What's preventing Microsoft and open source world from understanding these "sophisticated" attacks and hardening their respective operating systems against them?
This isn't a desktop OS, so there isn't really much ground for comparison.
I imagine they see having the source code available as a negative for Linux simply because it gives would be attackers much more information about the system than is otherwise available.
That theory is one touted by commercial OS vendors, and its been thoroughly disproved. Availability or otherwise of source code has no effect on the hardness of your OS. If anything having it available is even safer, because its a heck of a lot easier for people to point at a problem bit of code and say 'fix that bit now'.
What causes the problem is non rigorous OS design. Hiding the source won't help you protect your clients from a design flaw which allows them to be attacked.
The OS in question here however is most likely quite rigorously designed, and won't have a lot of the bloat that causes desktop OSs so many problems.
... until the US and the Brits told us "not to worry about it", and that was the end of that...
Well it was more that the UK was reluctant to spend too much money on their space program, even though they actually got Blue Streak rocket working as a space delivery system, which they launched from Woomera, Australia, which would have got all the business that Arianne now has.
Since the Australian governments space program at the time was tied to the UK effort (they wanted to have their very own space port which other countries would use, primarily the UK), and they had no native spacecraft research program, that killed the Australian effort, regardless of what the Australian government wanted.
On the other hand Australia has been and remains a critically important part of the NASA space exploration program through its radio telescopes. In fact it was they who captured the footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on to the Moon for the first time.
I don't see how Blizzard would earn more money going after cheaters? It probably cost them more money to look thru replays and such. Sure if someone is permanently banned they may buy the game again, but except in that scenario? For WoW I can get it since it's a subscription game.
Back in the long ago the online gaming community for Diablo 1 was wrecked literally within weeks after some fucknut released a utility to allow you to hack characters.
As a non cheating player with what I considered to be an awesome character, I was really upset. Certainly I stopped playing within a few days of realizing that the servers were full of tricked out characters that should have taken months to create being played by people who obviously didn't have a clue how the game worked.
I don't doubt Blizzard remember that too, and don't want to see it *ever* coming back. The number of present cheaters is relatively small compared to the deluge that wrecked Diablo 1, but without action it would only get worse.
I developed software that scans DNA looking for componants of genes. Its one of the most accurate methods currently available which is nice, but since my thesis was just submitted this year, and we've only got out two papers, its not exactly well known yet.
Re-working the software into a releasable product is not easy.
I'm currently a PhD student at a UK university and my uni has already said they will take any commercially expliotable IP from me as and when I make it - you didn't think intellectual property was created to help producers did you? This is despite the fact that they are being paid to have me there!
still, for me, if the uni doesn't take my IP then the government will, but that's less common
I made it a condition on accepting my Ph.D offer (a UK university also) that any software/algorithms I developed were mine, and mine alone to exploit/patent/copyright, and that I would release everything under either the GPL or a BSD license. They agreed, after all, a Ph.D. student is worth a lot in grant money.
I don't know why more students don't do this, after all, if they disagree and lose you, they lose your grant money too.
Now I've got three years worth of code to clean up and release, which is going to take a few months, when I have the time.
Lets be honest, almost everyone interested in Debian won't be put off by its already excellent text based installer. Has it suddenly become 'old fashioned' or something?
Anyone of the livecd liking type is likely to be better off with Ubuntu. Well I think so anyway.
I too was disappointed. The missions for all three races took place on the same six maps, which was pretty dull. Also you spent most of your time zoomed out in order to see what was going on, so the game reverted to watching dots move around.
Overall I'd say 'nice idea, terrible execution'. I'd also suspect that the real reason for bringing in this new company is because whether they admit it or not, supcom was an awful game.
I waited eagerly for it, having also been a huge fan of TA back in the long ago, and I was gutted when I realised how flawed the game really was.
If I have net connection, it's Google. If I'm offline, it's OpenOffice.
We live in a time of extreme opinions. Ever tried expressing a liking for two supposedly opposing products in a room full of geeks, or here? I have, it ain't pretty.
I use OpenOffice, MSOffice 2003, and Google docs. I think MSOffice is better, but I like OpenOffice for my Linux laptop, and Google docs when I'm away from my main machine.
I also like and routinely use both Windows and Linux. I'm an open source developer of six years standing, coding for both platforms, and I STILL get blasted by clueless f**ks who think that just because they've commented on a slashdot story they are fully able to preach 'though must prefer open source and hate Microsoft' to me.
I've just stopped buying any of their games. Simple yes, but the easiest form of protest, and it works because they are right now down about £200 in lost sales from me. I don't download them from piracy sites either, I just completely ignore their products.
Sometimes gamers don't *want* their games to become more complex as they mature.
Take for example the Caesar 3/Zeus/Cleopatra games of Impression Studio's. They decided it was time to go more mature and produced Children of the Nile', which was more complex in many ways, and altered the gameplay to make the game 'more challenging'. However the result was a game which differed so much from the core attraction of the previous titles that it bombed, going onto the bargain shelves really quickly. So then they took a step back and released Caesar 4. A bit too high on the system spec requirements, but nice looking, a decent evolution of their core game, and really good fun. In many respects its similar to games they were producing five years previously, and this was a good thing.
And what about that other great failure of progression when they decided Worms need to be 3D? Talk about New Coke...
I've been playing games for the last (counts on wrinkles and old person skin blemishes..) 24 years, so I'm well aware of the evolution of the industry. Some evolutions have been great, better AI, improvements in graphics, more depth in games, stuff like that, but others, like 'customer as potential criminal suspect', not so much.
New types of game have appeared which I really enjoy, though I have to say, very few groundbreaking games, which is surprising. Instead I've also noticed a tendency for games companies to pound a franchise to death with endless tiny iterations until it gets to the point that the only new thing in some new releases are new skins, a few extra effects and some more items.
A good game should evolve, true, but each iteration should be an obvious advance, enhancing the core elements that make that game fun to begin with. What it shouldn't do is catch 'New Coke' disease, or pretend to be a new version worth a whole new purchase when the content changes are less than some decent games companies (Id, Valve, Egosoft to name a few) release as free content updates.
But I think thats the entire point. It is a game, and if you can make/play a recreation of another game in it, that might (in the eyes of executives or whathaveyou) to lessen your desire to actually buy that game. Instant lawsuit.
That argument falls on one point, the games industry have been using each others idea's for decades. That's where we get 'genre's' from.
What marketing? Microsoft didn't have to market until recently because everyone already knew about their products, and most of them were already customers.
Eh? I'm guessing you've never worked in IT. Its hard to find an IT company more focused on marketing than Microsoft.
This is what Microsoft do. Its what they've done for decades, and it has made them hundreds of billions of dollars. The message they get from this is that customers don't mind their lock in, provided they get stuff that works. Therefore they don't see what they do as being wrong. If indeed it is wrong. I'm not so sure anymore.
Microsoft software works, and usually works pretty well (Not including that heap of poo that is Vista, oh gods I hate that). Bottom line? Most companies buy Microsoft solutions, and you would be amazed how many still don't even know what Open Source is.
They will continue to do so until Open Source software gets marketing as aggressive as that employed by Microsoft. It ain't about code/product quality boys and girls, its about your sales force. IBM learned this lesson early on. Microsoft learned it too, but Open Source is still laboring under the false impression that just having better code is enough.
So we either accept we will forever be in Iraq being pecked to death, fighting for a gov't and country that doesn't want us there and may not understand what to do with democracy once they get it, or give up, go home, and admit we can't fight religious nuts.
Its my opinion that by being there we are holding off an inevitable middle eastern 'civil war'. The question is, is this a good thing?
Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had stepped in to stop the US civil war, would that have helped? Or would it have just held off the inevitable and made the final outcome even worse then it would otherwise have been?
Many people in the middle east (powerful people that is, not normal folk), are eager to fight for dominance. I'm given to wonder how well their religion based hold will stick when people start counting the cost, in terms of lost family members and communities?
'God is great, lets all die for him' is a popular saying for fanatics who wants to buy into the whole religious war thing, but the cold hard reality of 'shit, all the young people are dead, who's going to tend the farms now', is equally important.
Given that the sex pistols version of god save the queen was used by the BBC not long back in a progam related to the royal family, I think you'll find we don't consider that to be particularly bad nowadays:)
Ah, so *that's* why they need laws to stop people from saying nasty or critical things about them, its because they're *popular*...
I understand now.
Oddly enough we manage in the UK without laws to stop people from insulting the queen. We don't forbid it, and for the most part people don't do it. Strange that....
Slashdot Mirror
The copyrights for previously-unpublished works vary, Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia probably have the answers you are looking for.
No, they do not have the answers you are looking for, you can be on your way, move along...
Who cares about copyright when you got pictures this hot.
You know whats amazing? I turned off safe search and those pictures of ladies were still dull..
What's preventing Microsoft and open source world from understanding these "sophisticated" attacks and hardening their respective operating systems against them?
This isn't a desktop OS, so there isn't really much ground for comparison.
I imagine they see having the source code available as a negative for Linux simply because it gives would be attackers much more information about the system than is otherwise available.
That theory is one touted by commercial OS vendors, and its been thoroughly disproved. Availability or otherwise of source code has no effect on the hardness of your OS. If anything having it available is even safer, because its a heck of a lot easier for people to point at a problem bit of code and say 'fix that bit now'.
What causes the problem is non rigorous OS design. Hiding the source won't help you protect your clients from a design flaw which allows them to be attacked.
The OS in question here however is most likely quite rigorously designed, and won't have a lot of the bloat that causes desktop OSs so many problems.
... until the US and the Brits told us "not to worry about it", and that was the end of that ...
Well it was more that the UK was reluctant to spend too much money on their space program, even though they actually got Blue Streak rocket working as a space delivery system, which they launched from Woomera, Australia, which would have got all the business that Arianne now has.
Since the Australian governments space program at the time was tied to the UK effort (they wanted to have their very own space port which other countries would use, primarily the UK), and they had no native spacecraft research program, that killed the Australian effort, regardless of what the Australian government wanted.
On the other hand Australia has been and remains a critically important part of the NASA space exploration program through its radio telescopes. In fact it was they who captured the footage of Neil Armstrong stepping on to the Moon for the first time.
I don't see how Blizzard would earn more money going after cheaters? It probably cost them more money to look thru replays and such. Sure if someone is permanently banned they may buy the game again, but except in that scenario? For WoW I can get it since it's a subscription game.
Back in the long ago the online gaming community for Diablo 1 was wrecked literally within weeks after some fucknut released a utility to allow you to hack characters.
As a non cheating player with what I considered to be an awesome character, I was really upset. Certainly I stopped playing within a few days of realizing that the servers were full of tricked out characters that should have taken months to create being played by people who obviously didn't have a clue how the game worked.
I don't doubt Blizzard remember that too, and don't want to see it *ever* coming back. The number of present cheaters is relatively small compared to the deluge that wrecked Diablo 1, but without action it would only get worse.
I developed software that scans DNA looking for componants of genes. Its one of the most accurate methods currently available which is nice, but since my thesis was just submitted this year, and we've only got out two papers, its not exactly well known yet.
Re-working the software into a releasable product is not easy.
I'm currently a PhD student at a UK university and my uni has already said they will take any commercially expliotable IP from me as and when I make it - you didn't think intellectual property was created to help producers did you? This is despite the fact that they are being paid to have me there!
still, for me, if the uni doesn't take my IP then the government will, but that's less common
I made it a condition on accepting my Ph.D offer (a UK university also) that any software/algorithms I developed were mine, and mine alone to exploit/patent/copyright, and that I would release everything under either the GPL or a BSD license. They agreed, after all, a Ph.D. student is worth a lot in grant money.
I don't know why more students don't do this, after all, if they disagree and lose you, they lose your grant money too.
Now I've got three years worth of code to clean up and release, which is going to take a few months, when I have the time.
Oh go fuck yourselves mods!
Dude, if we could do that, we wouldn't be here modding comments, would we....
Lets be honest, almost everyone interested in Debian won't be put off by its already excellent text based installer. Has it suddenly become 'old fashioned' or something?
Anyone of the livecd liking type is likely to be better off with Ubuntu. Well I think so anyway.
The answer is yes.
I too was disappointed. The missions for all three races took place on the same six maps, which was pretty dull. Also you spent most of your time zoomed out in order to see what was going on, so the game reverted to watching dots move around.
Overall I'd say 'nice idea, terrible execution'. I'd also suspect that the real reason for bringing in this new company is because whether they admit it or not, supcom was an awful game.
I waited eagerly for it, having also been a huge fan of TA back in the long ago, and I was gutted when I realised how flawed the game really was.
Is there something wrong with using both?
If I have net connection, it's Google.
If I'm offline, it's OpenOffice.
We live in a time of extreme opinions. Ever tried expressing a liking for two supposedly opposing products in a room full of geeks, or here? I have, it ain't pretty.
I use OpenOffice, MSOffice 2003, and Google docs. I think MSOffice is better, but I like OpenOffice for my Linux laptop, and Google docs when I'm away from my main machine.
I also like and routinely use both Windows and Linux. I'm an open source developer of six years standing, coding for both platforms, and I STILL get blasted by clueless f**ks who think that just because they've commented on a slashdot story they are fully able to preach 'though must prefer open source and hate Microsoft' to me.
It does grate some times, I have to say.
I rather like the saying 'no evil man ever *seized* power'. I believe that sums up what happened in Germany back then
I've just stopped buying any of their games. Simple yes, but the easiest form of protest, and it works because they are right now down about £200 in lost sales from me.
I don't download them from piracy sites either, I just completely ignore their products.
So I assume the UK Government wants to store a mirror of the content on piratebay?
Sometimes gamers don't *want* their games to become more complex as they mature.
Take for example the Caesar 3/Zeus/Cleopatra games of Impression Studio's. They decided it was time to go more mature and produced Children of the Nile', which was more complex in many ways, and altered the gameplay to make the game 'more challenging'. However the result was a game which differed so much from the core attraction of the previous titles that it bombed, going onto the bargain shelves really quickly. So then they took a step back and released Caesar 4. A bit too high on the system spec requirements, but nice looking, a decent evolution of their core game, and really good fun. In many respects its similar to games they were producing five years previously, and this was a good thing.
And what about that other great failure of progression when they decided Worms need to be 3D? Talk about New Coke...
I've been playing games for the last (counts on wrinkles and old person skin blemishes..) 24 years, so I'm well aware of the evolution of the industry. Some evolutions have been great, better AI, improvements in graphics, more depth in games, stuff like that, but others, like 'customer as potential criminal suspect', not so much.
New types of game have appeared which I really enjoy, though I have to say, very few groundbreaking games, which is surprising. Instead I've also noticed a tendency for games companies to pound a franchise to death with endless tiny iterations until it gets to the point that the only new thing in some new releases are new skins, a few extra effects and some more items.
A good game should evolve, true, but each iteration should be an obvious advance, enhancing the core elements that make that game fun to begin with. What it shouldn't do is catch 'New Coke' disease, or pretend to be a new version worth a whole new purchase when the content changes are less than some decent games companies (Id, Valve, Egosoft to name a few) release as free content updates.
But I think thats the entire point. It is a game, and if you can make/play a recreation of another game in it, that might (in the eyes of executives or whathaveyou) to lessen your desire to actually buy that game. Instant lawsuit.
That argument falls on one point, the games industry have been using each others idea's for decades. That's where we get 'genre's' from.
They could just say 'anything you do here is your own responsibility' and leave it at that.
If they were stupid enough to allow claims of copyright or copyright infringement in their game it'll die like a jolly fast dying thing, of death.
I mean seriously.. its a game...
Ah yes, Global warming, as brought to you by the hippy peaceniks who campaigned against clean nuclear energy.
Way to go guys...
What marketing? Microsoft didn't have to market until recently because everyone already knew about their products, and most of them were already customers.
Eh? I'm guessing you've never worked in IT. Its hard to find an IT company more focused on marketing than Microsoft.
This is what Microsoft do. Its what they've done for decades, and it has made them hundreds of billions of dollars. The message they get from this is that customers don't mind their lock in, provided they get stuff that works. Therefore they don't see what they do as being wrong. If indeed it is wrong. I'm not so sure anymore.
Microsoft software works, and usually works pretty well (Not including that heap of poo that is Vista, oh gods I hate that). Bottom line? Most companies buy Microsoft solutions, and you would be amazed how many still don't even know what Open Source is.
They will continue to do so until Open Source software gets marketing as aggressive as that employed by Microsoft. It ain't about code/product quality boys and girls, its about your sales force. IBM learned this lesson early on. Microsoft learned it too, but Open Source is still laboring under the false impression that just having better code is enough.
It isn't, trust me on this.
So we either accept we will forever be in Iraq being pecked to death, fighting for a gov't and country that doesn't want us there and may not understand what to do with democracy once they get it, or give up, go home, and admit we can't fight religious nuts.
Its my opinion that by being there we are holding off an inevitable middle eastern 'civil war'.
The question is, is this a good thing?
Hypothetically speaking, if the UK had stepped in to stop the US civil war, would that have helped? Or would it have just held off the inevitable and made the final outcome even worse then it would otherwise have been?
Many people in the middle east (powerful people that is, not normal folk), are eager to fight for dominance. I'm given to wonder how well their religion based hold will stick when people start counting the cost, in terms of lost family members and communities?
'God is great, lets all die for him' is a popular saying for fanatics who wants to buy into the whole religious war thing, but the cold hard reality of 'shit, all the young people are dead, who's going to tend the farms now', is equally important.
Given that the sex pistols version of god save the queen was used by the BBC not long back in a progam related to the royal family, I think you'll find we don't consider that to be particularly bad nowadays :)
Ah, so *that's* why they need laws to stop people from saying nasty or critical things about them, its because they're *popular*...
I understand now.
Oddly enough we manage in the UK without laws to stop people from insulting the queen. We don't forbid it, and for the most part people don't do it. Strange that....