Because they are now a major player in the PC market Yep, they've now got 4% of the market! They're in the big times now!
Re:Floppy vs. CD use case
on
iMac Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
1. A lot of computers with a CD-ROM drive lacked and still lack a CD recorder. With floppies and USB drives, any machine with a reader also had a writer. Yeah, that's why places had long replaced their floppy backups with tape drives.
2. Discs get scratched easily, and frequently rewritten CD-RW discs develop errors from normal wear much more quickly than a USB hard drive or flash drive. And yet optical disc usage probably still surpasses the use of flash by a many, many times. Guess your theory fails there too.
3. Most importantly, writing to a CD is much more momentous than writing to a floppy or USB drive. After writing to any storage medium, you have to finalize it before you remove it. Floppies and USB drives get finalized within five seconds after you tell the OS to eject them. CDs, on the other hand, typically have all their writes queued up so that you have to wait five to ten minutes for the disc to record and finalize before it is ejected. And then if you run out of new space for files on a CD-RW disc, you have to copy all the files to the PC, erase the disc, and then copy all the files back. Yep, this is definitely why you see so many companies using flash drives to archive their work. Oh wait, they still use tape drives and optical discs instead. Guess this point fails too.
Re:Floppy vs. CD use case
on
iMac Turns 10
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Instead of giving somebody a floppy with a copy of a work recorded on it, you could e-mail a copy to her. No, they would just put it on a CD.
The use case with CD-R is a lot different from the use case with a floppy or USB flash drive in three ways that I can see: Your reasons are real nice except for the fact that floppy was long dead before the mass adoption of flash. Flash drives didn't even come out until late 2000 and by then floppy was already all but dead.
No, I'm saying the issue was with the QA process that Mozilla used and not the license that the source code is released under. If Firefox was released under a proprietary license exactly what would have stopped this same issue from happening? Would their virus scanner magically have noticed this trojan because of the source code license change? Was Mozilla going to automatically start hand checking every single 3rd party add-on because of this different source code license? If I upload a 3rd party add-on with a trojan that Opera hosts is that a fault of the license they use for their source code or is it due to a problem with their QA process?
Carbonated water is nontoxic unless highly concentrated. It is easily neutralized. And yes, it forms limestone caverns; not sure I'd call that a "bad thing".:) Except the word contamination refers to making something less pure. If groundwater has a bunch of CO2 now dissolved in it it has become less pure and thus contaminated.
Which is, of course, not what I suggested. I said it won't *contaminate* groundwater, not that we should inject it all straight into groundwater.
contaminate to make inferior or impure by admixture Does not having CO2 dissolved in the water not make it less pure? If so, then it's been contaminated. Being contaminated doesn't mean something has to be have been made toxic.
Actually, that was not the point in your post. Wow, we've got us a genuine mind reader here.
By saying that specifically nuclear power is X, you leave out the vital information that all power is X, therefore misrepresenting the situation by implying (i.e. leaving it up to the reader to decide) that other power sources may or may not be X. Sorry, but no. That's not how logic works. If I point out that one person is fat it doesn't mean that I then have to list every other fat person in the world otherwise I'm implying they are skinny. This has to be one of the most ridiculous ways to start a pointless argument ever. The person never explicitly or implicitly said any other energy source was carbon neutral.
Actually I think email and the internet can be attributed with that. What exactly would email or the internet have to do with the death of floppies? There was email and internet during the times when floppy was still widely used.
And the usb flash drive really was the death knell I believe. I believe you mean the optical disc. The floppy was long dead before flash drive even became as popular as it is now.
Sure, they definitely should have tested it and that's a fault in Mozilla's QA that they need to rectify. It is not, on the other hand, a fault of OSS. I'm confused on how if everything was the same except Firefox was a proprietary piece of software that somehow this infected add-on wouldn't have made it in. And if it had, is that somehow the fault the proprietary business model or because someone should have been inspecting things more?
The quoted statement above indicates there is some level quality control. Your statement above says in your experience the opposite of that is true. The opposite of "some" is "none", especially in light of the tone of your post.
Therefore, you have stated that there is no quality control in proprietary software. Nope, just more strawman. Saying that in my experience it seems that many proprietary vendors have little to no quality control doesn't imply in any sense that no proprietary software vendor has a QA department. There are plenty of companies who have QA departments that seem to have nonexistent quality control mechanisms. That was my point. Stop constructing these ridiculous strawmen to attack me.
I like how you quoted out the very next sentence to try to attack my point.
A fact that was acknowledged by Microsoft themselves in private emails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
Next time please don't dishonestly take a quote out of context to attack it.
So they just picked the wrong software. You mean except for the fact that none of the anti-virus software out the time could detect the trojan? Did you even read about the part where it said that the trojan signature wasn't known about until 2 months later?
So basically you're saying that a virus scanner is a proper substitute for putting actual eyes on code?? No, but it's no less checking than Opera does for the 3rd party add-ons they host for their proprietary browser. If I were to create a trojan and upload it to Opera's site and it bypasses any virus scans, is that somehow the fault of the proprietary business model? No. It's just the fact that sometimes you can't always check everything. Especially when a group gets thousands upon thousands of these 3rd party add-ons submitted.
That sure seems like what you are saying since you seem to be solely blaming the virus scanner. Nope, it's just you putting words in my mouth.
No, the "hahaha" is on you, if you think proprietary software has no quality control. Good thing I never made such a proclamation. If you think I did please quote the relevant section.
It has plenty. By plenty, you mean the bare minimum? Cause that's what happens in almost every case.
When you spend money on a closed-source package, chances are that software house has a QA department. So? If someone slips in a trojan into their software that is undetectable to their virus scanners, as was the case here, how exactly is that big bad QA department going to prevent it from being released? Oh, you mean it won't?
I don't mean to be rude to anyone or piss anyone off, but the same can't be said for most OSS projects, apart from those released through the few large OSS houses that have their own QA departments. And yet most of these projects without a QA department are still able to make software of quality rivaling these proprietary vendors. A fact that was acknowledged by Microsoft themselves in private emails. Kind of makes it rather pathetic that with those big QA departments that in most cases they are only marginally better their OSS rivals, no?
Just because you've found bugs in closed-source software doesn't mean they don't have QA. Repeating yourself again? I never made the claim and you'll never find a quote where I said so.
The fact that they do have QA demonstrates you're wrong on that. Wrong on what? You're attacking a strawman. Please provide the direct quote where I say any proprietary vendor has no QA department.
People find bugs in open-source software, too - by your logic, OSS is just as bad as closed-source. Great jerrrb. Again, attacking a strawman. Nothing in there is "my" logic. It's just you attempting to put words in my mouth.
The difference is that in the closed source world something as basic as a language pack would come with the same QA that the program... while Firefox doesn't give much assurance beyond what they directly produce, although the value of the product is directly connected to the availability of third party extensions.
The virus's signature was unknown at the time, and thus passed Mozilla's testing of add-ons.
Mozilla ran an anti-virus check on the most recent version in February when it was added to the official Firefox add-ons site, but the Trojan's virus signature was not known until April. So basically according to you Mozilla is supposed to be able to recognize trojans whose signatures are unknown to any anti-virus software?
No, the definition of a troll is someone who post inflammatory material in order to get responses which is what you did. Your anti-OSS FUD has little bearing when it comes to the actual reality of this case. The problem was with the fact that this trojan had an unknown signature and thus was able to slip in past the virus scanner being used by mozilla. And here's the real kicker, proprietary anti-virus scanners, the stuff you are trying to claim is the pinnacle of software QA, didn't know about it till March.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The breakdown came with the fact that the signature of the trojan was unknown at the time it was uploaded and so the anti-virus scan on the extension came up clean. This had nothing to do with a failure of OSS but with the fact that at the time it was an unknown trojan.
but at least there is generally some level of quality control there Hahahahahahaha. You must not deal with much proprietary software to make such hilarious statements. In fact it my experience the statement is just the opposite.
The settlement with the shareholders over the Enron stuff came out to around 7 billion dollars, but the real losses were probably a many times higher. So, this 30 million in lost computer equipment is a few magnitudes lower than the Enron scandal.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm saying the issue was with the QA process that Mozilla used and not the license that the source code is released under. If Firefox was released under a proprietary license exactly what would have stopped this same issue from happening? Would their virus scanner magically have noticed this trojan because of the source code license change? Was Mozilla going to automatically start hand checking every single 3rd party add-on because of this different source code license? If I upload a 3rd party add-on with a trojan that Opera hosts is that a fault of the license they use for their source code or is it due to a problem with their QA process?
to make inferior or impure by admixture Does not having CO2 dissolved in the water not make it less pure? If so, then it's been contaminated. Being contaminated doesn't mean something has to be have been made toxic.
Sure, they definitely should have tested it and that's a fault in Mozilla's QA that they need to rectify. It is not, on the other hand, a fault of OSS. I'm confused on how if everything was the same except Firefox was a proprietary piece of software that somehow this infected add-on wouldn't have made it in. And if it had, is that somehow the fault the proprietary business model or because someone should have been inspecting things more?
Because he has a faster service? I can easily get 1.2 MBps on torrents. But then again I don't download from crappy pub trackers.
No, the definition of a troll is someone who post inflammatory material in order to get responses which is what you did. Your anti-OSS FUD has little bearing when it comes to the actual reality of this case. The problem was with the fact that this trojan had an unknown signature and thus was able to slip in past the virus scanner being used by mozilla. And here's the real kicker, proprietary anti-virus scanners, the stuff you are trying to claim is the pinnacle of software QA, didn't know about it till March.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article. The breakdown came with the fact that the signature of the trojan was unknown at the time it was uploaded and so the anti-virus scan on the extension came up clean. This had nothing to do with a failure of OSS but with the fact that at the time it was an unknown trojan.
So was Mozilla using a proprietary anti-virus software? Better hope not, or the ggp is going to have his entire point demolished.
ffmpeg is one of the simplest solutions.
If I'm spending the money, I'd rather that he throw a chair at me.
I lost my cell phone just this morning you insensitive clod!
The settlement with the shareholders over the Enron stuff came out to around 7 billion dollars, but the real losses were probably a many times higher. So, this 30 million in lost computer equipment is a few magnitudes lower than the Enron scandal.