When a razor company sells you a razor, gambling that they will make money on the blades, do you see them trying to pass laws to make it illegal to do anything with their razor other than what they want?
Actually, you may not see this on razors, but many products (like many aerosol cans and glass cleaners) do have a stipulation that states: "It is illegal to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."
This is usually done to keep people from huffing it, snorting it, blowing it up, etc.
Re:Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!?
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.
That's why I'm excited to see how W2k3 Server holds up. So far, there haven't been any bulletins raised for the base OS or IIS 6.0 that I know of. There has been one for MediaPlayer and IE (and the IE one involved a feature not used by default on the hardened security version found on W2k3).
Microsoft becoming better at security will not only be good for the Internet as a whole, but it will keep the Apache and Linux people on their toes creating even more cool stuff.
Re:Then why does IIS keep getting hacked?!?
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
IIS enjoys only one half the market share of Apache for web servers. Meanwhile IIS enjoys the majority of actual hacking events.
Because they're Microsoft. They're still the largest target because they're made out to be the bad guy. So people target them more than Apache.
Why? Monocultured soft target. Look at Nimda and Code Red they're working on the hopes that you have your files located in C:\winnt\system32\...
And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in/etc. From there, I could test many standard locations for Apache and other software.
Your Linux scenario neglects a few things about priviledges needed to open up ports and the like. You also need to give that program execute priviledges and hope that (in your scenario) they are using the/home directory structure instead of something like/usr/home or who cares/knows.
Just open up a high numbered port. Many times, those are not locked down. You don't have to open a privileged port. You just make sure you send out to the proper port on the server side.
If a Joe Sixpack user receives a binary from a friend, the point I'm trying to make is that they may very well run it (because people still do...), so they will add the necessary execute privileges. If you read my explanation, running it was implicit task. Maybe they're not using/home? These are trivial arguments. It's easy to check environment variables, parse finger output, look around the filesystem, take your pick. There are tons of methods that could be used to find the home directory. Be creative, you're supposed to be a malicious hacker, here.:)
Wow, look at all the evidence you back this up with. Sure, I don't use Hotmail or Passport 'cause I don't need to, but IIS? Have you used the one in Server 2003 or are you just going off of the Code Red scare?
Outlook is ok, but hardly innovative. There is little logic in bundling a calendar, daily plannar, etc, in with an e-mail program
That's funny, I remember Outlook being touted as a Personal Information Manager and Communication solution, not an e-mail program. I actually love how it works. Someone can send me a meeting request and it'll automatically enter it into my calendar. I can easily propose a new time if necessary and all people will get that update. With the Exchange back-end, I can see it all on the web or on my Pocket PC. If they were separate programs, it would be harder to work together and actually less secure because they would be in separate process spaces so allowing only the calendar to talk to email and not other stuff is harder to do. How about you offer some valid reasons why they should be separate programs?
So, you bring up a bunch of categories that _you_ think are the real great apps and since MS doesn't work with them, that doesn't make them an innovator? Also, you say they're not a leader in any categories of significance, even though their Office suite is the most widely used and I personally think it beats the crap out of OpenOffice.org.
All you spew here is rhetoric with no real examples. So you don't like a couple of their programs (such as IE). Use something else and be happy! Just because they're not #1 doesn't mean they are the most innovative. MacOS X is way innovative and they always have been, but are they the #1 OS? No. They're always doing innovative things with their hardware. Are they the #1 seller of PCs? No. It doesn't mean they're not innovative, though.
Please actually try the latest software and experience the full feature set before you spew your zealotous rhetoric.
I've heard this so many times and responded just as many...
That's because Microsoft is the largest target to attack. The same thing will happen to Linux as it gains desktop market share. It's just as easy to cause e-mail trojans on Linux.
All you have to do is attach a malicious binary to an email and send it to a Linux user. Any program they run will have the privileges of that user which includes having the power to remove everything from their/home directory, which can easily piss people off. Furthermore, it will have access to read their files which means it could read the text file which holds the person's Mozilla addresses. It would then be easy to open up a port and, if the code includes its own ability to send mail, forward itself to other unsuspecting users.
Sure, this assumes they use Mozilla or whatever, but it's very easy to put in a check for all sorts of mailers and since many people have broadband and their friend sent it to them, the Joe Sixpack user won't think twice about runnin' that cool new proggie.
Well, yeah. Windows along with other GNU applications is also much more than Windows. Take Windows, add Mozilla (or Avant Browser) with popup blocking and tab browsing, use a free util (or just about any nVidia driver) for multiple desktops, OpenOffice.org, and turn off all the fancy fluffy stuff to make the GUI smoother for daily usage. Sure, most of this stuff is not present in a default Windows installation, but it does come with a good amount of utilities (I _love_ MovieMaker). Besides, who wants to have their OS installed with 5+ web browsers and 3 or 4 different word processor. Most people don't. They want the 1 browser that works great and the 1 word processor. A lot of people complain about the bloat in Windows, but if you look at a typical Linux install, it's rather bloaty as well and most of the time, newbies won't even know 70% of the programs installed. You just know about the ones that appear in their KDE/Gnome menu. The rest is waste that could be better spent on other things.
Re:Finally, an interview with Gates!
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Who cares how long it's managed to be around? How could it be called the passing fad? It hasn't passed yet and is obviously doing very successful so.... where's the interesting point here? So what. UNIX has been around for 40 years and Linux for about 12 to 13 compared to 32-bit Windows' 8. Neither Linux or Windows has died out yet so none of them are passing fads. One's merely younger than the other *shrug*
... but still didn't find it that gratifying. A couple of things that I would like to note though:
Windows does seem to be a platform that does a lot of innovation. I've seen the betas of Longhorn, they're really doing some awesome architectural change to the OS. I don't think Linux users can deny that the most popular window managers out there aim to imitate Windows' look-and-feel so as to be familiar with those users. What does this result in? A clone machine. Nothing risky and new is done very often and really pushed out (I'm talking about KDE or Gnome doing something major and pushing it out) for fear it'll push potential new users away due to its dissimilarity with Windows.
Don't get me wrong. Linux is very stable and the kernel is getting so rock-hard and that is very impressive, but until there's really a reason to make people's heads turn, people will remain on Windows. They need to see something that turns their head and they say "Wow, that's something that makes my computing life easier that's not available on Windows." Only then will desktop users really consider switching. But as long as the advertising scheme for Linux is "Just like Windows!", there won't be a super compelling reason for people to switch. Oh yeah, the lack of software hurts, but we've beat that catch 22 into the ground.
Of course, another problem is that once it's done on Linux, Windows will probably embrace-and-extend it. That's a slight downside of the cost arrangement of Linux. If someone was to get some new innovative thing into Linux, nobody can afford to get protection for it such as patents. Sure, most of you may not like software patents, but face it, it's the way it is and you have to protect yourself whether you like the system or not. I'm not saying MS will steal the code, but they have a whole slew of programmers that can tinker with something until they figure it out.
This is all stuff easier said than done. Since MS is the 900lb gorilla, they have a lot more freedom to do the pushing than the following. These are just my opinions, though.
Any program they run will have the privileges of that user which includes removing everything from their/home directory, which can easily piss people off. Furthermore, it will have access to read their files which means it could read the text file which holds the person's Mozilla addresses. It would then be easy to open up a port and, if the code includes its own ability to send mail, forward itself to other unsuspecting users.
You don't have to have an all-in-one integrated solution for having.vbs files, macros, and documents flying all over the place. All you need to do is attach a binary to an email and have someone open it after receiving it. Like I said previously, it's an education issue, not necessarily a problem with the software, but as more (read: less educated) people use Linux, things like this will happen more often and all you'll see in the press is "New Linux Worm Spreads With Ease".
Now they are running Win2K which is at least stable, but the thing I found about Linux, is once you have it set up right, it is great for technophobes. It doesn't pick up viruses and is much less prone to break for mysterious reasons.
But just wait until all the Linux users get their dream of it becoming a more popular desktop OS. What is going to happen first is that you better hope these people are buying the software instead of giving it away because you'll need more people at companies like RedHat (which costs money) to field all the technical support and bug fixing that will occur once you expand your customer base by a couple orders of magnitude. With that many people using the software, they're going to try many more things than the developers ever would and it will result in more bugs and more odd problems.
Secondly, there will be viruses, trojans, and other malicious code. There have already been Linux viruses, albeit not very noticable due to the smartness of the user base and OS conditions to making these viruses. However, the more powerful and dominant the OS or software, the more people are going to target it for attacks. It's very important that Linux coders stay security conscious. Unfortunately, that's not enough. How long will it be before we see the first 'ILoveYou' linux virus because so many people that run linux, because it's now 'easy-to-use', double-click on an attachment that they get in their email. It may not wipe out their computer, but it will probably at least wipe out their/home directory. You may say 'Don't click on the attachment!' or other obvious ways for this not to occur, but this is an educational problem, not a usability problem and it does very much exist on Windows because people that don't know much about computers want to just use it without having to know a lot about computers.
I think these are real problems you'll see as Linux becomes more of a desktop OS.
This is rediculous. I really hope a lawyer will pick this up and appeal it. He didn't actually sell these devices and therefore should not be punished for it. At least he only has to pay $500 a month. It could have been much worse. At least this way when he gets out of mail, he _may_ have a chance of getting a decent life back if he can get a job where $500/month isn't that bad.
This is like me making a knife and then the tire companies suing me for tons of money because, had I sold these knives, they could've been used to destroy their tires.
Sure, these are all nice reasons to want to be able to boot Linux on an unmodded Xbox, but you're not giving any reasons why Microsoft should want to do this. All of the reasons you list show exactly why MS would not want to provide a signed Linux distro. The Xbox hackers need to provide Microsoft with valid reasons why they should.
I actually would love to hear those reasons, but unfortunately I'm not sure they exist. The console gaming business model (not just Microsoft's) is to sell the console at a loss and make the money back with the games (kinda like printers). I'm sure they don't really want it this way, but they have to compete with other cool systems (like the PS2). I don't think any company would be compelled to go with something that: 1) Would guarantee losing money and 2) Enhances the competition. It just doesn't make good business sense.
Just another thing to keep track of....
on
Microsoft SPOT Watches
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The thing I don't like about these watches (I've actually seen them being demoed) is that they require you to basically charge your watch every night. I already have to remember to charge my phone and my pda. Now I have to remember to charge this thing as well? My PDA and phone at least lasts a few days. Hopefully that's something that will change when it's released.
You mean the hole where stupid people run attachments that other people send them? That's not a problem with the OS, it's the people that use it. A large portion of the viruses out nowadays are due to this and not due to holes in the OS.
Also, I don't think it's right to say that it's been removed. According to what I've heard, it was never added. I'm not sure if it was by choice of if they are still working on it or if they're thinking up another way to do the presentation stuff. Either way, this is still beta and I'm sure when it all is released, they will answer because many people will want to know what they must do.
As for requiring newer operating systems: GOOD. The Win9x line blows and needs to be done away with. WinXP is a much better OS in every aspect and dropping the older line helps Microsoft in making a better product because they're not always doing this backwards-compat crap, which takes longer in development time and harms the stability and security of the product.
I think that the poster's point is that you WON'T LET THEM have a good idea. You'll always come up with something to shoot it down. The same can be done for many Linux ideas, too. For example, fonts are a bitch under linux. Who's bright idea was it to do it the way it's done? It sucks. Sorry, but it does. As for stealing, Microsoft extends an idea from someone else and it's stealing. However, if Linux decides to go and clone the UI and feel of tons of Windows apps, nobody bats an eyelash. It's just another example of how "Linux is becoming a better desktop system".
All in all, many people on here have double-standards when it comes to Microsoft and Linux because they are ignorant zealots.
I'm not trying to be a Troll, but I think if you look at the vast majority of posts on Slashdot over a variety of stories, that's the jist of it.
Ever heard of 'Depends'? There's a similar program for.NET programs called 'ILDASM' which disassembles the intermediate code and you can see exactly which assemblies (which are dlls for.NET programs) and versions are being used. There will be utilities to find out the information. They come with the framework.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. They're doing this by using a similar method (if not the same) that.NET uses for versioning their assemblies. You simply tell your.exe by using an attribute in the source code which assembly version to use. Then, you compile the assmbly saying it is whatever version you want. If in the future, another program comes along that installs new software, it'll be compiled to use the newer assembly. Then, if the original author determines that the new assembly is compatible, they simply release a patch that has a file called 'myprog.exe.config' and the.config file is an XML file saying the new version to use.
Not just programs will use this, but the generic Windows.dll files can use this scheme as well. So, installing your service pack won't break half of your programs, but it may still allow them to implement new security and usability features. TONS of programs use the generic windows dlls so it's not like you're completely getting rid of the idea of dynamic libraries.
This brings in security implications because anyone can write a.config file. However, 1) you'd have to be an admin to write to the dir and 2) there are things called "Strong Names" which involve encryption keys that also help with identifying assemblies and dlls, but I'm light on the technical details of this.
So, don't draw conclusions and knock it down so quickly. It's actually a really good way to allow old programs to keep working until it's determined that yes, you can upgrade. As far as removing old dlls so you don't get cruft, I'm not exactly sure how that will work, but it's not like Linux doesn't have this problem as well. After awhile, I have tons of.so's all over the place and I have no idea what programs are linking to it (if any).
I'm sure the conspiracy theory people will see this as a suggestion by Microsoft to stop students from getting those pesky Linux iso images. At least, according to the RIAA, CD sales around Cornell should now skyrocket:)"
In this situation, I would just go to the nearest computer lab and burn the ISOs to CD. That way, you're using the lab's bandwidth rather than your quota.
I don't know everything about longhorn, but I do know that they will not be cutting out backwards compatibility. They'll be pushing more of their.NET platform for developing new stuff, and a lot of Longhorn has been written using.NET, but it's not like the Win32 APIs are all of the sudden going to go away. There may be some things that change due to security reasons, but I really don't think it's going to be as major as what the article would like you to believe. Besides, I'd like to see the increased security.
Who says that ethnicity is the *only* criteria? You do, not me.
Uh, no. I'm saying that ethnicity shouldn't be a MAJOR criteria, which is something you want it to be. You want it so if an arab checks in at an airport, it immediately raises the bar of risk.
Equal treatment under the law doesn't mean that cops cannot discriminate - otherwise after a robbery they would have to stop every car or no car.
Um, actually, this is the case. They have to stop every car to question people about suspicious behavior, or no car. They only way they can discriminate about the people they stop is if they have evidence that their license plate was at the scene, or that their Black Suburban was at the scene, etc. In the case of being arab, that's not hard evidence. That's purely circumstantial.
If the definition of bigotry is intolerance, then I must be a bigot because I am intolerant of neo-Nazi's and KKK members. By that definition, I'll bet that you are a bigot too!
When I say intolerance, I mean intolerance of everything but your own race. With your numerous posts about this subject and a quick glance at your blog, it is very easy to see that, yes, you are a bigot.
Furthermore, I am NOT assuming that every Arab is a high risk for terrorism or that most Arabs are terrorist. Your understanding of statistics seems a bit off. But young male Arabs as a group represent a much larger risk for terrorism than young male Mexicans, for example. To ignore that is criminal negligence.
Dude, you're a moron. That's exactly what you're assuming. You're saying that our systems should take race into consideration because arabs immediately put you at a higher risk for terrorism. It is easy to infer from this statement that you believe that most arabs have the likelihood of being a terrorist. My understanding of statistics is perfectly valid as I have taken numerous courses in Statistics and Probability. Your understanding is off because in every single post you've made on this board, you've either contradicted yourself or tried to skew the numbers to be in your favor. Only people that truly don't understand the meaning and value of statistics do this and fall victim to it.
You say that young male arabs as a group represent a larger risk for terrorism. Maybe this is true, but unless your last name is Bin Laden, there is no hard evidence that you plan on actually doing anything, except living your life as an arab. And as I said before, if there is no hard, conclusive evidence or probable cause against you, then you do have the right to not be discriminated against.
From another one of your posts: Actually, with more data per person the noise goes down. It allows it to take more factors into account, reducing false positives and false negatives.
Furthermore, the more data it uses, the harder it is to "spoof" by terrorists, who otherwise will try to spot vulnerabilities in the system. This is especially true if the algorithms are kept secret.
True, but if you still have a fairly good percentage of the people fall into this increased data point, it goes back to doing no good. And it will increase false positives because a very small number of arab people are actually terrorists, yet you want to flag each one of them immediately. This results in many false positives!
And as for your "keeping the algorithm secret" argument, we all know that security through obscurity doesn't work when it's all you rely on.
Slashdot Mirror
When a razor company sells you a razor, gambling that they will make money on the blades, do you see them trying to pass laws to make it illegal to do anything with their razor other than what they want?
Actually, you may not see this on razors, but many products (like many aerosol cans and glass cleaners) do have a stipulation that states: "It is illegal to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."
This is usually done to keep people from huffing it, snorting it, blowing it up, etc.
MS OSes get hacked because they're EASY tagets, not because they're LARGE targets.
That's why I'm excited to see how W2k3 Server holds up. So far, there haven't been any bulletins raised for the base OS or IIS 6.0 that I know of. There has been one for MediaPlayer and IE (and the IE one involved a feature not used by default on the hardened security version found on W2k3).
Microsoft becoming better at security will not only be good for the Internet as a whole, but it will keep the Apache and Linux people on their toes creating even more cool stuff.
IIS enjoys only one half the market share of Apache for web servers. Meanwhile IIS enjoys the majority of actual hacking events.
/etc. From there, I could test many standard locations for Apache and other software.
/home directory structure instead of something like /usr/home or who cares/knows.
/home? These are trivial arguments. It's easy to check environment variables, parse finger output, look around the filesystem, take your pick. There are tons of methods that could be used to find the home directory. Be creative, you're supposed to be a malicious hacker, here. :)
Because they're Microsoft. They're still the largest target because they're made out to be the bad guy. So people target them more than Apache.
Why? Monocultured soft target. Look at Nimda and Code Red they're working on the hopes that you have your files located in C:\winnt\system32\...
And I'm sure if I rooted your Apache box, I could depend on your password files and other important files sitting in
Your Linux scenario neglects a few things about priviledges needed to open up ports and the like. You also need to give that program execute priviledges and hope that (in your scenario) they are using the
Just open up a high numbered port. Many times, those are not locked down. You don't have to open a privileged port. You just make sure you send out to the proper port on the server side.
If a Joe Sixpack user receives a binary from a friend, the point I'm trying to make is that they may very well run it (because people still do...), so they will add the necessary execute privileges. If you read my explanation, running it was implicit task. Maybe they're not using
Wow, look at all the evidence you back this up with. Sure, I don't use Hotmail or Passport 'cause I don't need to, but IIS? Have you used the one in Server 2003 or are you just going off of the Code Red scare?
Outlook is ok, but hardly innovative. There is little logic in bundling a calendar, daily plannar, etc, in with an e-mail program
That's funny, I remember Outlook being touted as a Personal Information Manager and Communication solution, not an e-mail program. I actually love how it works. Someone can send me a meeting request and it'll automatically enter it into my calendar. I can easily propose a new time if necessary and all people will get that update. With the Exchange back-end, I can see it all on the web or on my Pocket PC. If they were separate programs, it would be harder to work together and actually less secure because they would be in separate process spaces so allowing only the calendar to talk to email and not other stuff is harder to do. How about you offer some valid reasons why they should be separate programs?
So, you bring up a bunch of categories that _you_ think are the real great apps and since MS doesn't work with them, that doesn't make them an innovator? Also, you say they're not a leader in any categories of significance, even though their Office suite is the most widely used and I personally think it beats the crap out of OpenOffice.org.
All you spew here is rhetoric with no real examples. So you don't like a couple of their programs (such as IE). Use something else and be happy! Just because they're not #1 doesn't mean they are the most innovative. MacOS X is way innovative and they always have been, but are they the #1 OS? No. They're always doing innovative things with their hardware. Are they the #1 seller of PCs? No. It doesn't mean they're not innovative, though.
Please actually try the latest software and experience the full feature set before you spew your zealotous rhetoric.
I've heard this so many times and responded just as many...
/home directory, which can easily piss people off. Furthermore, it will have access to read their files which means it could read the text file which holds the person's Mozilla addresses. It would then be easy to open up a port and, if the code includes its own ability to send mail, forward itself to other unsuspecting users.
That's because Microsoft is the largest target to attack. The same thing will happen to Linux as it gains desktop market share. It's just as easy to cause e-mail trojans on Linux.
All you have to do is attach a malicious binary to an email and send it to a Linux user. Any program they run will have the privileges of that user which includes having the power to remove everything from their
Sure, this assumes they use Mozilla or whatever, but it's very easy to put in a check for all sorts of mailers and since many people have broadband and their friend sent it to them, the Joe Sixpack user won't think twice about runnin' that cool new proggie.
Well, yeah. Windows along with other GNU applications is also much more than Windows. Take Windows, add Mozilla (or Avant Browser) with popup blocking and tab browsing, use a free util (or just about any nVidia driver) for multiple desktops, OpenOffice.org, and turn off all the fancy fluffy stuff to make the GUI smoother for daily usage. Sure, most of this stuff is not present in a default Windows installation, but it does come with a good amount of utilities (I _love_ MovieMaker). Besides, who wants to have their OS installed with 5+ web browsers and 3 or 4 different word processor. Most people don't. They want the 1 browser that works great and the 1 word processor. A lot of people complain about the bloat in Windows, but if you look at a typical Linux install, it's rather bloaty as well and most of the time, newbies won't even know 70% of the programs installed. You just know about the ones that appear in their KDE/Gnome menu. The rest is waste that could be better spent on other things.
Who cares how long it's managed to be around? How could it be called the passing fad? It hasn't passed yet and is obviously doing very successful so.... where's the interesting point here? So what. UNIX has been around for 40 years and Linux for about 12 to 13 compared to 32-bit Windows' 8. Neither Linux or Windows has died out yet so none of them are passing fads. One's merely younger than the other *shrug*
... but still didn't find it that gratifying. A couple of things that I would like to note though:
Windows does seem to be a platform that does a lot of innovation. I've seen the betas of Longhorn, they're really doing some awesome architectural change to the OS. I don't think Linux users can deny that the most popular window managers out there aim to imitate Windows' look-and-feel so as to be familiar with those users. What does this result in? A clone machine. Nothing risky and new is done very often and really pushed out (I'm talking about KDE or Gnome doing something major and pushing it out) for fear it'll push potential new users away due to its dissimilarity with Windows.
Don't get me wrong. Linux is very stable and the kernel is getting so rock-hard and that is very impressive, but until there's really a reason to make people's heads turn, people will remain on Windows. They need to see something that turns their head and they say "Wow, that's something that makes my computing life easier that's not available on Windows." Only then will desktop users really consider switching. But as long as the advertising scheme for Linux is "Just like Windows!", there won't be a super compelling reason for people to switch. Oh yeah, the lack of software hurts, but we've beat that catch 22 into the ground.
Of course, another problem is that once it's done on Linux, Windows will probably embrace-and-extend it. That's a slight downside of the cost arrangement of Linux. If someone was to get some new innovative thing into Linux, nobody can afford to get protection for it such as patents. Sure, most of you may not like software patents, but face it, it's the way it is and you have to protect yourself whether you like the system or not. I'm not saying MS will steal the code, but they have a whole slew of programmers that can tinker with something until they figure it out.
This is all stuff easier said than done. Since MS is the 900lb gorilla, they have a lot more freedom to do the pushing than the following. These are just my opinions, though.
No, they don't.
/home directory, which can easily piss people off. Furthermore, it will have access to read their files which means it could read the text file which holds the person's Mozilla addresses. It would then be easy to open up a port and, if the code includes its own ability to send mail, forward itself to other unsuspecting users.
Any program they run will have the privileges of that user which includes removing everything from their
You don't have to have an all-in-one integrated solution for having .vbs files, macros, and documents flying all over the place. All you need to do is attach a binary to an email and have someone open it after receiving it. Like I said previously, it's an education issue, not necessarily a problem with the software, but as more (read: less educated) people use Linux, things like this will happen more often and all you'll see in the press is "New Linux Worm Spreads With Ease".
Now they are running Win2K which is at least stable, but the thing I found about Linux, is once you have it set up right, it is great for technophobes. It doesn't pick up viruses and is much less prone to break for mysterious reasons.
/home directory. You may say 'Don't click on the attachment!' or other obvious ways for this not to occur, but this is an educational problem, not a usability problem and it does very much exist on Windows because people that don't know much about computers want to just use it without having to know a lot about computers.
But just wait until all the Linux users get their dream of it becoming a more popular desktop OS. What is going to happen first is that you better hope these people are buying the software instead of giving it away because you'll need more people at companies like RedHat (which costs money) to field all the technical support and bug fixing that will occur once you expand your customer base by a couple orders of magnitude. With that many people using the software, they're going to try many more things than the developers ever would and it will result in more bugs and more odd problems.
Secondly, there will be viruses, trojans, and other malicious code. There have already been Linux viruses, albeit not very noticable due to the smartness of the user base and OS conditions to making these viruses. However, the more powerful and dominant the OS or software, the more people are going to target it for attacks. It's very important that Linux coders stay security conscious. Unfortunately, that's not enough. How long will it be before we see the first 'ILoveYou' linux virus because so many people that run linux, because it's now 'easy-to-use', double-click on an attachment that they get in their email. It may not wipe out their computer, but it will probably at least wipe out their
I think these are real problems you'll see as Linux becomes more of a desktop OS.
I suppose that's what I get for not reading the article. ;)
This is rediculous. I really hope a lawyer will pick this up and appeal it. He didn't actually sell these devices and therefore should not be punished for it. At least he only has to pay $500 a month. It could have been much worse. At least this way when he gets out of mail, he _may_ have a chance of getting a decent life back if he can get a job where $500/month isn't that bad.
This is like me making a knife and then the tire companies suing me for tons of money because, had I sold these knives, they could've been used to destroy their tires.
Sure, these are all nice reasons to want to be able to boot Linux on an unmodded Xbox, but you're not giving any reasons why Microsoft should want to do this. All of the reasons you list show exactly why MS would not want to provide a signed Linux distro. The Xbox hackers need to provide Microsoft with valid reasons why they should.
I actually would love to hear those reasons, but unfortunately I'm not sure they exist. The console gaming business model (not just Microsoft's) is to sell the console at a loss and make the money back with the games (kinda like printers). I'm sure they don't really want it this way, but they have to compete with other cool systems (like the PS2). I don't think any company would be compelled to go with something that: 1) Would guarantee losing money and 2) Enhances the competition. It just doesn't make good business sense.
The thing I don't like about these watches (I've actually seen them being demoed) is that they require you to basically charge your watch every night. I already have to remember to charge my phone and my pda. Now I have to remember to charge this thing as well? My PDA and phone at least lasts a few days. Hopefully that's something that will change when it's released.
And if you are a great coder, have good business sense, good people skills, and your primary goal is to make money... then go start a company.
You mean the hole where stupid people run attachments that other people send them? That's not a problem with the OS, it's the people that use it. A large portion of the viruses out nowadays are due to this and not due to holes in the OS.
Don't you mean FretBSD?
Also, I don't think it's right to say that it's been removed. According to what I've heard, it was never added. I'm not sure if it was by choice of if they are still working on it or if they're thinking up another way to do the presentation stuff. Either way, this is still beta and I'm sure when it all is released, they will answer because many people will want to know what they must do.
As for requiring newer operating systems: GOOD. The Win9x line blows and needs to be done away with. WinXP is a much better OS in every aspect and dropping the older line helps Microsoft in making a better product because they're not always doing this backwards-compat crap, which takes longer in development time and harms the stability and security of the product.
I think that the poster's point is that you WON'T LET THEM have a good idea. You'll always come up with something to shoot it down. The same can be done for many Linux ideas, too. For example, fonts are a bitch under linux. Who's bright idea was it to do it the way it's done? It sucks. Sorry, but it does. As for stealing, Microsoft extends an idea from someone else and it's stealing. However, if Linux decides to go and clone the UI and feel of tons of Windows apps, nobody bats an eyelash. It's just another example of how "Linux is becoming a better desktop system".
All in all, many people on here have double-standards when it comes to Microsoft and Linux because they are ignorant zealots.
I'm not trying to be a Troll, but I think if you look at the vast majority of posts on Slashdot over a variety of stories, that's the jist of it.
Ever heard of 'Depends'? There's a similar program for .NET programs called 'ILDASM' which disassembles the intermediate code and you can see exactly which assemblies (which are dlls for .NET programs) and versions are being used. There will be utilities to find out the information. They come with the framework.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. They're doing this by using a similar method (if not the same) that .NET uses for versioning their assemblies. You simply tell your .exe by using an attribute in the source code which assembly version to use. Then, you compile the assmbly saying it is whatever version you want. If in the future, another program comes along that installs new software, it'll be compiled to use the newer assembly. Then, if the original author determines that the new assembly is compatible, they simply release a patch that has a file called 'myprog.exe.config' and the .config file is an XML file saying the new version to use.
.dll files can use this scheme as well. So, installing your service pack won't break half of your programs, but it may still allow them to implement new security and usability features. TONS of programs use the generic windows dlls so it's not like you're completely getting rid of the idea of dynamic libraries.
.config file. However, 1) you'd have to be an admin to write to the dir and 2) there are things called "Strong Names" which involve encryption keys that also help with identifying assemblies and dlls, but I'm light on the technical details of this.
.so's all over the place and I have no idea what programs are linking to it (if any).
Not just programs will use this, but the generic Windows
This brings in security implications because anyone can write a
So, don't draw conclusions and knock it down so quickly. It's actually a really good way to allow old programs to keep working until it's determined that yes, you can upgrade. As far as removing old dlls so you don't get cruft, I'm not exactly sure how that will work, but it's not like Linux doesn't have this problem as well. After awhile, I have tons of
I'm sure the conspiracy theory people will see this as a suggestion by Microsoft to stop students from getting those pesky Linux iso images. At least, according to the RIAA, CD sales around Cornell should now skyrocket :)"
In this situation, I would just go to the nearest computer lab and burn the ISOs to CD. That way, you're using the lab's bandwidth rather than your quota.
I don't know everything about longhorn, but I do know that they will not be cutting out backwards compatibility. They'll be pushing more of their .NET platform for developing new stuff, and a lot of Longhorn has been written using .NET, but it's not like the Win32 APIs are all of the sudden going to go away. There may be some things that change due to security reasons, but I really don't think it's going to be as major as what the article would like you to believe. Besides, I'd like to see the increased security.
Who says that ethnicity is the *only* criteria? You do, not me.
Uh, no. I'm saying that ethnicity shouldn't be a MAJOR criteria, which is something you want it to be. You want it so if an arab checks in at an airport, it immediately raises the bar of risk.
Equal treatment under the law doesn't mean that cops cannot discriminate - otherwise after a robbery they would have to stop every car or no car.
Um, actually, this is the case. They have to stop every car to question people about suspicious behavior, or no car. They only way they can discriminate about the people they stop is if they have evidence that their license plate was at the scene, or that their Black Suburban was at the scene, etc. In the case of being arab, that's not hard evidence. That's purely circumstantial.
If the definition of bigotry is intolerance, then I must be a bigot because I am intolerant of neo-Nazi's and KKK members. By that definition, I'll bet that you are a bigot too!
When I say intolerance, I mean intolerance of everything but your own race. With your numerous posts about this subject and a quick glance at your blog, it is very easy to see that, yes, you are a bigot.
Furthermore, I am NOT assuming that every Arab is a high risk for terrorism or that most Arabs are terrorist. Your understanding of statistics seems a bit off. But young male Arabs as a group represent a much larger risk for terrorism than young male Mexicans, for example. To ignore that is criminal negligence.
Dude, you're a moron. That's exactly what you're assuming. You're saying that our systems should take race into consideration because arabs immediately put you at a higher risk for terrorism. It is easy to infer from this statement that you believe that most arabs have the likelihood of being a terrorist. My understanding of statistics is perfectly valid as I have taken numerous courses in Statistics and Probability. Your understanding is off because in every single post you've made on this board, you've either contradicted yourself or tried to skew the numbers to be in your favor. Only people that truly don't understand the meaning and value of statistics do this and fall victim to it.
You say that young male arabs as a group represent a larger risk for terrorism. Maybe this is true, but unless your last name is Bin Laden, there is no hard evidence that you plan on actually doing anything, except living your life as an arab. And as I said before, if there is no hard, conclusive evidence or probable cause against you, then you do have the right to not be discriminated against.
From another one of your posts: Actually, with more data per person the noise goes down. It allows it to take more factors into account, reducing false positives and false negatives. Furthermore, the more data it uses, the harder it is to "spoof" by terrorists, who otherwise will try to spot vulnerabilities in the system. This is especially true if the algorithms are kept secret.
True, but if you still have a fairly good percentage of the people fall into this increased data point, it goes back to doing no good. And it will increase false positives because a very small number of arab people are actually terrorists, yet you want to flag each one of them immediately. This results in many false positives!
And as for your "keeping the algorithm secret" argument, we all know that security through obscurity doesn't work when it's all you rely on.