It's always nice when an good example will volunteer himself.
Evolution has been tested and verified. Check about it in reference to the common fruitfly. If you don't believe that, then it is your understanding that is in error.
Until someone devises a way to travel into the past, I don't think we'll be verifying anything.
Why would you have to?
That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.
What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum.
Re-read your statement. Here, let me clarify it a bit for you:
"What pisses off a religious group is when people try to prevent the teaching of their religious beliefs in science class."
I can see why that would piss them off... but I don't see why I should care if they get pissed about it.
I'll be the first to admit, intelligent design is more of a philisophical belief than a scientific theory, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be allowed to be spoken of in a science class.
It's not "philosophical". It's religious. Learn the difference between "science" and "philosophy" and "religion".
Again, thanks for volunteering to be my example.
The reason not to teach a religious belief in a science class is because the two are not the same.
Most of our sciences involve a certain amount of philosphy. For example, if you know anything about psychology, then it's obvious that philosophy is a huge part of that field.
What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?
How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?
Because A is somewhat like B... and C is somewhat like A... does not mean that A is anything like C.
What it comes down to is a that a lot of people don't even want to consider the possibility that their own beliefs are incorrect, whether that be their belief in a creator, or their belief in the non-existance of such a creator, and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum
No. That is how the "Intelligent Design" fans are trying to frame it.
But it is not correct.
For "Intelligent Design" to be considered scientific, it needs to be falsifiable without the need for time travel or for God to put in a personal appearance.
Until it is falsifiable, it is not referenced in a science class.
Seriously, what other country disparages its "intellectual elite"?
Getting 10,000 new teachers into the school system isn't going to help if they have to teach religion in their science classes. Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Our problem isn't that we don't have enough teachers.
Our problem is that being smarter than the average makes those average people hate you. Most of them don't want to know that what they believe is wrong and they'll oppose anyone who tries to tell them differently. Which is why you see the fight to include things like "Intelligent Design" on the same level as tested and verified scientific findings.
Other people prefer an interface they were trained for.
Now, would you think that there is not one "best" interface?
Maybe... the "best" interface depends upon the person and that person's experience and comfort levels.
Maybe... the concept of the "best" interface needs to change to include the user's current experience level and whether that user wants to learn more or not.
Consider... the "best" interface for someone doing data entry in an office would probably not be the "best" interface for a programmer working on a multi-media player nor would it be the "best" interface for a game player at home.
I'm thinking that having a default interface for the most basic functionality would be "best"... as long as you had options for expanding that. Example, with the most basic functionality, the icons/apps in the 4 corners of your screen could not be changed or moved or re-named. These would be used for things such as "How do I do something?" and "Add new applications" and "Add new hardware" and "Call tech support". With each level of advancement, the user has manual access to more system configuration functions.
Level 1: wallpaper, mouse cursor, sound scheme Level 3: add icons to desktop, still no changes to the 4 basic icons Level 5: multiple monitors with different resolutions Level 7: full control of desktop, can remove the 4 basic icons Level 9: overclocking the video cards via application
Once you start thinking like that, all you have to do is decide what "basic" functionality belongs at each level and then "test" the "usability" of that level against users of that level or higher experience.
Sure, Gramma might scan in pix of the grand kids (level 1), but should she be offered the option to do bidirection Floyd Steinberg dithering? Or should the machine offer to show her 1 through 10 different possibilities? Then the machine picks the most common (this is where the testing comes in) options, applies them and presents them with the old standard "Do you like this one more... or this one?".
Hmmmmm..... it seems this "interface" issue gets beyond the "desktop" metaphore that the OS/window manager presents to you.
But in the end, it won't make Linux any easier, it won't win any more of the desktop market, and no apps will be written for it.
That's not what is keeping Linux off of the desktop market.
What's keeping Linux off of the desktop market is the problem getting info out of the video and sound chip companies so Free drivers can be written for them and included in the various Linux distributions.
I'm just trying to give you an example of the problems *I* had. I went to atrpms.net (I think that's the site) to download a copy of Nessus in RPM form. On the Nessus site, I only found source and I was having problems installing it, so I figured RPMs would be helpful in that case, just making it a 'set it and forget it' type of thing.
Strange, for me apt-get install nessus seems to work just fine and is very fast.
Dependency checks have been fixed for quite a while now. Even yum and urpmi seem to be able to handle all of that without a problem.
However, I downloaded oh... 10 different RPMs -- the server, addons, glib this, blah blah... and I kept getting dependancy problems when installing. I'm speaking from a NON-PROGRAMMER point of view, and as amazing as it may be, there are Windows junkies that live on/. as well as Linux junkies.
No worries. Just don't say that something doesn't work because it doesn't work the way you're familiar with.
On Windows and on Linux, if all the factors are the same, there is no difference in the amount of effort it takes to install a new app. It just comes down to learning the process on each system.
And I will be *stuck* (I don't WANT to use Windows, but I *have* to) with a OS that's easy and familiar instead of venturing out with training wheels.
Which gets back to my other posts about people who are familiar with Windows having an easier time with Linux if their interface is 100% identical to Windows.
But just because it is easier for you, right now, does not mean that it is the best interface or even a "good" interface. It is just what you a comfortable with and you do not want to leave that comfort zone.
That is all about you and nothing about Linux.
There's going to be quite a few problems in me learning it because it's alien to me. And the notion of it being alien to me is one that escapes a LOT of people here.
I fully understand it.
But I also understand that this it is about you and people like you.
If we followed that logic, we'd never have Windows because everyone was more comfortable and producting using their DOS apps in DOS.
The question is, do we want to make Linux easier for you to use or do we want to find and improve any weaknesses in Linux's interfaces?
The two may have the same items (or maybe not), but they are not the same.
When the oversight is seen that Linux can be a lot more, AND appease Windows junkies like myself will it gain the support of a lot more people on a fundamental level.
Again, those two may share items, but they are not the same.
Microsoft Word had an option to emulate WordPerfect keystrokes because the users at the time were all familiar and productive with those.
But no one today is arguing that WordPerfect was the best interface.
So I insist, please go on making snide remarks about my questions and concerns with Linux as a Desktop OS. I am sure that will solve all the usability issues it has.
Again, by your logic, WordPerfect's keystrokes would be the "best" and Microsoft Word should have skipped its own interface and gone with WordPerfect's because people like you found it easier.
But what is easier for you right now is not necessarily the best interface. For many functions, a GUI is more efficient and easier to learn.
Don't confuse your current needs with the definition of a "good" interface. They are not the same.
That's false. The best interface is one that reflects the user expectations. The Windows interface doesn't reflect user expectations in many ways, so it's possible to create a better interface than one which is just identical.
Not with the testing that they're doing.
You are correct, in theory. You are incorrect in this specific instance because their testing procedure will not yield the information necessary to find a "better" interface.
That is because they are only testing prior Windows users.
Those Windows users have been trained to seek certain items in certain places.
Even if you added a button that said "Complete this test with one click", the users would NOT find it unless they could not FIRST find the Windows button/menu that they were trained to look for of if that button was in that location.
That should be the aim for the Linux Desktop design, not just to attract former Windows users but to best serve previous Linux users as well.
Again, I agree with that, but that will not be achievable through these tests.
Microsoft Word used to have an option to use the WordPerfect keystrokes. This was because the people with the most experience found it very difficult to maintain their productivity while learning a new system. Even if that system was "better" for other people. Back then, the most experienced and productive people had spent years learning WordPerfect for DOS.
Novell has learned nothing in these past years. To make it easy to migrate users, you make it an option to have an interface that is 100% identical to what they are familiar with.
Real "usability testing" requires more people with more experience levels on different systems, including people with little or no computer experience at all.
If you REALLY want to make the system easy to use, you have MULTIPLE options:
# 1. Basic level. Almost no menus and lots of "I want to" included in the icon's name ("I want to send an email to someone" or "I want to look at web sites").
# 2. Emulation level. 100% Win2K look-alike.
# 3. Whatever other interface you design.
The key is to build the interface to the user and what the user expects/knows.
That relies on a database of applications, correct? So if I come across some no-name software that I want to check out (as there are millions for Windows) and it's not in the database, it doesn't solve my problem.
And, by the same token, if the Windows developer did not spend the time to PACKAGE his app in a Windows INSTALLER you'd have the same problem.
Why do you assume that Windows developers will package their apps correctly but that Linux developers will not?
RPMs are a start, but there are so many problems I've had in the past with them, they are relatively useless.
Again, you assume that the Windows developer will do everything 100% correctly, but that the Linux developer will do everything 100% wrong. Why is that?
With a statically compiled app, there should be ZERO problems with a.rpm file.
If it is not statically compiled, the only problem you'll have is if it calls some uncommon library that the developer did not see fit to link to on his site.
Install packages need to be like OS X. Drag the app in, and it just works. I don't know how much easier it can get.
But Windows does not work like that and Windows has a much larger desktop share than Macs do.
Therefore, being the easiest way to install an app will not get you desktop marketshare.
It's a hard thing is to admit that free software has a usability problem.
No it's not. It's just difficult to accept that Windows is the best user interface. Particularly because the Windows user interface seems to be changing with every release now. Using that logic, the GUI would never have been accepted because everyone at the time was far more familiar and proficient with the old DOS system.
I have users who were quite skilled with Win2K who are lost with WinXP (until I show them how to make it look like Win2K).
So, which interface should Linux emulate then? Win2K or WinXP? Or Mac? Or something else?
It is difficult, but it's vitally important.
It is difficult and it is important... but this approach is wrong.
This approach will give you completely different answers depending upon whether the group you select is familiar with: a. Win2K
or b. WinXP
or c. Macs
These people aren't stupid losers- they are fluent in another operating system, where they can achieve whatever it is they want.
Yep. And so the "best" interface for Linux would be... whatever the majority of Windows users are familiar with.
Novell could have saved all that time and money and just spent 10 minutes with a Windows machine, copying down menu locations, order and wording.
There is NO "usability testing" being performed here. No one will learn whether a specific Windows implementation of a menu is less optimal than a different one.
All that will be "learned" is whether those users can find the Linux equivalent and that will always be easiest for them when the Linux menues are 100% identical to the Windows menues that those users are familiar with.
Hmmmmm.... take people who are experienced with performing a certain function on Windows....
Then put them in front of a different system (like say a Mac) and see if they have any problems performing that same function.
Of course the "easiest" (and therefore the "best") user interface will be the one that is as close to 100% identical to the only one they've used before.
That's great for Novell because they're trying to get a slice of the Windows market.
But this does not provide ANY information that any person could not get just by spending 10 minutes on a Windows machine and copying down menu locations and order and wording.
But by "responsible" I mean "It's your ass that gets fined/fired/jailed if there's a problem".
I don't mean just saying "I take responsiblity".
Responsiblity means that you pay the consequences.
If someone cracks my systems at work and gets away with customer data, I'm the one they fire. I'm "responsible". But I don't see anyone in our government actually being "responsible". That's the whole purpose of bureaucracy. The "responsibility" is diffused until it doesn't exist in sufficient quantity with any one person for that person to bear any of the consequences.
Unless he has some senior officer who does all that work for him- in which case, that senior officer ought to be runnign the show.
And that used to be the way these things were run. The head of the agency was a political appointee. But s/he had long term professionals working for him/her. Those professionals worked for multiple administrations and were not involved in the political games. They did their jobs and were the experts in their fields.
Check TFA and you'll see where it's talking about those professionals leaving now.
There was a plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. We've known planes were considered as weapons for years.
But planes are physical objects. They cause physical damage. Normal, healthy people can be killed from physical damage.
What's the very worst that can happen if the Internet goes down?
That's not a rhetorical question. Think of the worst situation you can and then think of whether it would be better/safer to not have the Internet connected to whatever it is. Nuclear plant cyber-attack? Why have them on the 'net in the first place? Dam flooding a town? Same thing.
The first thing any "cybersecurity czar" should be doing is making sure that the potential for damage is reduced.
If the worst thing that they can do is to steal your identify and money online, then you're "safe" in that it won't kill you or physically cripple you.
But that takes thought and expertise in evaluating the real threat.
"Unqualified" can be handled by becoming qualified.
"Unqualified" can be handled by finding and hiring qualifed assistants / advisors / etc.
What we have is a situation where an unqualified person is put in charge of an agency and spends his/her time there working on his/her political connections using the agency's resources. So, over time, the agency is less capable of handling its mission than it was when that person started.
But that's how our current politicians reward those who've helped them get into office. And it's not likely to change.
Linux is less "user friendly" if you define "user friendly" as "makes it easy to accidently install applications".
On the other hand, if you define "user friendly" as "works and keeps away trojans" then Linux is more "user friendly" than Windows.
The question is... whether the additional ease of accidentally installing a trojan (Windows) is offset by the ease of keeping them off your system (Linux).
Will the average Linux user spend less time and effort keeping his/her system clean and functional than the average Windows user? Less time but more effort? Less effort but more time? I believe it will be less time and less effort to keep a Linux system clean. Less time and less effort should equate to a more "user friendly" system, eh?
If linux users ran every funny program that dumped into their inbox or came across on some shady site, they'd be equally screwed.
Nope. You are only considering trojans.
While it is correct that the majority of current infections are via trojans, they are not the only problem. Ubuntu handles the issue of worms by just not running any open ports in a default installation. So Ubuntu will not be hit with anything close to Slammer or Blaster.
However you want to tell me the linux security model helps, it doesn't.
You are wrong, it does help.
If people were used to sudo as root to install something, they'd install this. If they had to chmod programs +x, they'd chmod this too.
SOME people would. But that's because system security is bound by human stupidity.
But the people who are currently being infected because they double-clicked on "sexy.jpg" which was really "sexy.jpg.exe" would have to go through a LOT more effort to accomplish the same on Linux.
#1. Save the attachment. (extra step)
#2. Find where they saved it. (extra step)
#3. chmod it (extra step) warning
#4. Double click it.
#5. Give sudo password. (extra step) warning
So, all of a sudden, all (99.99%) of the *.jpg trojans are dead. Which means that you have to convince someone to actually run an app on their box, which they know is an app. Some people will still fall for that, but not as many as fall for the.jpg ones.
Anti-virus is a fix for broken users, not broken software.
Nope.
In a correctly designed system, the user will KNOW that s/he is running an app (not thinking it is a graphic) and be ASKED for additional authorization.
And that only matters with trojans. Viruses and worms are few and very, Very, VERY far between on Linux systems.
If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.
Which will leave the anti-virus customers with two options: #1. Use Microsoft's anti-virus software and hope that Microsoft doesn't start increasing the price/actually maintains it.
#2. Move to Linux/Macs.
You're mistaken in the believe that Microsoft is "tightening down" anything. Their products will still be as vulnerable, but now their customers won't have any other vendors for competing anti-virus apps.
If Microsoft fixed the security flaws, then Symantic might go out of business because there is no longer a need for their product.
The problem is that by competing with Symantic, the product is still needed, but Symantic will go out of business and Microsoft will end up being the single source for commercial anti-virus software for their desktop monopoly.
Which means that Microsoft can start ratcheting up the pricing for this...or... cut development because it isn't bringing in money.
Either way, the customers lose. Unless they switch to Linux/Mac.
While Media Player, Browser and other functionalities that are bundled with OS can be argued with some facts, Antivirus and AntiSpyware software provide basic security.
Nope. "Basic security" comes from a decent security model.
Since Microsoft does not have a decent security model for their OS's, they get infected.
Which is why you need to continuously update the virus signatures.
On one side you can watch people laughing and pointing on every security bug, but on the other people agree with the option that MS is not allowed to bundle software against security and malware problems.
Not many years ago there was a flood of "macro viruses" for Word and Excel. Then Microsoft made a very minor change and asked people if they wanted to run the enclosed macros..... and the Word macro virus is now almost dead.
The correct approach is to fix the real problem.
The PROBLEM here is that when Microsoft starts shipping its own anti-virus/spyware app, the other companies will all die.
Which means that within a couple years, the ONLY commercial option you will have for anti-virus on Windows will be... Microsoft.
Now, to see how much effort Microsoft will be putting into that... look how long the problem has already existed and look how long it took Microsoft to improve IE.
If it were perfect, then no one would ever buy an upgrade.
So, every new "upgrade" has to have fixes for old problems AND the coolest new technology (think "ActiveX").
But no time/effort is spent in making sure that the cool new technology is secure because... if it were perfect, then no one would ever buy an upgrade.
Why don't I get a token from the vendor that I give to my bank and the bank transfers the money for me?
For added security, the bank can even call my home/work phone number "This is to verify that you are placing a charge of $x at vendor y right now. Press 1 to continue this transaction."
The best part is that the vendor will NEVER know you account info. And the banks should already have the technology to do that.
All of a sudden, online fraud drops to almost nothing.
Not to mention that the bank can give you some statistics on that vendor's past financial dealings and COMPLAINTS.
Yep, if they're running the wrong email client, you could send an exploit that cracked their hosts file. This might not net as many people as the DNS method would... but if you have cracked their machine, you can just log their keystrokes without going through the other steps.
But because of the limits on how many accounts can be pillaged and the ability to publish the "wanted, dead or alive" posters, it wasn't so bad before. If your account was pillaged, the bank and you and the cops could verify that it was the same guy who pillaged 20 other accounts last month.
Because there was more risk and more effort, it was not as common as it is now.
#1. Acquire the 4 digits. Unless you're running your own email server, the email will be handled by someone else. Where I work, I keep every email going out or coming in. If someone sent that email to anyone where I work, I would have it. All it takes is one guy in the right location at google.com or earthlink or AOL and thousands of these would be collected.
#2. Fake the site. This is the easy part.
#3. Get the traffic to the fake site. Again, this will require ISP access (see #1). But it would be simple for the right person to set that up in the DNS servers.
So, all it takes is the right person in the right job at an ISP.
And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what organized, technical criminals can do with a database.
The problem is using a system that was never designed for security (email) in a situation where security is critical.
Email is used because it is easy to use and just about everyone has an address now. But that doesn't make it the best choice for this. It's just about the worst choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution has been tested and verified. Check about it in reference to the common fruitfly. If you don't believe that, then it is your understanding that is in error.Why would you have to?
That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.Re-read your statement. Here, let me clarify it a bit for you:
"What pisses off a religious group is when people try to prevent the teaching of their religious beliefs in science class."
I can see why that would piss them off
Again, thanks for volunteering to be my example.
The reason not to teach a religious belief in a science class is because the two are not the same.What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?
How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?
Because A is somewhat like B
But it is not correct.
For "Intelligent Design" to be considered scientific, it needs to be falsifiable without the need for time travel or for God to put in a personal appearance.
Until it is falsifiable, it is not referenced in a science class.
Now go and look at the history of those countries from the time when they decided that being one of the "intellectual elite" was a bad thing.
... unless they changed their opinion.
To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap
You got two options people:
Either wise up and realize that being smarter is a good thing
or
Practice sucking up to whatever country will surpass us.
Seriously, what other country disparages its "intellectual elite"?
Getting 10,000 new teachers into the school system isn't going to help if they have to teach religion in their science classes. Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Our problem isn't that we don't have enough teachers.
Our problem is that being smarter than the average makes those average people hate you. Most of them don't want to know that what they believe is wrong and they'll oppose anyone who tries to tell them differently. Which is why you see the fight to include things like "Intelligent Design" on the same level as tested and verified scientific findings.
You like a certain interface.
... the "best" interface depends upon the person and that person's experience and comfort levels.
... the concept of the "best" interface needs to change to include the user's current experience level and whether that user wants to learn more or not.
... the "best" interface for someone doing data entry in an office would probably not be the "best" interface for a programmer working on a multi-media player nor would it be the "best" interface for a game player at home.
... as long as you had options for expanding that. Example, with the most basic functionality, the icons/apps in the 4 corners of your screen could not be changed or moved or re-named. These would be used for things such as "How do I do something?" and "Add new applications" and "Add new hardware" and "Call tech support". With each level of advancement, the user has manual access to more system configuration functions.
... or this one?".
Other people prefer an interface they were trained for.
Now, would you think that there is not one "best" interface?
Maybe
Maybe
Consider
I'm thinking that having a default interface for the most basic functionality would be "best"
Level 1: wallpaper, mouse cursor, sound scheme
Level 3: add icons to desktop, still no changes to the 4 basic icons
Level 5: multiple monitors with different resolutions
Level 7: full control of desktop, can remove the 4 basic icons
Level 9: overclocking the video cards via application
Once you start thinking like that, all you have to do is decide what "basic" functionality belongs at each level and then "test" the "usability" of that level against users of that level or higher experience.
Sure, Gramma might scan in pix of the grand kids (level 1), but should she be offered the option to do bidirection Floyd Steinberg dithering? Or should the machine offer to show her 1 through 10 different possibilities? Then the machine picks the most common (this is where the testing comes in) options, applies them and presents them with the old standard "Do you like this one more
Hmmmmm..... it seems this "interface" issue gets beyond the "desktop" metaphore that the OS/window manager presents to you.
What's keeping Linux off of the desktop market is the problem getting info out of the video and sound chip companies so Free drivers can be written for them and included in the various Linux distributions.Strange, for me apt-get install nessus seems to work just fine and is very fast.
Dependency checks have been fixed for quite a while now. Even yum and urpmi seem to be able to handle all of that without a problem.No worries. Just don't say that something doesn't work because it doesn't work the way you're familiar with.
On Windows and on Linux, if all the factors are the same, there is no difference in the amount of effort it takes to install a new app. It just comes down to learning the process on each system.Which gets back to my other posts about people who are familiar with Windows having an easier time with Linux if their interface is 100% identical to Windows.
But just because it is easier for you, right now, does not mean that it is the best interface or even a "good" interface. It is just what you a comfortable with and you do not want to leave that comfort zone.
That is all about you and nothing about Linux.I fully understand it.
But I also understand that this it is about you and people like you.
If we followed that logic, we'd never have Windows because everyone was more comfortable and producting using their DOS apps in DOS.
The question is, do we want to make Linux easier for you to use or do we want to find and improve any weaknesses in Linux's interfaces?
The two may have the same items (or maybe not), but they are not the same.Again, those two may share items, but they are not the same.
Microsoft Word had an option to emulate WordPerfect keystrokes because the users at the time were all familiar and productive with those.
But no one today is arguing that WordPerfect was the best interface.Again, by your logic, WordPerfect's keystrokes would be the "best" and Microsoft Word should have skipped its own interface and gone with WordPerfect's because people like you found it easier.
But what is easier for you right now is not necessarily the best interface. For many functions, a GUI is more efficient and easier to learn.
Don't confuse your current needs with the definition of a "good" interface. They are not the same.
You are correct, in theory. You are incorrect in this specific instance because their testing procedure will not yield the information necessary to find a "better" interface.
That is because they are only testing prior Windows users.
Those Windows users have been trained to seek certain items in certain places.
Even if you added a button that said "Complete this test with one click", the users would NOT find it unless they could not FIRST find the Windows button/menu that they were trained to look for of if that button was in that location.Again, I agree with that, but that will not be achievable through these tests.
Microsoft Word used to have an option to use the WordPerfect keystrokes. This was because the people with the most experience found it very difficult to maintain their productivity while learning a new system. Even if that system was "better" for other people. Back then, the most experienced and productive people had spent years learning WordPerfect for DOS.
Novell has learned nothing in these past years. To make it easy to migrate users, you make it an option to have an interface that is 100% identical to what they are familiar with.
Real "usability testing" requires more people with more experience levels on different systems, including people with little or no computer experience at all.
If you REALLY want to make the system easy to use, you have MULTIPLE options:
# 1. Basic level. Almost no menus and lots of "I want to" included in the icon's name ("I want to send an email to someone" or "I want to look at web sites").
# 2. Emulation level. 100% Win2K look-alike.
# 3. Whatever other interface you design.
The key is to build the interface to the user and what the user expects/knows.
Why do you assume that Windows developers will package their apps correctly but that Linux developers will not?Again, you assume that the Windows developer will do everything 100% correctly, but that the Linux developer will do everything 100% wrong. Why is that?
With a statically compiled app, there should be ZERO problems with a
If it is not statically compiled, the only problem you'll have is if it calls some uncommon library that the developer did not see fit to link to on his site.But Windows does not work like that and Windows has a much larger desktop share than Macs do.
Therefore, being the easiest way to install an app will not get you desktop marketshare.
I have users who were quite skilled with Win2K who are lost with WinXP (until I show them how to make it look like Win2K).
So, which interface should Linux emulate then? Win2K or WinXP? Or Mac? Or something else?It is difficult and it is important
This approach will give you completely different answers depending upon whether the group you select is familiar with:
a. Win2K
or
b. WinXP
or
c. MacsYep. And so the "best" interface for Linux would be
Novell could have saved all that time and money and just spent 10 minutes with a Windows machine, copying down menu locations, order and wording.
There is NO "usability testing" being performed here. No one will learn whether a specific Windows implementation of a menu is less optimal than a different one.
All that will be "learned" is whether those users can find the Linux equivalent and that will always be easiest for them when the Linux menues are 100% identical to the Windows menues that those users are familiar with.
Hmmmmm .... take people who are experienced with performing a certain function on Windows ....
Then put them in front of a different system (like say a Mac) and see if they have any problems performing that same function.
Of course the "easiest" (and therefore the "best") user interface will be the one that is as close to 100% identical to the only one they've used before.
That's great for Novell because they're trying to get a slice of the Windows market.
But this does not provide ANY information that any person could not get just by spending 10 minutes on a Windows machine and copying down menu locations and order and wording.
But by "responsible" I mean "It's your ass that gets fined/fired/jailed if there's a problem".
I don't mean just saying "I take responsiblity".
Responsiblity means that you pay the consequences.
If someone cracks my systems at work and gets away with customer data, I'm the one they fire. I'm "responsible". But I don't see anyone in our government actually being "responsible". That's the whole purpose of bureaucracy. The "responsibility" is diffused until it doesn't exist in sufficient quantity with any one person for that person to bear any of the consequences.
Check TFA and you'll see where it's talking about those professionals leaving now.
There was a plot to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. We've known planes were considered as weapons for years.
But planes are physical objects. They cause physical damage. Normal, healthy people can be killed from physical damage.
What's the very worst that can happen if the Internet goes down?
That's not a rhetorical question. Think of the worst situation you can and then think of whether it would be better/safer to not have the Internet connected to whatever it is. Nuclear plant cyber-attack? Why have them on the 'net in the first place? Dam flooding a town? Same thing.
The first thing any "cybersecurity czar" should be doing is making sure that the potential for damage is reduced.
If the worst thing that they can do is to steal your identify and money online, then you're "safe" in that it won't kill you or physically cripple you.
But that takes thought and expertise in evaluating the real threat.
"Unqualified" can be handled by becoming qualified.
"Unqualified" can be handled by finding and hiring qualifed assistants / advisors / etc.
What we have is a situation where an unqualified person is put in charge of an agency and spends his/her time there working on his/her political connections using the agency's resources. So, over time, the agency is less capable of handling its mission than it was when that person started.
But that's how our current politicians reward those who've helped them get into office. And it's not likely to change.
Linux is less "user friendly" if you define "user friendly" as "makes it easy to accidently install applications".
... whether the additional ease of accidentally installing a trojan (Windows) is offset by the ease of keeping them off your system (Linux).
On the other hand, if you define "user friendly" as "works and keeps away trojans" then Linux is more "user friendly" than Windows.
The question is
Will the average Linux user spend less time and effort keeping his/her system clean and functional than the average Windows user? Less time but more effort? Less effort but more time? I believe it will be less time and less effort to keep a Linux system clean. Less time and less effort should equate to a more "user friendly" system, eh?
While it is correct that the majority of current infections are via trojans, they are not the only problem. Ubuntu handles the issue of worms by just not running any open ports in a default installation. So Ubuntu will not be hit with anything close to Slammer or Blaster.You are wrong, it does help. SOME people would. But that's because system security is bound by human stupidity.
But the people who are currently being infected because they double-clicked on "sexy.jpg" which was really "sexy.jpg.exe" would have to go through a LOT more effort to accomplish the same on Linux.
#1. Save the attachment. (extra step)
#2. Find where they saved it. (extra step)
#3. chmod it (extra step) warning
#4. Double click it.
#5. Give sudo password. (extra step) warning
So, all of a sudden, all (99.99%) of the *.jpg trojans are dead. Which means that you have to convince someone to actually run an app on their box, which they know is an app. Some people will still fall for that, but not as many as fall for the
In a correctly designed system, the user will KNOW that s/he is running an app (not thinking it is a graphic) and be ASKED for additional authorization.
And that only matters with trojans. Viruses and worms are few and very, Very, VERY far between on Linux systems.
If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.
Which will leave the anti-virus customers with two options:
#1. Use Microsoft's anti-virus software and hope that Microsoft doesn't start increasing the price/actually maintains it.
#2. Move to Linux/Macs.
You're mistaken in the believe that Microsoft is "tightening down" anything. Their products will still be as vulnerable, but now their customers won't have any other vendors for competing anti-virus apps.
If Microsoft fixed the security flaws, then Symantic might go out of business because there is no longer a need for their product.
...or... cut development because it isn't bringing in money.
The problem is that by competing with Symantic, the product is still needed, but Symantic will go out of business and Microsoft will end up being the single source for commercial anti-virus software for their desktop monopoly.
Which means that Microsoft can start ratcheting up the pricing for this
Either way, the customers lose. Unless they switch to Linux/Mac.
Since Microsoft does not have a decent security model for their OS's, they get infected.
Which is why you need to continuously update the virus signatures.Not many years ago there was a flood of "macro viruses" for Word and Excel. Then Microsoft made a very minor change and asked people if they wanted to run the enclosed macros
The correct approach is to fix the real problem.
The PROBLEM here is that when Microsoft starts shipping its own anti-virus/spyware app, the other companies will all die.
Which means that within a couple years, the ONLY commercial option you will have for anti-virus on Windows will be
Now, to see how much effort Microsoft will be putting into that
If it were perfect, then no one would ever buy an upgrade.
... if it were perfect, then no one would ever buy an upgrade.
So, every new "upgrade" has to have fixes for old problems AND the coolest new technology (think "ActiveX").
But no time/effort is spent in making sure that the cool new technology is secure because
And so the cycle repeats, endlessly.
The "security consultant" clicked on a banner ad.
Then he gave his credit card info to the site that banner linked to.
Then he wondered if it was a phishing site so he tried to crack it.
Then he lied to the cops when they investigated.
And now he was fired. I for one do not see a problem with that last step given the preceeding 4 steps.
Why do I give my credit card info to the vendor?
Why don't I get a token from the vendor that I give to my bank and the bank transfers the money for me?
For added security, the bank can even call my home/work phone number "This is to verify that you are placing a charge of $x at vendor y right now. Press 1 to continue this transaction."
The best part is that the vendor will NEVER know you account info. And the banks should already have the technology to do that.
All of a sudden, online fraud drops to almost nothing.
Not to mention that the bank can give you some statistics on that vendor's past financial dealings and COMPLAINTS.
Yep, if they're running the wrong email client, you could send an exploit that cracked their hosts file. This might not net as many people as the DNS method would ... but if you have cracked their machine, you can just log their keystrokes without going through the other steps.
But because of the limits on how many accounts can be pillaged and the ability to publish the "wanted, dead or alive" posters, it wasn't so bad before. If your account was pillaged, the bank and you and the cops could verify that it was the same guy who pillaged 20 other accounts last month.
Because there was more risk and more effort, it was not as common as it is now.
#1. Acquire the 4 digits. Unless you're running your own email server, the email will be handled by someone else. Where I work, I keep every email going out or coming in. If someone sent that email to anyone where I work, I would have it. All it takes is one guy in the right location at google.com or earthlink or AOL and thousands of these would be collected.
#2. Fake the site. This is the easy part.
#3. Get the traffic to the fake site. Again, this will require ISP access (see #1). But it would be simple for the right person to set that up in the DNS servers.
So, all it takes is the right person in the right job at an ISP.
And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what organized, technical criminals can do with a database.
The problem is using a system that was never designed for security (email) in a situation where security is critical.
Email is used because it is easy to use and just about everyone has an address now. But that doesn't make it the best choice for this. It's just about the worst choice.