on a pda, any os you're going to use is going to be stable, (mostly anyway *peer CE*) and i don't see how much different it is if the the embedded architecture is linux.
of course, to the manufacturer, it's nice, because you just need to make modifications to a free product, instead of coding from scratch, but from a consumer standpoint, what does it matter?
(don't get me wrong, i love linux, i use it whenever i decide i really need to get something done)
I really am sorry, i can see how my previous post could have meen misinterpreted.
Obviously standards are going to be implemented, the needs of information demand it.
But if any government currently had to legislate on a messaging standard, the winner would be aol instant messenger, not because it's better, (i have no opinion in this actually, i use three different ones because my relationships demand it) but because it has siginificant financial backing, and would be put up over icq which iirc, was bought by aol, but doesn't have the ready space for ads.
What the crackers in this story did is wrong, obviously.
But this is an example of how security holes should be seen and demonstrated by people who won't use them for their own advantage.
If, a couple months prior to these attacks, someone had broken into the system, and emailed a nice letter to the sysadmin while logged in as root, this whole incident could have been avoided.
as long as you are relying on a central authority to propose, promote, and enforce standards, you're losing any freedom you yourself have in such matters.
What happens when the standards and the laws aren't secure enough, and they've been implemented? You're stuck with them.
Uh.. i hate to tell you this, but you misunderstand survival of the fittest. It's not the strongest, and it's not about individuals It's about species and the most capable of propagation.
The physical restrictions that guided evolution in the past have been replaced by social, intellectual, and emotional factors. This isn't to say that anything physical has nothing to do with evolution, but rather that is has taken a back seat.
Slashdot Mirror
on a pda, any os you're going to use is going to be stable, (mostly anyway *peer CE*) and i don't see how much different it is if the the embedded architecture is linux.
of course, to the manufacturer, it's nice, because you just need to make modifications to a free product, instead of coding from scratch, but from a consumer standpoint, what does it matter?
(don't get me wrong, i love linux, i use it whenever i decide i really need to get something done)
because i say it, it must be true, right?
i'm probably just missing something... what are you talking about?
How else are they supposed to get more money?
An admittedly minor point... but a static utopia is an unattainable goal, not any utopia.
most of the buyers are misogynistic males.
I would hope no, and it probably is mere coincidence, but just scanning the stories here, this stuck out at me.
Obviously standards are going to be implemented, the needs of information demand it.
But if any government currently had to legislate on a messaging standard, the winner would be aol instant messenger, not because it's better, (i have no opinion in this actually, i use three different ones because my relationships demand it) but because it has siginificant financial backing, and would be put up over icq which iirc, was bought by aol, but doesn't have the ready space for ads.
But this is an example of how security holes should be seen and demonstrated by people who won't use them for their own advantage.
If, a couple months prior to these attacks, someone had broken into the system, and emailed a nice letter to the sysadmin while logged in as root, this whole incident could have been avoided.
What happens when the standards and the laws aren't secure enough, and they've been implemented? You're stuck with them.
There's a large difference between licenses put on a product by the creators, and licenses forced on a product by the government.
Uh.. i hate to tell you this, but you misunderstand survival of the fittest.
It's not the strongest, and it's not about individuals
It's about species and the most capable of propagation.
The physical restrictions that guided evolution in the past have been replaced by social, intellectual, and emotional factors.
This isn't to say that anything physical has nothing to do with evolution, but rather that is has taken a back seat.
-EOF-