By the time you buy that Dell, Intel has already made it's profit -- they don't care if it sits on the shelf. That's Dell's problem.
Actually, it very quickly would become Intel's problem... If more and more people start buying something else then these Dells will start just sitting on the shelf and if enough of them do then the OEMs are going to order fewer of them. If they can't sell the ones they have, why would they buy more?
That said, I do agree that this isn't going to hurt Intel's sales one little bit. Apple still has very little market share although they are showing quite a bit of promise for the future.
I remember when the first betas came out after they split from NCSA and Mosaic, and the close to good enough browsers through version 4
If you even know what Mosaic is then you're not the type of person I was talking about.
I know nobody employed in the IT field that would recommend using Netscape as a browser.
(Emphasis mine)
People in the IT field are not your average user. Obviously we know that Netscape is nothing nowadays and that Firefox is superior. My point was that your Average Jane/Joe computer user does not understand the advantages of something like Firefox (some are beginning to) and even if they do they are still going to be hesitant about switching to something unknown when what they've always used is still working for them. PHBs are particularly bad about choosing something based on brand recognition alone and they are often the ones making such the decisions to deploy a particular piece of software.
but Netscape is gone. Sorry to break the news here.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. I know of several people who even know that the new versions of Netscape are just Mozilla with AOL's extra crap and they still use it over plain Firefox. Why? Because it has a name they know and backing by a major company. Netscape (at least as a name tag) is not going away just yet; not with a large company like AOL backing it. But hey, at least it is based on Mozilla/Firefox instead of the original Netscape codebase before the source was opened up.
It certainly would be better if they would just write extensions for Firefox and make them available as such rather than wasting time on Netscape-only stuff but, for the reasons I mentioned before, it is a very good thing that they release a Netscape branded version. Regardless of whether it is the same browser underneath many people won't use Firefox simply because it is unknown to them.
Please see my response to this post... People stick to what they know and Netscape is a lot more well known than Firefox. If we want to put a dent in the number of IE users and thus make the web a better place for everyone, we need something that people are familiar and comfortable with as well as something that has backing by a major company such as AOL. This is especially true in the case of PHBs. Also, it's pretty damn cool that it can load pages using the IE rendering engine. I wonder if this includes all the ActiveX crap; would be nice to be able to use a Firefox based browser for our internal webpages that use ActiveX for everything.
nstead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?
Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans (probably the world) make their decision of what product to use based solely on brand name instead technical merit or overall quality. This is why advertising is such an important aspect of selling a product. While Firefox has had a lot of media coverage lately I think your average user still has no idea what it is, or if they do, are probably still a bit wary to switch from what they already know. This is why the Netscape brand is so important; many people know it and trust it and won't use anything else.
The linked article and the official Netscape 8 page are pretty light on technical details but the submitter mentions it is based on firefox 1.0.3. What I'm wondering is whether or not this includes the recent security fixes that brought about the release of 1.0.4. Would be pretty foolish of AOL to not include these since they are considered critical.
I also found the following line from the CNET review pretty amusing.
Netscape 8 is based on Mozilla.org's successful and mostly secure Firefox browser
Certainly not a false statement or anything but I thought the use of the phrase "mostly secure" was pretty funny.:-)
OK, so this guy might have a valid point that SCO does not need to provide a line-by-line code comparison in order to prove their case but, if this is really the situation, how come they have failed so miserably to provide anything substantial in their favor? All of their claims seem so utterly ridiculous that I can't imagine them ever getting anywhere with this in court. The outcomes so far support this view. They seem to get bitch slapped out of court every time they actually bring something in front of a judge. Does anyone know of ANYTHING real that SCO has shown to prove their case? So far it just seems like they're spreading a bunch of BS and trying to scare people into buying licenses from them. Is it possible they still have an ace up their sleave?
Something else I found interesting in the article...
To some, the fact that SCO sees Linux as a Unix clone not only makes holding that view morally wrong but requires the immediate repudiation of nonbelievers and indeed the remarketing of Linux as "not Unix" -- a move that would replace the academic and open-source heritage powering its development with a lie and thus destroy it.
Obviously UNIX machines are capable of being "owned" just as any network connected system is. The point is that it isn't anywhere near as easy as it is with today's Windows systems. No one is claiming that UNIX systems are invincible, just that they are far more resilient. You obviously know a thing or two so don't try to tell me you're not aware of how pathetic Windows security is.
When any of the UNIX's mentioned have over 200 million machines connected to the internet, _and_ some sizeable percentage of those are participating in botnets as 0wned machines, we'll see what the UNIX vendors do.
You won't ever see a sizeable amount of the UNIX machines out there participating in botnets of owned machines. Why? Because they're already fairly secure against this sort of thing. It's called security by design and reasonable defaults.
As many many people have pointed out, including the article itself, Microsoft's poor security has little to do with support for raw sockets. Pretty much every other OS out there supports raw sockets and you don't see anywhere near the amount of security issues as you do with Windows. The problem is in the overall design of Windows and the mindset of most of its users.
It's quite obvious that Microsoft has other motives for doing this as this really doesn't do anything to improve security. As was quoted in the article, Fyodor correctly points out that Windows (AFAIK) is the only operating system to put such restrictions on raw sockets and it certainly has not helped their dismal security.
Of course, there's always the possibility of ignorance...
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
but I really have to doubt that Microsoft is quite this dumb. They've got a lot of really tallented people working there so you have to think that someone would have thought about this. Then again, they have demonstrated a supreme lack of understanding when it comes to security so who knows.
The question is, how would all the people I mentioned make money if everyone used open standards and interoperable products?
Using open standards would not change this. What will change is the number of choices that we have to get a particular task done as well as the number of choices for jobs themselves. Technology jobs are not going to decline. We just might start seeing more opportunities working with a wider variety of software. It would be a big win for everyone. Also, if Microsoft all of a sudden started to use open standards people would not stop using their software. If anything it would probably be just the opposite.
who in this scenario is actually causing the problems? Is it Joe User, who is simply using the same software that 95% of the other users are using, or is it Techie McSmarts who is using all this "fringe" software and causing a ruckus whenever the rest of the Joe's compatriots produce a file he can't read?
It is neither person's fault. The blame lies with companies like Microsoft that refuse to play nice with the rest of the software world. There really is no reason that both types of users shouldn't be able to use their different software. This is the whole point behind having open standards; we all get to choose our own tools while still being able to communicate with each other.
I'm just pointing out that to the user that's still using the old software, and who doesn't have a political or philosophical disagreement with that software, and who isn't techie enough to care about how "under the hood" their software is junk, your argument isn't really going to convince them of anything.
My argument isn't intended to convince them of anything. If I had my way, they would still be able to use whatever software they find most comfortable. The point is to allow this freedom for _everyone_ including the minorities.
Not to mention that openoffice and wordperfect and abiword can open word docs......
With a little luck, yes... Things have been improving in this area lately but I might point out that often times even Microsoft can't properly support all their different versions of the.doc format. It really is a bad situation.
Why do we care? We care because what software other people use does indeed affect all of us. Not only do many of us work in the IT field and have to deal with all this poorly written software but it often makes things harder on everyone even if you don't have to deal with it directly. Take Internet Explorer for example... Thanks to things like broken CSS support web developers are forced to go to great trouble in order to create websites that display properly across different browsers and platforms. And what about the Word document format? Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't forced to use MS Office just to read the text file your coworker just sent you? You see... It's all about interoperability. All this technology is supposed to help us communicate, not lock us into one product or another.
In short: It isn't so much that we really care what software you use, it's that we care about your software playing nice with our software. If everyone in the world used software that supported truly open standards then we would all be more free to choose what software we want for ourselves.
I don't have any expectation of privacy while at work except that which I create for myself. However, don't you think it is a bit unnecessary to actually read people's conversations and emails? Preventing abuse of company resources is one thing but actually reading the content of my emails is another. I could very well be talking about something that is work related but that I do not want certain people to read. Is that really so wrong? There are things you might have to say to another coworker that wouldn't get you fired but might cause trouble amongst other coworkers if they were read by the wrong person. I just think such total monitoring is excessive.
But there are so many instances where I could claim that my privacy is invaded that I'm afraid I'm becoming more accepting of it.
I find this quite disturbing. This seems to be the case with every aspect of our lives as of late and it is only going to get worse. The more often these sorts of things happen the more accustomed to it we become and the further such invasions of privacy can be expanded. Where does it all end?
I'm really starting to worry about the future we're creating.
The biggest issue I see with this, at least in the short term, is the possible use of this feature in the corporate setting.
With businesses, however, IT managers typically set the policy. If they wanted total information, they could configure systems so that they'd know not only that a user was running Internet Explorer, for example, but also that he or she was watching a video from ESPN.com. Or, they might find out not only that a worker was running Instant Messenger but also that he or she was talking to a co-worker about getting a new job.
This is a major invasion of privacy if you ask me. Of course, while at work you are using company resources so they really do get to say how and when they are used but I feel there is an important difference between monitoring your employee's resource usage and actually reading their emails and instant messages. You don't have to totally invade everyone's privacy to enforce your company policy of internet usage.
But Sullivan pointed out that businesses can already install third-party software to monitor workers' computer usage and some do.
While the above is most certainly true, having something like this built into Windows by default just makes it that much easier and thus inviting for a company to implement this sort of monitoring. I just can't wait for the day when all employees have a tracking system attached to them at all times and are reprimanded if they spend too much time going to the bathroom or chatting to a coworker. What great fun that is going to be!
Another issue with this that is mentioned in the article is the fact that while you will be able to look through all the data being reported, most people will not have the knowledge to determine how much of it is sensitive.
And consumers could have a tough time knowing just what information they were sending. Though they'll be able to see the contents of a document, they may not recognize the significance of the technical data--such as register settings--that's being sent.
Not everything is totally obvious, such as personal emails or credit card numbers. Not to mention the fact that it will very likely be buried among a lot of other unintelligable data. Also, given the habit of most Windows users of just clicking 'OK' or 'YES' to anything and everything that pops up on their screen, I doubt many people will actually review the information being sent in the report.
I totally agree that people need to have meetings and discuss things like this but I think that we're seeing less and less of this in places like local diners, town halls, etc. In this day and age it is the internet that is our meeting place. Of course, this has both benefits and drawbacks. We are no longer limited by space or by geography but at the same time I think there is something lacking when you can't meet someone physically, in person. The use of computers and the internet is exciting but our reliance on them is a bit sad. What kind of life is sitting in front of a computer screen for 16 hours a day?
(BTW, I work in IT and am one of those people sitting on front of said computer screens all day.)
Slashdot Mirror
By the time you buy that Dell, Intel has already made it's profit -- they don't care if it sits on the shelf. That's Dell's problem.
Actually, it very quickly would become Intel's problem... If more and more people start buying something else then these Dells will start just sitting on the shelf and if enough of them do then the OEMs are going to order fewer of them. If they can't sell the ones they have, why would they buy more?
That said, I do agree that this isn't going to hurt Intel's sales one little bit. Apple still has very little market share although they are showing quite a bit of promise for the future.
I remember when the first betas came out after they split from NCSA and Mosaic, and the close to good enough browsers through version 4
If you even know what Mosaic is then you're not the type of person I was talking about.
I know nobody employed in the IT field that would recommend using Netscape as a browser.
(Emphasis mine)
People in the IT field are not your average user. Obviously we know that Netscape is nothing nowadays and that Firefox is superior. My point was that your Average Jane/Joe computer user does not understand the advantages of something like Firefox (some are beginning to) and even if they do they are still going to be hesitant about switching to something unknown when what they've always used is still working for them. PHBs are particularly bad about choosing something based on brand recognition alone and they are often the ones making such the decisions to deploy a particular piece of software.
but Netscape is gone. Sorry to break the news here.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. I know of several people who even know that the new versions of Netscape are just Mozilla with AOL's extra crap and they still use it over plain Firefox. Why? Because it has a name they know and backing by a major company. Netscape (at least as a name tag) is not going away just yet; not with a large company like AOL backing it. But hey, at least it is based on Mozilla/Firefox instead of the original Netscape codebase before the source was opened up.
web sites will start making IE only websites
What do you mean start? This is what already happens.
It certainly would be better if they would just write extensions for Firefox and make them available as such rather than wasting time on Netscape-only stuff but, for the reasons I mentioned before, it is a very good thing that they release a Netscape branded version. Regardless of whether it is the same browser underneath many people won't use Firefox simply because it is unknown to them.
Please see my response to this post ... People stick to what they know and Netscape is a lot more well known than Firefox. If we want to put a dent in the number of IE users and thus make the web a better place for everyone, we need something that people are familiar and comfortable with as well as something that has backing by a major company such as AOL. This is especially true in the case of PHBs. Also, it's pretty damn cool that it can load pages using the IE rendering engine. I wonder if this includes all the ActiveX crap; would be nice to be able to use a Firefox based browser for our internal webpages that use ActiveX for everything.
nstead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?
Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans (probably the world) make their decision of what product to use based solely on brand name instead technical merit or overall quality. This is why advertising is such an important aspect of selling a product. While Firefox has had a lot of media coverage lately I think your average user still has no idea what it is, or if they do, are probably still a bit wary to switch from what they already know. This is why the Netscape brand is so important; many people know it and trust it and won't use anything else.
The linked article and the official Netscape 8 page are pretty light on technical details but the submitter mentions it is based on firefox 1.0.3. What I'm wondering is whether or not this includes the recent security fixes that brought about the release of 1.0.4. Would be pretty foolish of AOL to not include these since they are considered critical.
:-)
I also found the following line from the CNET review pretty amusing.
Netscape 8 is based on Mozilla.org's successful and mostly secure Firefox browser
Certainly not a false statement or anything but I thought the use of the phrase "mostly secure" was pretty funny.
Anyone else get a 404 on the Trust Rating page?
Can't you also get stuck on a sex offender list for getting caught urinating in public?
OK, so this guy might have a valid point that SCO does not need to provide a line-by-line code comparison in order to prove their case but, if this is really the situation, how come they have failed so miserably to provide anything substantial in their favor? All of their claims seem so utterly ridiculous that I can't imagine them ever getting anywhere with this in court. The outcomes so far support this view. They seem to get bitch slapped out of court every time they actually bring something in front of a judge. Does anyone know of ANYTHING real that SCO has shown to prove their case? So far it just seems like they're spreading a bunch of BS and trying to scare people into buying licenses from them. Is it possible they still have an ace up their sleave?
Something else I found interesting in the article...
To some, the fact that SCO sees Linux as a Unix clone not only makes holding that view morally wrong but requires the immediate repudiation of nonbelievers and indeed the remarketing of Linux as "not Unix" -- a move that would replace the academic and open-source heritage powering its development with a lie and thus destroy it.
Obviously UNIX machines are capable of being "owned" just as any network connected system is. The point is that it isn't anywhere near as easy as it is with today's Windows systems. No one is claiming that UNIX systems are invincible, just that they are far more resilient. You obviously know a thing or two so don't try to tell me you're not aware of how pathetic Windows security is.
When any of the UNIX's mentioned have over 200 million machines connected to the internet, _and_ some sizeable percentage of those are participating in botnets as 0wned machines, we'll see what the UNIX vendors do.
You won't ever see a sizeable amount of the UNIX machines out there participating in botnets of owned machines. Why? Because they're already fairly secure against this sort of thing. It's called security by design and reasonable defaults.
I love your analogy :)
Someone please mod the parent up.
As many many people have pointed out, including the article itself, Microsoft's poor security has little to do with support for raw sockets. Pretty much every other OS out there supports raw sockets and you don't see anywhere near the amount of security issues as you do with Windows. The problem is in the overall design of Windows and the mindset of most of its users.
It's quite obvious that Microsoft has other motives for doing this as this really doesn't do anything to improve security. As was quoted in the article, Fyodor correctly points out that Windows (AFAIK) is the only operating system to put such restrictions on raw sockets and it certainly has not helped their dismal security.
Of course, there's always the possibility of ignorance...
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
stupidity.
but I really have to doubt that Microsoft is quite this dumb. They've got a lot of really tallented people working there so you have to think that someone would have thought about this. Then again, they have demonstrated a supreme lack of understanding when it comes to security so who knows.
The question is, how would all the people I mentioned make money if everyone used open standards and interoperable products?
Using open standards would not change this. What will change is the number of choices that we have to get a particular task done as well as the number of choices for jobs themselves. Technology jobs are not going to decline. We just might start seeing more opportunities working with a wider variety of software. It would be a big win for everyone. Also, if Microsoft all of a sudden started to use open standards people would not stop using their software. If anything it would probably be just the opposite.
who in this scenario is actually causing the problems? Is it Joe User, who is simply using the same software that 95% of the other users are using, or is it Techie McSmarts who is using all this "fringe" software and causing a ruckus whenever the rest of the Joe's compatriots produce a file he can't read?
It is neither person's fault. The blame lies with companies like Microsoft that refuse to play nice with the rest of the software world. There really is no reason that both types of users shouldn't be able to use their different software. This is the whole point behind having open standards; we all get to choose our own tools while still being able to communicate with each other.
I'm just pointing out that to the user that's still using the old software, and who doesn't have a political or philosophical disagreement with that software, and who isn't techie enough to care about how "under the hood" their software is junk, your argument isn't really going to convince them of anything.
My argument isn't intended to convince them of anything. If I had my way, they would still be able to use whatever software they find most comfortable. The point is to allow this freedom for _everyone_ including the minorities.
Not to mention that openoffice and wordperfect and abiword can open word docs......
.doc format. It really is a bad situation.
With a little luck, yes... Things have been improving in this area lately but I might point out that often times even Microsoft can't properly support all their different versions of the
Your coworker hasn't heard of Notepad?
You haven't worked at many different companies have you? Most people in corporate environments use Word for EVERYTHING.
Why do we care? We care because what software other people use does indeed affect all of us. Not only do many of us work in the IT field and have to deal with all this poorly written software but it often makes things harder on everyone even if you don't have to deal with it directly. Take Internet Explorer for example... Thanks to things like broken CSS support web developers are forced to go to great trouble in order to create websites that display properly across different browsers and platforms. And what about the Word document format? Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't forced to use MS Office just to read the text file your coworker just sent you? You see... It's all about interoperability. All this technology is supposed to help us communicate, not lock us into one product or another.
In short: It isn't so much that we really care what software you use, it's that we care about your software playing nice with our software. If everyone in the world used software that supported truly open standards then we would all be more free to choose what software we want for ourselves.
or find another place to work.
My thoughts exactly.
I don't have any expectation of privacy while at work except that which I create for myself. However, don't you think it is a bit unnecessary to actually read people's conversations and emails? Preventing abuse of company resources is one thing but actually reading the content of my emails is another. I could very well be talking about something that is work related but that I do not want certain people to read. Is that really so wrong? There are things you might have to say to another coworker that wouldn't get you fired but might cause trouble amongst other coworkers if they were read by the wrong person. I just think such total monitoring is excessive.
But there are so many instances where I could claim that my privacy is invaded that I'm afraid I'm becoming more accepting of it.
I find this quite disturbing. This seems to be the case with every aspect of our lives as of late and it is only going to get worse. The more often these sorts of things happen the more accustomed to it we become and the further such invasions of privacy can be expanded. Where does it all end?
I'm really starting to worry about the future we're creating.
The biggest issue I see with this, at least in the short term, is the possible use of this feature in the corporate setting.
With businesses, however, IT managers typically set the policy. If they wanted total information, they could configure systems so that they'd know not only that a user was running Internet Explorer, for example, but also that he or she was watching a video from ESPN.com. Or, they might find out not only that a worker was running Instant Messenger but also that he or she was talking to a co-worker about getting a new job.
This is a major invasion of privacy if you ask me. Of course, while at work you are using company resources so they really do get to say how and when they are used but I feel there is an important difference between monitoring your employee's resource usage and actually reading their emails and instant messages. You don't have to totally invade everyone's privacy to enforce your company policy of internet usage.
But Sullivan pointed out that businesses can already install third-party software to monitor workers' computer usage and some do.
While the above is most certainly true, having something like this built into Windows by default just makes it that much easier and thus inviting for a company to implement this sort of monitoring. I just can't wait for the day when all employees have a tracking system attached to them at all times and are reprimanded if they spend too much time going to the bathroom or chatting to a coworker. What great fun that is going to be!
Another issue with this that is mentioned in the article is the fact that while you will be able to look through all the data being reported, most people will not have the knowledge to determine how much of it is sensitive.
And consumers could have a tough time knowing just what information they were sending. Though they'll be able to see the contents of a document, they may not recognize the significance of the technical data--such as register settings--that's being sent.
Not everything is totally obvious, such as personal emails or credit card numbers. Not to mention the fact that it will very likely be buried among a lot of other unintelligable data. Also, given the habit of most Windows users of just clicking 'OK' or 'YES' to anything and everything that pops up on their screen, I doubt many people will actually review the information being sent in the report.
What would really be news if we saw website attacks decline.
No kidding.
"This just in! Technology still advancing!"
Obviously website attacks are going to increase as the number of people with computers and access to the internet increases.
I totally agree that people need to have meetings and discuss things like this but I think that we're seeing less and less of this in places like local diners, town halls, etc. In this day and age it is the internet that is our meeting place. Of course, this has both benefits and drawbacks. We are no longer limited by space or by geography but at the same time I think there is something lacking when you can't meet someone physically, in person. The use of computers and the internet is exciting but our reliance on them is a bit sad. What kind of life is sitting in front of a computer screen for 16 hours a day?
(BTW, I work in IT and am one of those people sitting on front of said computer screens all day.)