to realize that it had to do more, and it has made great strides since 2002, when it announced its Trustworthy Computing initiative It never said they have a perfect product, only they made a lot of strides.
>>>.though he went one further and Godwin'd himself in paragraph 6. This proves undeniably that you did not read the article. Godwin's law is not an absolute. In fact, the Nazi proof was 100% appropriate.
>>>>I never said Godwin's Law was absolute, or wrong, or that a comparison to Nazis is never apropos; I've made some such comparisons myself in the past. And how the hell can you tell that I "undeniably did not read the article?" I clicked on the link, waited for it to load, and read the entire thing not once but three times.
Three whole times!! Wow, you read well. Just try understanding what you read next time.
Azuma - If you could stop hating Microsoft for a second, and understand the theme of the piece, the realities of security, then perhaps you could understand his point.
You are the one, who is doing the name calling and slandering while missing the point of the piece.
Just because someone writes something neutral about msft does not mean they are MS-apologist.
>>>.though he went one further and Godwin'd himself in paragraph 6.
This proves undeniably that you did not read the article. Godwin's law is not an absolute. In fact, the Nazi proof was 100% appropriate.
And yes Azuma, you may want to see if you can write two sentences without being in full condescending mode.
Slashdot Mirror
well...... so what is a review then?
And any comment that fails to mention that Steven Speilberg directed the movie version of Catch Me If You Can while mentioning the totally unrelated comment is probably not very good. Dude - get a grip!
>>>The summary extract on the front page has nothing to do with the rest of the summary or the article. Not sure what your point is, please clarify. What summary? What extract?
There was a grammar book written which has a list of words called 'lost causes'. It is words who true meanings were mangled, but since they are so heavily used, impossible to return to the tgrue meaning. While the true def. of fallacy is reason based, it is used to refer to any misconception. /jay
Someone has way too much time on their hands. But more importantly..... DOES HARRY DIE?
Anyone who goes into CS today is crazy. the jobs are going to india.
I am a lawyer, and I can tell you, The RIAA are scum. Jay
Why does this article not mention Fred Cohen, who found the first virus?
Uri Geller is a fraud. Case closed. No more comment is necessary.
>>> but I understand "the realities of security" well enough to know that a broken product will not perform as well as a less-broken (notice I didn't say non-broken) one. That's a reality of security too.
So you still don't get it. Windows is automatically broken and Linux is not?
What reality of security are you in?
>>What other explanation do you have for this? It is not an opinion or a subjective judgment that, say, OpenBSD is more secure by design than Windows XP, for example; it is a cold, hard fact, backed up by years of testing and usage. I invite you to try the above experiment; I have, though on a much smaller scale.
That's is great. But another reality is that windows desktops outnumber OpenBSD desktop by about 5000 to 1.
>>>And what has me convinced he is an MS apologist is the line about the "Trustworthy Computing Initiative." For someone to say, in effect, "grow some balls and realize security is vendor-independent" followed by "this company [which is known worldwide for its failures of security] has a plan! Joy!" is self-contradictory at best.
The guy wrote: It took lots of people kvetching loudly for many years for Microsoft to realize that it had to do more, and it has made great strides since 2002, when it announced its Trustworthy Computing initiative
It never said they have a perfect product, only they made a lot of strides.
>>>.though he went one further and Godwin'd himself in paragraph 6. This proves undeniably that you did not read the article. Godwin's law is not an absolute. In fact, the Nazi proof was 100% appropriate.
>>>>I never said Godwin's Law was absolute, or wrong, or that a comparison to Nazis is never apropos; I've made some such comparisons myself in the past. And how the hell can you tell that I "undeniably did not read the article?" I clicked on the link, waited for it to load, and read the entire thing not once but three times.
Three whole times!! Wow, you read well. Just try understanding what you read next time.
>>>Read the article again. Don't partially quote, thereby changing the real meaning and try to rebuke the writer's point.
acidosmosis - u are right on. so many of these replies are off the cuff and the posters do not take the extra 5 seconds to digest the idea.
The reason the Galileo program is failing, and will fail is that there is one EU with each country having its own agenda.
look at the airbus debacle. if airbus was a private company, it would be bankrupt and out of business today.
>>>They routinely run pieces that were written by an advertizers marketing department.
do you have any evidence to support that claim?
So because msft added their firewall later, ergo, linux firewalls are better?
Ipfwadm is no piece of cake to configure. My guess is 50% of the time, it is configured wrong and allows way too much traffic thru the network.
Azuma - If you could stop hating Microsoft for a second, and understand the theme of the piece, the realities of security, then perhaps you could understand his point. You are the one, who is doing the name calling and slandering while missing the point of the piece. Just because someone writes something neutral about msft does not mean they are MS-apologist. >>>.though he went one further and Godwin'd himself in paragraph 6. This proves undeniably that you did not read the article. Godwin's law is not an absolute. In fact, the Nazi proof was 100% appropriate. And yes Azuma, you may want to see if you can write two sentences without being in full condescending mode.
Who let this crap comment in?
Azuma's post is so completely, utterly, gratuitously, gaudily wrong that your average elementary schooler would call it junk.
But one premise of the article is about "market penetration".
Yo Azuma - read the whole think. I have ADD but I did read it to the end.
Jay
Excellent post!! So is harris newman still ashamed? or proud once again??
but what about the stupid end users? i installed a number of secure openbsd servers. but i still had users write their pwd on postit notes.
the link did appear, but here it is again: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=291226&source=rss_ news50
here is the link to the computerworld article that is from today: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=291226&source=rss_ news50
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=291226&source=rss_ news50