#1. ONLY use addresses that have been submitted by that individual. This will keep you from sending email to the spam traps which is how you get listed on the blacklists.
#2. MONITOR YOUR OWN EMAIL LOGS. If you see a bounce or whatever, REMOVE THAT NAME RIGHT THEN.
#3. Put an HTML one-click-to-unsubscribe at the TOP of the message. And UNSUBSCRIBE the addresses right then. None of this "72 hour" bullshit. None of this "enter your password" bullshit.
#4. Include a phone number on every email. I've had to call a few companies to get them to fix their lists and I get even more annoyed when I have to waste my time researching their number first.
#5. People frequently sign up their WORK addresses for your crap. When they leave that job, it is up to whomever is set to receive their email or the email admin to handle the crap. Unless you want ALL of your messages blocked at my smtp box, you will make it very easy to quickly and completely unsubscribe addresses.
But if an uninstall leaves something in the registry, isn't that due to poor uninstall by the programs in question?
Pretty much. The issue is whether you the end user have any way to clean the registry when someone's program trashes it.
In fact, I thought I read that a lot of programs leave registry entries for a number of reasons - like to stem piracy in case you install a wares version, or to ease a reinstall since many programs don't assume you want to get rid of them permanently.
It ain't their computer. It's my computer.
I don't care what their reasons are for leaving crap in the registry, I want a way to clean it.
So, I put the question to the experts? Who's at fault for the most part when the registry becomes clogged with stales entries? Should Windows assume that this is the case and actively update the registry itself?
"Actively"? Not necessarily. But Microsoft should have an auto-cleaning process. They used to have a utility called "regclean" that would make an attempt.
If Microsoft provides the registry for programmers to use and makes the registry critical to Windows, then Microsoft needs to provide for the cleaning and maintenance of the registry.
Bob is talking about packets using faked source addresses.
These are useless for anything other than a (D)DoS attack. They are useless because a connection cannot be established and no data can travel.
It is easy to have personal anonymity, but still have the first upstream router check the source addresses to make sure they are legit. But it depends upon someone, somewhere being willing to/dev/null his logs on a continuing basis and both sides using encryption. As you said, this is not technical, but social.
There is NO reason for the source address to not be confirmed by the upstream router.
There are LOTS of reasons for personal anonymity to be maintained. And we can have personal anonymity even if we confirm the source addresses of packets.
Didn't we just hear about NetWare's final death and the migration to Linux?
Does the name "Stac" ring a bell?
I have a whole cabinet at work filled with software that died or from companies that don't exist any more.
He's looking at the few companies that have survived throughout the years and ignoring the 1000x other companies that have died and left their customers stranded.
With Open Source, at the very worst, you'll still have the code and the right to hire somebody to fix the bugs and add the enhancements.
The people who are going into the field for the paycheck are smart enough to realize that they'll be the first ones cut to reduce costs (and their jobs shipped off to India/China).
The ones going into the field because they love it are trying for Google because that's where you'll be on the cutting edge.
The sad thing is that we are losing the CS majors because they will be off-shored.
I manage a site with a mere 20,000 members, and I get phish attempts bounced back from people pretending to be from my site on a daily basis.
Strange. You are a bank? No? An auction site? No?
Yet you claim to have "phish attempts" for a user base of 20,000.
So, what are the odds that someone sending a phishing message will hit someone on your site? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million? 1 in 10 million?
And if they do succeed, what that they gained? With a real bank, they have access to the account.
You don't have to be one of the "bigs" to have the problem, but according to you each one of us with a mail server should spend their hours collecting all of that information...
You might want to pay a little bit more attention to this thing called "reading with comprehension".
I have never said that everyone "with a mail server" should spend any time collecting this.
I said that if Microsoft wanted to deal with the problem, today, they could.
Hotmail has a lot more users than you do. USBank has a lot more users than you do. For a little bit of work, Hotmail users could be safe from phishing attempts targetting USBank.
Am I going to fast for you?
...which, if you're doing it the way you say you are, makes you a piss-poor system administrator.
Taking into consideration your inability to read, I don't feel bad about your opions on other topics.
Or do the names "Microsoft" and "Hotmail" mean "everyone" in your world?
Yeah, MS could, like you, GUESS which servers ebay is using today to send it's e-mail.
Why would they have to guess? Not everyone has the same intellectual issues you do. Reasonable adults can take reasonable steps to ensure that they know to whom they are talking. Particularly with well established companies such as Microsoft and eBay and USBank, etc.
Which doesn't mean that they'd actually find all of them, nor would they (nor you) know where ebay's backups and secondaries may reside, nor will you know when they suddenly change them or use them.
Again, why waste time with guessing? Did you miss this line in my original post?
And I'm sure that Microsoft would get lots of help from those companies to keep Microsoft's list current.
If you disagree with the concept, show why they would not/could not cooperate with Microsoft.
Unlike SPF, which exists to TELL you (and me, and everyone else) precisely and exactly where they are, currently in use or not.
Again, they are not using SPF. Very few people are using SPF.
I'm talking about solving this problem, today, for all the Hotmail users.
You're not "solving" anything, and probably screwing up your user's e-mail to boot...
I'm not even going to ask how you would presume that this would screw up anyone's email. You don't even understand how it is possible for two businesses to securely communicate.
Good luck in your little fantasy world with your 20,000 users.
Which, unless I'm very mistaken, is what an SPF record allows you to do, identify the machines in a domain authorized to send mail.
Nope. SPF allows me to identify which machines are allowed to send email claiming to be from my domain.
With SPF, I have to set up the info for my domain and the recipient has to have a system that checks that info.
The problem with your suggestion is that everyone who wants to prevent people from phishing using their name would need to register with hotmail... and yahoo... and excite... and gmail... and...
They could do that. But as I noted in my original post, Ethel's Bank and Feed Store isn't going to get many phishing attempts.
Yet I see ones "from" eBay and PayPal and USBank and MBNA and so forth every day.
If MICROSOFT wanted to block phishing attempts to Hotmail users "from" those sites, then Microsoft could collect the necessary information and not wait on anyone else to deploy SPF or SenderID.
I hope you get the idea.
I already had the idea. You're the one confused about who does what work to achieve what result.
Not to mention that you have no idea that the people who register are authorized to do so.
It's easy to find out if the sending server is in an assigned block.
You're still confused about who would do what work to achieve which result.
I'm already doing part of this with a local blacklist. I don't need eBay to tell me what servers they send their messages from. I can find that info and I can kill all phishing attempts "from" eBay. Even if eBay never filled out an SPF record or a SenderID record.
In other words, I can solve this problem, today, for my system, without them having to setup anything.
Phishing schemes attempt to mimic the most common banks and such.
All that Microsoft would have to do to kill phishing on Hotmail would be to check the From: field for paypal, ebay, USBank, MBNA, etc and then see if the sending IP address matches the sending machines for those sites.
And I'm sure that Microsoft would get lots of help from those companies to keep Microsoft's list current.
There, instant death for phishing those sites. Then they could work to the less common banks and such.
Getting a phishing email from Ethel's Bank and Feed Store in Nebraska won't affect too many people. And it shouldn't be too difficult for those smaller banks to contact Microsoft and confirm their identity to be added to the list.
So, Microsoft kills all phishing on Hotmail and doesn't require any other email servers to adopt anything new.
Google can do the same with gmail. Yahoo! can do the same. Everyone can maintain their own lists.
Eventually, the banking regulators should get involved and provide a secure list of those addresses.
This doesn't solve the same problems as SenderID and SPF solve, but it does get rid of the phishing TODAY. And this issue NEEDS to be solved TODAY.
Yep. Most people don't buy an OS for the OS (except during the Win95 roll out).
They want to run certain apps. Their apps.
But the first step is getting their hardware supported. Once the hardware is supported, the Linux desktop market can start to grow.
Then we'll see how large it grows and whether it provides enough of a market for the developers of those apps to port them to Linux.
I believe it will. Just as the Linux server segment grew enough to support Oracle sales. But server apps are different than desktop apps so I may be wrong.
The OS is just the portion between the apps and the hardware.
And I'm sure that those people are as happy with their systems now as they were with Windows (or happier without the spyware/adware).
The Linux desktop is pretty much ready. The only limitations are hardware and tech support.
Most people who buy home computers don't have Linux tech support handy. They have to depend upon whomever sold them the system. As more OEM's sell Linux systems to corporate/government offices, their tech support staff will become familiar with Linux and be able to provide the same type of support that you do. Congrats!
I put "power users" in there because that's how they describe themselves. They're the ones who buy the latest toys for their machines/OS.
Linux rocks for real power users. The people who will rip out anything they don't want and jack up the priority on what they do want. Real power users read the documentation and launch apps with command line flags.
But Windows has resulted in people who believe that clicking on a "use DMA" button is "hacking" their machine.
These are the kids who just love to have the newest toys. Toy-philes. I work for one of them. He likes to show off his newest PDA toy, but he doesn't have a clue how it connects to the Internet.
That's where I come in. I set it up for him and write all the steps down so if it breaks, he can set it up the same way it was. He loves toys, but he doesn't have a clue about the technology.
There is no way he would be happy with Linux until he could drop in his latest purchase and just click on a "make it work" button to complete the installation (even better would be for it to just magically work). That's not going to happen until Linux has 51%+ of the desktop market.
So I just tell that segment of the population that Linux isn't ready for their "power user" needs.
There's nothing wrong with styling your GUI to look like WinXP, but the code should come first.
There's nothing wrong with having a dual-boot Win/Linux system where FireFox on the Linux system snagged all the IE info during installation. That would be a pretty cool feature. But the code comes first.
Linux is winning the server market because of the stability, reliability and functionality. Not because it looks just like a Windows server. Focus on the code.
Migration tools are good. More migration tools would make it easier to migrate more servers. But the code comes first.
1. Servers 2. Corporate/government desktops 3. Mom/Grandma home users 4. Power users/Gamers
Linux is making huge gains in the server market. The statistics show that.
Linux is just starting to gain in the corporate/government desktop market. Expect this to take at least another 3 years.
Once OEMs are comfortable with Linux (due to large orders from corporations/governments), they will start offering it on desktops suitable for basic email/web surfing. The largest limitation is lack of drivers for new hardware. As this market grows (slowly), that will change.
Which will, finally, result in power users and gamers having Linux as an option. That means that the latest hardware will be released with good Linux drivers and the games will be available on Linux. The biggest problem here is the Microsoft desktop monopoly.
Other than that, a corporate KDE or GNOME desktop can be made to look almost exactly like a Win2K desktop so there is no need to worry about training the end users.
The value of Linux doesn't exist for the last two market segments (both home segments). The value exists for the server market and the corporate/government desktop market. But that value will drive the home adoption as people become familiar with Linux at work.
The original article is correct in that having a way to capture the info from Windows would be a major boost to Linux adoption in the home segments. But without the hardware/game support, it just isn't worth the trouble for the average user.
Firefox is worth the trouble of the few websites that don't support it because of all the great features of Firefox (no ad/spyware, very few popups, ad-blocker, etc).
I find it highly unlikely that they've engaged private tutoring and haven't considered any sort of learning disability testing.
It doesn't matter what you find likely or unlikely. He did not state that they had and there has to be some reason why a kid cannot add 11 and 12 and get 23.
You invalidate your position by assuming "facts" that have not be presented.
My position still stands, children with involved parents do not fail classes.
So are you saying that I was wrong about not holding the entire class up so that one kid could continue to work on something he isn't going to ever get?
Or that I was wrong for saying that he should be re-assigned so the rest of the class can move on?
This kid will go through life using a calculator to add two-digit numbers, just as another kid I know will always ride a wheelchair.
So you're comparing the kid to someone with a recognized handicap?
But that kid was in school and his parents didn't have him evaluated to see if he had a handicap?
One kid has parents who are right there with him every evening, but he doesn't learn the material. I have spent many hours teaching him a particular algorithm (e.g., dividing two fractions), drilling him over and over, and then asking him to apply it.
Again, should the class be held back for him or should he be advanced with the rest of the class?
If neither, then you are in agreement with my previous post. Having the rest of the kids do the same problems, day after day after day does NOTHING for them or for him.
The best situation for that kid would be for his parents to get interested and involved in his school work and get him evaluated to see if there is some reason that he cannot grasp basic concepts.
Either way, he should not be in the same class as the others.
You don't drill them, you test them.
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If you understand addition, doing 100 problems is as easy as doing 10.
The same goes for subtraction, multiplication and division.
The PROBLEM is our attitude towards the classroom and students.
If the teacher assigns 100 addition problems to 100 students, and 80 students have no problems with them, what happens next?
Well, the next day another 100 problems are given to see if the 20 students who didn't get it right last time have managed to catch up.
And so on until you have kids who are bored because they spend a month repeating something they understood the first day and kids who still can't grasp it but cannot be left behind, re-assigned and their parents won't put in the effort to educate their darling angels.
You will not find a kid who is failing any subect who has parents who are interested and involved in his school work.
"Romero" - n. An undead human that exhibits no outward signs of intelligence and exists only to menace the heros and eat the extras. No one has yet determined what causes outbreaks of "Romeroism" in corpses. No skeleton Romeros have been sighted leading investigators to believe that the "Romeroism" is somehow linked to the brain/central nervous system.
Romeros initially appear to be regular zombies but differ in that they have no obvious master and can only be "killed" by destroying their head/brain.
Romeros differ from "ghouls" in that they seem to ignore any damage that doesn't destroy their brains and, once again, they exhibit no intelligence.
Rather in integrate one with the other... why not develop the next generation package management system that can handle.deb's and.rpm's and has the best features of both systems?
While they're at it, they could include functionality to install/upgrade/remove from.tar.gz.
Now, THAT would be functionality worthy of testing a new system.
If, as it appears, they are only going to add.rpm's to the install, there's no reason to even try it.
We've already gotten to the point where individual package management systems handle 99% of the issues for 99% of the people.
The next step is to advance the technology. Not just to shoehorn one system's packages into a different system's architecture.
Oh, bullshit. The vast majority of problems in running as a non-Admin in Windows are the responsibility of *application developers*, not Microsoft.
Saying that there are other people doing it does NOT justify Microsoft doing it.
No, it's the price of compatibility. You want your 10 year old applications to run on today's OS ? That means 10 year old malicious code will run as well.
Again, you are wrong. Linux and the various *BSD's manage to fix existing problems, yet they can still run most apps from years ago.
They manage the compatibility AND the security.
They can do it, but Microsoft cannot.
Maybe you should embrace some basic security principles then.
I have. And one of those "basic security principles", for Windows, includes daily downloads of anti-virus/anti-spyware signatures.
I find it very amusing that you seem to be suggesting that anyone using Windows become well versed in "security".
Note the repeated usage of the phrase "The first" and how that phrase is NOT followed by "by Microsoft" or "on Windows".
Now, looking at that criteria, you will see that MOST of the functionality you expect from a computer/app is NOT "innovative". It is derivative and the original innovation happened a long time ago.
I am a Linux developer and love the OS, but you have to admit that a lot of the stuff on Linux is a copy of something in OS X or Windows.
You left off "or OS/2 or GEM or the Amiga".
It seems like Linux is always playing catch-up and MS and Apple are the ones producing innovation, along with less frequent contributions from UNIX companies like SGI.
Go ahead and name 5 innovations from Microsoft.
Who picked up on anti-aliased desktop fonts first, who was the first to really push web services into the mainstream, etc.
Ah, the Microsoft definition of "innovation".
No, "innovation" is not the same as "distribution".
Name 5 things that Microsoft has innovated and NOT just distributed to more people (because more people use Microsoft desktops).
The people who make the decisions that the techs must implement.
Microsoft is a company with, what, 30,000 employees? Not a single one of them 'gives a hoot?'
That's right. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing problems such as IE being "integrated" with the OS.
I can't speak for their marketers or upper-management, but I've met with and interfaced with a couple hundred employees from Microsoft over the past decade and I'd say 90% of them have been more passionate, smarter, and more 'innovative' than the average employee I've met at any other computer software-related business.*
That's great. But those marketers and upper-management ones that you haven't met are the ones that tell the techs what to do and how to do it.
Furthermore, it's amazing how passionate many are about their particular product line.
Again, those techs follow the instructions given by management.
Shit, just read some of their blogs and you'll see how much many care about the products they work on, the user experience, and so on.
And yet, instead of fixing the real issues, Microsoft just bought anti-virus & anti-spyware companies.
So saying 'the literally don't care' is about as far from reality as I can imagine.
The flaws in their security model still exist.
Those flaws have existed for YEARS.
They can even just look at one of the Open Source OS's and SEE how others have solved those problems.
Yet the problems still exist within Windows. I still have to ensure that the DAILY anti-virus/anti-spyware downloads happen.
So either you are psychotic or ignorant or the people at Microsoft you've interfaced with personally happen to be vastly different from those that I've met/socialized with/worked with.
Go ahead and ask those people you've met WHY Microsoft does NOT just FIX the virus/spyware problem instead of forcing the users to replace the bandage EVERY SINGLE DAY and just HOPE that they aren't one of the first hit with a new strain of virus.
See what answer you get and that will tell you why other people don't share your opinion.
(And I'm sure you have had the interactions and experience to make such claims as you did in your post, no? Or are you just saying this based on the fact that your Win98 box blue screens once a day? Yeah....)
Listen up.
The same virus that was known to infect Win98... will STILL infect Win2003.
THAT is the problem.
Microsoft's security model PREFERS for you to run ADDITIONAL 3rd party software because the OS itself does not (without massive amounts of work and testing on the part of the HIGHLY TRAINED administrator) provide any way of stopping viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.
Of course, everyone ascribes to Microsoft the mastery of the mythical magical power of money, so therefore the only reason Microsoft would shut down an effort so soon after Go did and sold to AT&T would naturally be, mission accomplished.
Well, it certain has that appearance.
Not the very real reason that it was just not going to happen back in 1995 the way Go or Microsoft wanted.
That doesn't matter.
Microsoft took action against Go.
It doesn't matter if the tech would have worked or not. It is Microsoft's actions that are the point of the suite.
Go is being a real opportunist and they need to be slapped down.
Why? They seem to have a case.
The Linux world needs to understand that their derision for Microsoft doesn't change the fact that opportunistic lawsuits happen all the time.
No. Junk lawsuits happen all the time.
This suite appears to have some basis. There is nothing wrong with someone with a basis for a complaint taking the case to court.
The SCO affair should make that abundantly clear.
SCO's execs have made certain very specific claims in the media. If their case has merit, then it should go forward.
So far, they haven't shown any evidence that their case has merit.
How long till some small distro outfit sues Red Hat or Novell?
Probably not long.
Your point?
The world does not operate on the fairness principle. Just because you do not sue someone you have a case against does not mean that someone else will not sue you if they have a case against you.
If there's merit, there's merit, but this doesn't smell like it and neither does SCO's actions and if things keep up like this, it is bad news for any IT company for the future.
Have you read the article? They have email from Bill Gates himself.
Everyone knows it, how can Microsoft be a Monolopy when I can go out an buy an Apple?
Simple. Not "everyone" gets their understanding of monopolies from a Parker Bros. board game.
This has been argued before. Simply put, it is not necessary for NO alternatives to be available for a monopoly to exist.
To phrase it without the double negatives... it is possible for a company to have a monopoly even if there are alternative options available.
I love how slashdot posts articles about governement/companies/schools switching away from Microsoft yet slashbotters still call Micrsoft a monolopy. I'm simply amazed.
Again, that's because many of us understand what a "monopoly" is and understand that it does not mean that alternatives are not available.
Slashdot Mirror
#1. ONLY use addresses that have been submitted by that individual. This will keep you from sending email to the spam traps which is how you get listed on the blacklists.
#2. MONITOR YOUR OWN EMAIL LOGS. If you see a bounce or whatever, REMOVE THAT NAME RIGHT THEN.
#3. Put an HTML one-click-to-unsubscribe at the TOP of the message. And UNSUBSCRIBE the addresses right then. None of this "72 hour" bullshit. None of this "enter your password" bullshit.
#4. Include a phone number on every email. I've had to call a few companies to get them to fix their lists and I get even more annoyed when I have to waste my time researching their number first.
#5. People frequently sign up their WORK addresses for your crap. When they leave that job, it is up to whomever is set to receive their email or the email admin to handle the crap. Unless you want ALL of your messages blocked at my smtp box, you will make it very easy to quickly and completely unsubscribe addresses.
I don't care what their reasons are for leaving crap in the registry, I want a way to clean it."Actively"? Not necessarily. But Microsoft should have an auto-cleaning process. They used to have a utility called "regclean" that would make an attempt.
If Microsoft provides the registry for programmers to use and makes the registry critical to Windows, then Microsoft needs to provide for the cleaning and maintenance of the registry.
Bob is talking about packets using faked source addresses.
/dev/null his logs on a continuing basis and both sides using encryption. As you said, this is not technical, but social.
These are useless for anything other than a (D)DoS attack. They are useless because a connection cannot be established and no data can travel.
It is easy to have personal anonymity, but still have the first upstream router check the source addresses to make sure they are legit. But it depends upon someone, somewhere being willing to
There is NO reason for the source address to not be confirmed by the upstream router.
There are LOTS of reasons for personal anonymity to be maintained. And we can have personal anonymity even if we confirm the source addresses of packets.
Didn't we just hear about OS/2's final death?
Didn't we just hear about NetWare's final death and the migration to Linux?
Does the name "Stac" ring a bell?
I have a whole cabinet at work filled with software that died or from companies that don't exist any more.
He's looking at the few companies that have survived throughout the years and ignoring the 1000x other companies that have died and left their customers stranded.
With Open Source, at the very worst, you'll still have the code and the right to hire somebody to fix the bugs and add the enhancements.
Bob is 100% wrong on this.
The people who are going into the field for the paycheck are smart enough to realize that they'll be the first ones cut to reduce costs (and their jobs shipped off to India/China).
The ones going into the field because they love it are trying for Google because that's where you'll be on the cutting edge.
The sad thing is that we are losing the CS majors because they will be off-shored.
Yet you claim to have "phish attempts" for a user base of 20,000.
So, what are the odds that someone sending a phishing message will hit someone on your site? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in a million? 1 in 10 million?
And if they do succeed, what that they gained? With a real bank, they have access to the account.You might want to pay a little bit more attention to this thing called "reading with comprehension".
I have never said that everyone "with a mail server" should spend any time collecting this.
I said that if Microsoft wanted to deal with the problem, today, they could.
Hotmail has a lot more users than you do. USBank has a lot more users than you do. For a little bit of work, Hotmail users could be safe from phishing attempts targetting USBank.
Am I going to fast for you?Taking into consideration your inability to read, I don't feel bad about your opions on other topics.
Or do the names "Microsoft" and "Hotmail" mean "everyone" in your world?Why would they have to guess? Not everyone has the same intellectual issues you do. Reasonable adults can take reasonable steps to ensure that they know to whom they are talking. Particularly with well established companies such as Microsoft and eBay and USBank, etc.Again, why waste time with guessing? Did you miss this line in my original post?
And I'm sure that Microsoft would get lots of help from those companies to keep Microsoft's list current.
If you disagree with the concept, show why they would not/could not cooperate with Microsoft.Again, they are not using SPF. Very few people are using SPF.
I'm talking about solving this problem, today, for all the Hotmail users.I'm not even going to ask how you would presume that this would screw up anyone's email. You don't even understand how it is possible for two businesses to securely communicate.
Good luck in your little fantasy world with your 20,000 users.
With SPF, I have to set up the info for my domain and the recipient has to have a system that checks that info.They could do that. But as I noted in my original post, Ethel's Bank and Feed Store isn't going to get many phishing attempts.
Yet I see ones "from" eBay and PayPal and USBank and MBNA and so forth every day.
If MICROSOFT wanted to block phishing attempts to Hotmail users "from" those sites, then Microsoft could collect the necessary information and not wait on anyone else to deploy SPF or SenderID.I already had the idea. You're the one confused about who does what work to achieve what result.It's easy to find out if the sending server is in an assigned block.
You're still confused about who would do what work to achieve which result.
I'm already doing part of this with a local blacklist. I don't need eBay to tell me what servers they send their messages from. I can find that info and I can kill all phishing attempts "from" eBay. Even if eBay never filled out an SPF record or a SenderID record.
In other words, I can solve this problem, today, for my system, without them having to setup anything.
Phishing schemes attempt to mimic the most common banks and such.
All that Microsoft would have to do to kill phishing on Hotmail would be to check the From: field for paypal, ebay, USBank, MBNA, etc and then see if the sending IP address matches the sending machines for those sites.
And I'm sure that Microsoft would get lots of help from those companies to keep Microsoft's list current.
There, instant death for phishing those sites. Then they could work to the less common banks and such.
Getting a phishing email from Ethel's Bank and Feed Store in Nebraska won't affect too many people. And it shouldn't be too difficult for those smaller banks to contact Microsoft and confirm their identity to be added to the list.
So, Microsoft kills all phishing on Hotmail and doesn't require any other email servers to adopt anything new.
Google can do the same with gmail. Yahoo! can do the same. Everyone can maintain their own lists.
Eventually, the banking regulators should get involved and provide a secure list of those addresses.
This doesn't solve the same problems as SenderID and SPF solve, but it does get rid of the phishing TODAY. And this issue NEEDS to be solved TODAY.
Yep. Most people don't buy an OS for the OS (except during the Win95 roll out).
They want to run certain apps. Their apps.
But the first step is getting their hardware supported. Once the hardware is supported, the Linux desktop market can start to grow.
Then we'll see how large it grows and whether it provides enough of a market for the developers of those apps to port them to Linux.
I believe it will. Just as the Linux server segment grew enough to support Oracle sales. But server apps are different than desktop apps so I may be wrong.
The OS is just the portion between the apps and the hardware.
And I'm sure that those people are as happy with their systems now as they were with Windows (or happier without the spyware/adware).
The Linux desktop is pretty much ready. The only limitations are hardware and tech support.
Most people who buy home computers don't have Linux tech support handy. They have to depend upon whomever sold them the system. As more OEM's sell Linux systems to corporate/government offices, their tech support staff will become familiar with Linux and be able to provide the same type of support that you do. Congrats!
I put "power users" in there because that's how they describe themselves. They're the ones who buy the latest toys for their machines/OS.
Linux rocks for real power users. The people who will rip out anything they don't want and jack up the priority on what they do want. Real power users read the documentation and launch apps with command line flags.
But Windows has resulted in people who believe that clicking on a "use DMA" button is "hacking" their machine.
These are the kids who just love to have the newest toys. Toy-philes. I work for one of them. He likes to show off his newest PDA toy, but he doesn't have a clue how it connects to the Internet.
That's where I come in. I set it up for him and write all the steps down so if it breaks, he can set it up the same way it was. He loves toys, but he doesn't have a clue about the technology.
There is no way he would be happy with Linux until he could drop in his latest purchase and just click on a "make it work" button to complete the installation (even better would be for it to just magically work). That's not going to happen until Linux has 51%+ of the desktop market.
So I just tell that segment of the population that Linux isn't ready for their "power user" needs.
You claim to be a power user, but you had problems with your wireless card and power management.
I said that power users would be the last segment (#4) to move to Linux because they wouldn't be happy until their hardware was supported.
I run Ubuntu and it runs great on fully supported hardware. But then, I also run my LCD screen as 1280x1024 so I don't have the space problems you do.
Linux should be focusing on the code.
There's nothing wrong with styling your GUI to look like WinXP, but the code should come first.
There's nothing wrong with having a dual-boot Win/Linux system where FireFox on the Linux system snagged all the IE info during installation. That would be a pretty cool feature. But the code comes first.
Linux is winning the server market because of the stability, reliability and functionality. Not because it looks just like a Windows server. Focus on the code.
Migration tools are good. More migration tools would make it easier to migrate more servers. But the code comes first.
There are 4 major market segments:
1. Servers
2. Corporate/government desktops
3. Mom/Grandma home users
4. Power users/Gamers
Linux is making huge gains in the server market. The statistics show that.
Linux is just starting to gain in the corporate/government desktop market. Expect this to take at least another 3 years.
Once OEMs are comfortable with Linux (due to large orders from corporations/governments), they will start offering it on desktops suitable for basic email/web surfing. The largest limitation is lack of drivers for new hardware. As this market grows (slowly), that will change.
Which will, finally, result in power users and gamers having Linux as an option. That means that the latest hardware will be released with good Linux drivers and the games will be available on Linux. The biggest problem here is the Microsoft desktop monopoly.
Other than that, a corporate KDE or GNOME desktop can be made to look almost exactly like a Win2K desktop so there is no need to worry about training the end users.
The value of Linux doesn't exist for the last two market segments (both home segments). The value exists for the server market and the corporate/government desktop market. But that value will drive the home adoption as people become familiar with Linux at work.
The original article is correct in that having a way to capture the info from Windows would be a major boost to Linux adoption in the home segments. But without the hardware/game support, it just isn't worth the trouble for the average user.
Firefox is worth the trouble of the few websites that don't support it because of all the great features of Firefox (no ad/spyware, very few popups, ad-blocker, etc).
You invalidate your position by assuming "facts" that have not be presented.
My position still stands, children with involved parents do not fail classes.
Or that I was wrong for saying that he should be re-assigned so the rest of the class can move on?So you're comparing the kid to someone with a recognized handicap?
But that kid was in school and his parents didn't have him evaluated to see if he had a handicap?Again, should the class be held back for him or should he be advanced with the rest of the class?
If neither, then you are in agreement with my previous post. Having the rest of the kids do the same problems, day after day after day does NOTHING for them or for him.
The best situation for that kid would be for his parents to get interested and involved in his school work and get him evaluated to see if there is some reason that he cannot grasp basic concepts.
Either way, he should not be in the same class as the others.
If you understand addition, doing 100 problems is as easy as doing 10.
The same goes for subtraction, multiplication and division.
The PROBLEM is our attitude towards the classroom and students.
If the teacher assigns 100 addition problems to 100 students, and 80 students have no problems with them, what happens next?
Well, the next day another 100 problems are given to see if the 20 students who didn't get it right last time have managed to catch up.
And so on until you have kids who are bored because they spend a month repeating something they understood the first day and kids who still can't grasp it but cannot be left behind, re-assigned and their parents won't put in the effort to educate their darling angels.
You will not find a kid who is failing any subect who has parents who are interested and involved in his school work.
"Romero" - n. An undead human that exhibits no outward signs of intelligence and exists only to menace the heros and eat the extras. No one has yet determined what causes outbreaks of "Romeroism" in corpses. No skeleton Romeros have been sighted leading investigators to believe that the "Romeroism" is somehow linked to the brain/central nervous system.
Romeros initially appear to be regular zombies but differ in that they have no obvious master and can only be "killed" by destroying their head/brain.
Romeros differ from "ghouls" in that they seem to ignore any damage that doesn't destroy their brains and, once again, they exhibit no intelligence.
Rather in integrate one with the other ... why not develop the next generation package management system that can handle .deb's and .rpm's and has the best features of both systems?
.tar.gz.
.rpm's to the install, there's no reason to even try it.
While they're at it, they could include functionality to install/upgrade/remove from
Now, THAT would be functionality worthy of testing a new system.
If, as it appears, they are only going to add
We've already gotten to the point where individual package management systems handle 99% of the issues for 99% of the people.
The next step is to advance the technology. Not just to shoehorn one system's packages into a different system's architecture.
They manage the compatibility AND the security.
They can do it, but Microsoft cannot.I have. And one of those "basic security principles", for Windows, includes daily downloads of anti-virus/anti-spyware signatures.
I find it very amusing that you seem to be suggesting that anyone using Windows become well versed in "security".
Isn't Windows supposed to be "user friendly"?
Creating something new.
Examples of innovation:
#1. The first spreadsheet app.
#2. The first use of a mouse.
#3. The first GUI.
#4. The first web browser/web server.
#5. The first relational database app.
Note the repeated usage of the phrase "The first" and how that phrase is NOT followed by "by Microsoft" or "on Windows".
Now, looking at that criteria, you will see that MOST of the functionality you expect from a computer/app is NOT "innovative". It is derivative and the original innovation happened a long time ago.
No, "innovation" is not the same as "distribution".
Name 5 things that Microsoft has innovated and NOT just distributed to more people (because more people use Microsoft desktops).
Those flaws have existed for YEARS.
They can even just look at one of the Open Source OS's and SEE how others have solved those problems.
Yet the problems still exist within Windows. I still have to ensure that the DAILY anti-virus/anti-spyware downloads happen.Go ahead and ask those people you've met WHY Microsoft does NOT just FIX the virus/spyware problem instead of forcing the users to replace the bandage EVERY SINGLE DAY and just HOPE that they aren't one of the first hit with a new strain of virus.
See what answer you get and that will tell you why other people don't share your opinion.Listen up.
The same virus that was known to infect Win98
THAT is the problem.
Microsoft's security model PREFERS for you to run ADDITIONAL 3rd party software because the OS itself does not (without massive amounts of work and testing on the part of the HIGHLY TRAINED administrator) provide any way of stopping viruses, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.
Microsoft took action against Go.
It doesn't matter if the tech would have worked or not. It is Microsoft's actions that are the point of the suite.Why? They seem to have a case.No. Junk lawsuits happen all the time.
This suite appears to have some basis. There is nothing wrong with someone with a basis for a complaint taking the case to court.SCO's execs have made certain very specific claims in the media. If their case has merit, then it should go forward.
So far, they haven't shown any evidence that their case has merit.Probably not long.
Your point?
The world does not operate on the fairness principle. Just because you do not sue someone you have a case against does not mean that someone else will not sue you if they have a case against you.Have you read the article? They have email from Bill Gates himself.
This has been argued before. Simply put, it is not necessary for NO alternatives to be available for a monopoly to exist.
To phrase it without the double negatives