Most people believe the same things their parents believed and will have children who believe it also.
It's the same with religion and politics. Mostly because politics comes down to "values" about what is "good" and "bad".
Most people I know who voted for Bush did NOT vote for him because they wanted massive debt, never ending wars and a polluted environment.
They voted for Bush because Kerry would make everything worse. Or because Kerry lied about Vietnam. Or because Kerry wasn't a good Christian. Or because Kerry was a liberal. Or because Kerry was a friend of Jane Fonda. etc.
In other words, they looked for some reason (however non-substantial) to "justify" their voting for Bush.
Bush's message is very simple. He's strong and good. The US is strong and good. Those who oppose him/the US are weak and evil. He will protect you. You need his protection. The bad guys are coming. They're coming real soon. THEY'RE HERE! TERROR ALERT ORANGE! They're gone now. But they'll be back. Maybe with nukes. Bush needs your support to protect you. He is willing to pay any price to protect you from the evil men out there.
Don't laugh. Read through the transcripts of the speeches over the years. Look at how often the "Terror Alert" went up at politically opportunistic times. Yet when was the last time you saw the "Terror Alert" go up?
It's all about fear and religion. The religion of fear. No matter how safe you think you are, you aren't safe enough.
And that message sells.
Even back in WWII it was practiced. Just keep telling the people that the bad guys are coming and that anyone who says differently is a fool who will get you killed or a traitor and supporter of those evil men.
That goes back to the witch trials. Satan has allies. People that look just like you and me. Any actions we take against them are "good". Even if we accidentally torture and kill an innocent person. Because we cannot risk losing this battle.
I know it was flippant and humorous, but it's still a dangerous idea to think that you can eat Joe Lois, maintain a BMI of 29 and be healthy. Indeed, it's not the BMI - it's the food you eat, the nutrition, etc.
Damn straight! It isn't about weight. It's about exercise and nutrition.
Show me the death stats for people based upon exercise and nutrition INSTEAD of focusing on the weight of their corpse.
I'm betting that doing it that way would show a more understandable progression (ie. the healthier you keep yourself, the longer you will live).
But that kind of research won't get the headlines.
And the average person who reads that will only remember and believe what he wants to ("being fat means I'll live longer").
#1. BitKeeper is McVoy's code and he is allowed to do anything he wants with it. You're right that he could have pulled the "free" client at anytime and held the kernel source as "hostage".
#2. Linus chose to use BitKeeper knowing all of that. He still chose it because it seemed to be the best product around that would meet his needs. Linus did not seem overly concerned about the potential for losing the "free" client.
#3. Tridge did not break any laws when he started to reverse engineer the packets.
So... no one did anything ILLEGAL and they all made decisions based upon their stated values.
Where's the problem?
Well, Tridge should have known that his work would piss off McVoy and that it could result in the loss of the "free" client. Yet he did it anyway WITHOUT writing a SCM that was as good or better than BitKeeper.
So, the only thing that Tridge is guilty of is not having a replacement ready for when everything blew up.
McVoy decided that he didn't want to deal with Tridge's work and just pulled the "free" client to stop what he viewed as a threat to BitKeeper.
So the only thing McVoy is guilty of is attempting to protect his own project.
Which leaves Linus suddenly without an SCM and he blames Tridge for wreaking a working situation without having a replacement ready.
So, the only thing Linus is guilty of is venting publicly.
So why is everyone picking sides? That comes down to each person's values.
A.) Those who value Open'ness more than functionality support Tridge because they believe Linus was wrong to push a proprietary product.
B.) Those who value functionality more than Open'ness support Linus because the system was working and it was helping development and there isn't an equivalent system to replace it yet.
But those are simply judgement calls based upon each individual's value set. Neither is more "right" or "wrong" than the other, except in your opinion.
What exactly is the purpose of the LSB spec these days? When I last worried about it, I was under the impression it was so that ISV's could distribute software packages in such a way that they would work and integrate well on a variety of distributions, and nothing more. That is, it wasn't about providing consistent functionality across distributions in general, or about standardising things for standardisation's sake. The "Purpose" section in the LSB spec doesn't seem to clarify this for me, but rather describes what the LSB is composed of, rather than why it's composed that way.
The ORIGINAL purpose of the LSB was to make it easier for COMMERCIAL ISV's to port software to Linux.
The LSB people would write the standard...
The various distributions would adopt that standard...
The various ISV's would develop to that standard.
I'm sure everyone can see the problems, right?
#1. The LSB people couldn't get a complete standard written and published. Their current "standard" still doesn't include GNOME or KDE so it isn't going anywhere on the desktop.
#2. The various distributions are different because the people running them have different approaches to solving the same problem. What incentive IS THERE RIGHT NOW for them to wait and adopt the LSB? That's right, they need an incentive.
#3. The ISV's, seeing the delays, skipped the LSB and formed partnerships directly with the distributions (like Oracle did with Red Hat).
So, what we have right now is a bunch of ISV's who are not writing LSB apps forming partnerships with distributions who are not abandoning their old ways to support the LSB which has not released a workable standard for either the ISV's or the distributions.
The LSB, as it is currently focused, will always be a failure. Even if they managed to release a standard, it would only hold back the current speed of development.
What the LSB really needs to do is focus on the things that would make a huge difference right now.
#1. Fix the FSB. Right now, the location of a file depends upon how I install it. If I compile it myself, it goes in one directory. If I apt-get install it, it goes in a different one.
#2. Expand the FSB (part 1). Standardize the naming of each file, right down to the version number. If some app depends upon libfoo-1.0.0.3 then that should be the same file, with the same name on each distribution.
#3. Expand the FSB (part 2). Standardize the packages that contain the files that were standardized in #2. Package foo-1.0.0.3 would be named the same for each distribution and contain the exact same files of the exact same versions.
#4. Get rid of the RPM requirement. Instead, specify the BASIC functionality that the package management system will have and the basic information contained within a package and the format. That way, the various systems can ADD that functionality to their existing systems.
And the best thing is that those can be implemented over time. No more waiting for the LSB standard to be published BEFORE the distributions can become compliant BEFORE the ISV's can write and TEST their apps on those LSB compliant distributions.
In the end, the apps can have stated dependencies that should be easily verified because of the file and package standardization.
It's not just about web sites, obviously. We're talking about web front ends on cricial apps, SCADA-powered water and electical plants, major financial systems upon which the economy depends. It's all in the same bucket.
No it's not. Look at all the defaced websites out there.
Then compare that to the number of compromised Apache systems.
But your carpenter will do an even better job (at building a hard-to-wreck barn) if he sits down to talk with people who spend their entire day deliberately trying to wreck barns, and who know look for the weakest board to kick out.
That may be so, but it still takes the carpenter to build the barn.
The jackass cannot. He can only break it.
He's going to assume that if someone wants to burn down that barn, it's just going to happen.
Why would he assume that? I can see him designing a barn without paying much attention to fire control, if fire control was not a stated requirement. But a jackass wouldn't even be able to get the barn built.
We're talking, instead, about working on fireproof barns, barns under which people can't dig tunnels, and barns that are conceived of expressly to deal with issues that may not be brought up absent input from pro crackers.
That's possible. But it still gets back to needing a carpenter because the jackass cannot build the barn.
To the extent that bad guys swap info on public web sites, and coordinate things like multi-plane suicide attacks via web-based email... it's essential.
Nope.
First - you'd have to identify which sites were used by the terrorists. How do you do that?
Well, you'd have to know some terrorists or terrorist supporters and monitor their communications.
But since you know the identities of those people, why go to the time/expense of training elite military cracker teams? Why not just have an agent work for the ISP feeding the site that those people use for email?
One agent with a sniffer at the ISP can do a LOT more than dozens of crackers in a cave.
And that is the problem we're having with our current Intelligence operations. We are spending time and money on electronic means rather than getting PEOPLE into the sites where they can find the information.
The terrorists are not restricted by that. Since they don't have unlimited funding, they have to use people in critical junctions. Which is why a few of them were able to crash planes into our buildings.
We could do SO much better by spending $1million on recruiting more mid-eastern agents and sending them to tech support school and setting them up a "sleepers" in the region's ISP's than we will ever do with a cave full of geeks with Matrix delusions.
Maybe Firefox is a more stable, more secure browser than IE, but everything is gonna have its flaws.
That depends upon how you define "flaws".
And the more people use it, the more it's gonna get targeted.
"Targeted" doesn't really matter.
My Linux box is frequently targetted, but it's all Windows exploits so it doesn't matter.
It's nice to give Microsoft the shaft, sure, but the more Firefox creeps into the mainstream, the more it's gonna inherently open itself up to exploits.
Ah, so there is no such thing as "security" then.
Just "marketshare".
No matter how many software experts put in how much effort, the end result will spontaniously generate "flaws" as more people use it.
By that "logic", there is no difference between a browser ("A") written by a team of experts who focused on security... and a browser ("B") written by a 1st year student who cared nothing about security.
Flaws do NOT appear just because more people use the software.
If you blow it up, they'll deploy a less effective secondary system (I'm sure they have vehicle mounted systems like we do).
If you can have them process bad data, they won't necessarily know that their system has been compromised and they'll have to keep reacting to the bad data (or miss the good data in the noise of the bad data).
So it sounds like these are script kiddies on steroids - US Army Rangers with notebooks loaded with all the latest hax0r t00lz.
In that particular instance, a laptop with tools would be a bad idea. A better idea would be a self contained unit built specifically for that purpose for that model of radar.
In which case, the people deploying it would not need to know much about the system. Just how to identify the correct wires and how to splice the unit into them. In theory, any commo guy could do that, with a bit more training.
Yup, because the bad guys are doing exactly the same thing.
So? Who cares if the bad guys take down some websites?
And you'll never have a better bunch of people to work on countering that sort of stuff than the people who have done a stint entirely focused on causing damage elsewhere.
Sure you would. Any jackass can kick down a barn. But it takes a carpenter to build one.
A good security expert would also be a good cracker. -but- A good script kiddie is not a security expert.
Who would you want taking a new job working on infrastructure protection: the kid right out of IT school, or the guy who's been working without any distraction or budget tightwaddedness who's just spent the last two years thinking up every way he can to crack and damage networks, content, databases, and more?
False dichotomy.
Spending time learning how to crack a Windows system would NOT mean that you knew anything about real security.
Being able to exploit flaws does NOT mean that you understand how to build a secure system.
Again, any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.
So we have our own jackasses to kick down their barns to "counter" their jackasses kicking down our's? There's not much progress in that.
Rather, hire more carpenters to build better barns.
The fact that they have laptops does not mean they have networks.
Their laptops can be connected to the Internet and they can use regular email servers to email each other with encrypted messages.
Focusing on networks isn't going to help.
Now, what would help would be if they were using an OS that was built by a US company that worked with our government to install backdoors in the security system of that OS.
Failing that, our government would have to get crackers/hackers to focus on breaking into the OS used on those laptops or identifying the email servers used and cracking those.
Now, assuming that our government can spot the IP address of the laptop being used, that information can be used to trace the physical location of that laptop.
If you have the physical location of the terrorists...
Cracking a laptop wouldn't be as useful as just getting the ISP's support in tracing the email packets. And in most cases, getting the ISP's support would be SO MUCH EASIER.
Even if they couldn't get the ISP's official support, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to get an agent hired by the ISP who could then drop a sniffer on the line.
But that doesn't sound as cool and high-tech as a cave full of geeks busily cracking away at terrorist networks.
It comes down to a question of "how much is your time worth?" for most people. Most people don't want to spend hour hunting around the internet to save a few bucks a month on service or shave a percentage off a particular item. They just want to get what they want and get on with their lives.
Yep. And the original post said
Oooh, but that would take away from your time watching Survivor and The Apprentice.
So you two are, in essence, in agreement on this issue.
People do not want to take the time to do the work required.
It's all about how you want to spend your time. Whether watching TV or doing research into the issues.
They are both valid choices, but they are not equal in any other respect.
Or conversely, the sheer number of parts that MS needs to support are a large part of the reason why Windows has many of the support problems it has...
No.
If such was the case, then SOMEONE would be able to tell me what hardware/software combination would yield Linux-like stability.
Short Answer - Tying the OS and hardware is a large part of the reason why things work so well on a Mac.
While that is correct, it does not follow that Windows is unstable because it does not do that.
Windows is the way it is because Microsoft had OTHER goals and decided to achieve those goals.
Apple does not focus on monopoly maintenance or killing Netscape. Apple focuses on getting one set of hardware to work flawlessly with one OS.
The UniChrome family display driver supports the VIA CLE266 and the new VIA CN400 Digital Media chipsets featured on the popular VIA EPIA M series and VIA EPIA SP series mainboards respectively, and will provide developers with the flexibility to autonomously incorporate support for latest applications based on VIA hardware.
and
On top of the UniChrome drivers, VIA also offers display driver sources for the VIA ProSavage and ProSavage DDR integrated graphics controllers as well as the integrated Network driver source supporting six VIA Chipset South Bridges.
So the really good news is full kernel support for these everything-on-the-motherboard systems (which are usually in the less expensive/less upgradable systems).
Should?Mozilla/FireFox fanatics do it whether you ask them to or not. They expend lots of energy saying "Just another reason to switch!" over and over again.
They email you specifically? I find that difficult to believe.
I'm sure they tell each other that. Particularly on/., but you do not have to take it personally.
Whoop-de-fuck. Not everybody cares about that as their first priority. Nor does everybody care about flipping off Microsoft. What a lot of people DO care about is if the browser is better. Fortunately, FireFox generally is quite a bit better than IE, so it's not such a hard sell anymore.
"generally". But not always. I'm stuck with IE at work because of stupid Windows-only web apps that we have. But it cost me NOTHING to download it and try it to see if I would like it or not.
It is funny, though, how these stories work on Slashdot. When an IE exploit is published, it's "Just another reason to switch to FireFox or Mozilla!" When a Mozilla/FireFox exploit is published it's "Just another reason to switch to FireFox or Mozilla!"
Yeah. Okay. I hope that works for you.
What's it matter? If all you Linux twerps still giggle and snort at BSOD jokes, then you shouldn't expect a Windows user to take you seriously.
Again, the question is, when you see the same behaviour from Microsoft, does that make you switch?
Or does that ONLY apply when the subject is Open Source?
If you're going to be biased, then don't complain about how others are biased. That's just hypocritical.
Which is the main problem with DiDio. She takes anything SCO said as gospel and discounted any contradictory evidence presented.
Do you need me to remind you of the "obfuscated" code that SCO was showing under NDA that she signed and then wrote about how it looked as if SCO's case was air-tight? Hmmmmmm?
I don't subscribe to the notion that sugar-coating what you say like that actually changes anything signifigant about your message.
It doesn't.
What it does is format the information in a package that the recipient is willing to accept.
Some people are not willing to look at the information if it hasn't been pre-packaged and sweetened for them.
I believe that this because of a number of reasons: #1. Ego (a): THEY are not going to waste THEIR valuable time learning something new. But YOUR time and effort is insignificant.
#2. Ego (b): They have an emotional commitment to their current setup. They will ignore any suggestion that other systems may be more efficient for their uses.
#3. Ego (c): They know their current system and they don't want to be the newbies on a different system. You have to feed them enough information for them to get over the newbie phase before they will consider changing.
#4. Intellect: They simply cannot understand the material. You have to break it down into pre-digested chunks.
If one person says "X is better than Y" and someone else says "Y is bad compared to X" they are both saying the exact same thing, but they seem different on a purely emotional (read: bullshit) level.
That's primarily the Ego (b) response. They have an emotional reaction to someone saying that their current system is LESS functional than an alternative.
I don't understand how you can have a conversation with someone on why to switch from IE to Firefox, for example, without mentioning that there's things firefox does that IE does not.
Simple. You never mention IE. You talk about how they surf and tell them about the features that Firefox has that make that experience better.
Do you ever click on links in a page and the new page breaks the back button? With Firefox, you can open the new page in a new tab and still keep your old page open. That way, badly designed pages won't stop you.
Have you ever clicked on a link and it brought up a registration page for a news site? Firefox has a cool add-on that will fill in that page with info that will NOT result in you getting more spam.
Some pages load too many ads. Those ads can slow down the page. Firefox has a cool add-on that will completely block most of those ads. The pages will load faster if the ads are blocked.
And so on. Salesmen do that all the time.
The question is, why is anyone trying to "sell" someone else on using Firefox (or anything Open) when it is free (as beer) to download and try?
And why does anyone need to be "sold" to try something new that is free? If they're not into upcoming technologies, then that's fine.
One of the prime examples of winnowing me away from I.E. for instance, was that someone finally sat there for a moment and told me what Firefox could do - 10/15 messages back and forth - not a word or mention of IE, and I switched.
Why would it be someone else's responsibility to "winnow" you away from IE?
Firefox is Free (as speech, as beer).
I've long maintained that if the best you can do is tell me FUD about Microsoft as a reason to switch - then there's no reason to switch.
Do you apply that same logic to Microsoft?
If Microsoft publishes some FUD, do you immediately switch to an alternative?
You made an unsubstantiated claim that no spam is being sent from GNU/Linux boxes.
No. I specifically said "cracked".
If someone sets up a Linux box and installs software that allows an open relay, that box has not been cracked.
I've seen boxes run by generally paranoid admins hacked. You're far more credible when you stick to the truth, Brandioch. Temper your enthusiasm. It sells better.
I think I'll just stick to the facts, if that's all right with you.
So, dispute my claim with a fact. Show me a cracked Linux box spewing spam.
Not one configured by the admin to be an open relay. Not one where the admin installed software that was configured as an open relay. No open relays need be mentioned.
If you handle the mail yourself, that shouldn't be too hard to do. All you have to do is check the spam that didn't come through a relay and find a Linux box that isn't legitimately owned by a spammer.
I want you to think about that for a moment. The place with lots of money is NOT very lucrative to rob.
What did I say in my original post? Yet your corner bank isn't robbed every day (or week or month or year).
The average bank robbery nets less than a thousand dollars, and over 80% of bank robbies are solved due to excellent security and survveilance in the average bank.
Gee, do you suppose that SECURITY can counter INCENTIVE?
Which was the ENTIRE point of my original post.
Unless your bank is poorly run you will notice that there is NO cash up front with the tellers. They have to get cash from a machine designed to dispense cash slowly.
So TECHNOLOGICAL solutions (the machine that dispenses the cash) are implemented to counteract the INCENTIVE.
Again, that was the entire point of my original post.
It is very difficult to steal a large amount of cash these days. Smart jewlery stores only display fake jewlry and store the real goods securely offsite.
It doesn't matter WHERE it is stored.
What matters is the SECURITY.
If a jewelery thief has to rob the storage site instead of the store, so what? The INCENTIVE is still there.
But the SECURITY measures mean that almost every attempt will fail, no matter what the INCENTIVE is.
Now, to bring this back around to the ORIGINAL article, filing LAWSUITS will NOT stop spammers the same way jail time does NOT stop robbers.
Lawsuits and jail time are not enough to counter the incentive of lots of easy money.
It takes well-designed and well-implemented SECURITY measures.
I think you stopped at the first line of my original post.
Yet your corner bank isn't robbed every day (or week or month or year).
There might be strong incentive to send spam and make lots of money, but the spam still has to go out on technological avenues. All you have to do is to identify those and limit their effectiveness.
#1. Zombies.
#2. Open Relays.
#3. Individual email accounts (30 day AOL free!)
#4. Sites owned by the spammer.
If you look at it that way, you'll see why MULTIPLE measures are needed. What will work against zombies will NOT work against Individual email accounts.
If you deal with the tech, then the incentive won't matter because there won't be any way to implement it.
Since this is about Microsoft's involvment, I'll focus on what they could do.
#1. Zombies. Microsoft announces a partnership with the ISP's and those ISP's block outgoing port 25 on their home connections. Microsoft offsets the cost of this with a couple $$Million$$ to each ISP for hardware upgrades and support calls. Anyone who needs port 25 access (people who work from home and don't have systems setup to handle it) can call and have enabled for their address.
#2. Open Relays. Microsoft forms a partnership with spamhaus, spamcop, etc to mirror the open relay databases of those people. Since Microsoft also has Hotmail and MSN, Microsoft is in a great position to identify new open relays and add them to the list as they are abused.
#3. Individual email accounts. Not much that Microsoft needs to do here. All the ISP's need to do is to limit the outgoing email to 10 unique connections per minute.
#4. Spammer sites. Again, Microsoft helps by hosting a mirror of the blacklists.
There, the spam problem is down to a tiny fraction of what it was. The spammers might still WANT to send spam, but HOW are they going to do it?
Working on systems that cannot be cracked so easily and fighting to ensure that any standards remain free from proprietary restraints.
Why do you ask?
I realize the OSS community is doing things with their software to try and defeat spammers and phishers, but let's face it, legal action is the only real course of action to stop these guys (or at least whittle down their numbers).
Okkkaaaaayyyyyy.... Do you have ANY evidence that such has resulted in ANY reduction of spam?
From what I've seen, spam levels haven't dropped at all.
So why do you believe that this approach is effective?
The OSS community has for-profit companies out there... why aren't they flexing their muscle to help stop these scammers?
How many cracked Linux boxes do you think the spammers use? None? Well, it would seem that the OSS community is dealing with the problem at the technological root.
Microsoft is at least doing something... and it demonstrates exactly what a big corporation like that can do when that lkind of capital is directed at doing something worthwhile.
Again you go with your ASSUMPTION that lawsuits will result in less spam.
That's the THIRD time you've hit that ASSUMPTION yet you have not provided any EVIDENCE that supports it.
I think in the fervor to attack the supposed "evil monolith" people here tag as "Micro$oft", they forget exactly how much Gates, his company, and his employees donate to good causes around the world.
Why do you Microsofties hang out here?
If the best you can do is, "Bill does some good things with the money he made from illegally leveraging his monopoly", then you've lost from the beginning.
When you're worth $50Billion, it's easy to put a few million on some pet causes. And the gullible hero-worshipers will eat it up.
Yay! Bill is taking some spammers to COURT!
But Bill is NOT working with the Open Source community to implement PATENT-FREE systems to improve email.
And THAT is the deciding factor. Bill makes a LOT of money from illegally leveraging the desktop monopoly.
Bill sells a LOT of crap software that is completely insecure by default (and makes a LOT of money from it).
But you think that other people don't understand because they still dislike him even though he is willing to take a tiny percentage of his money to do some nice things (as long as those nice things in no way, shape or form could ever harm his illegally leveraged monopoly).
So, would YOU feel sorry for those spammers if THEY were giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight hunger or disease?
Would you support their continued spamming efforts?
Slashdot Mirror
Politics is very much like religion.
Most people believe the same things their parents believed and will have children who believe it also.
It's the same with religion and politics. Mostly because politics comes down to "values" about what is "good" and "bad".
Most people I know who voted for Bush did NOT vote for him because they wanted massive debt, never ending wars and a polluted environment.
They voted for Bush because Kerry would make everything worse. Or because Kerry lied about Vietnam. Or because Kerry wasn't a good Christian. Or because Kerry was a liberal. Or because Kerry was a friend of Jane Fonda. etc.
In other words, they looked for some reason (however non-substantial) to "justify" their voting for Bush.
Bush's message is very simple. He's strong and good. The US is strong and good. Those who oppose him/the US are weak and evil. He will protect you. You need his protection. The bad guys are coming. They're coming real soon. THEY'RE HERE! TERROR ALERT ORANGE! They're gone now. But they'll be back. Maybe with nukes. Bush needs your support to protect you. He is willing to pay any price to protect you from the evil men out there.
Don't laugh. Read through the transcripts of the speeches over the years. Look at how often the "Terror Alert" went up at politically opportunistic times. Yet when was the last time you saw the "Terror Alert" go up?
It's all about fear and religion. The religion of fear. No matter how safe you think you are, you aren't safe enough.
And that message sells.
Even back in WWII it was practiced. Just keep telling the people that the bad guys are coming and that anyone who says differently is a fool who will get you killed or a traitor and supporter of those evil men.
That goes back to the witch trials. Satan has allies. People that look just like you and me. Any actions we take against them are "good". Even if we accidentally torture and kill an innocent person. Because we cannot risk losing this battle.
Show me the death stats for people based upon exercise and nutrition INSTEAD of focusing on the weight of their corpse.
I'm betting that doing it that way would show a more understandable progression (ie. the healthier you keep yourself, the longer you will live).
But that kind of research won't get the headlines.
And the average person who reads that will only remember and believe what he wants to ("being fat means I'll live longer").
#1. BitKeeper is McVoy's code and he is allowed to do anything he wants with it. You're right that he could have pulled the "free" client at anytime and held the kernel source as "hostage".
... no one did anything ILLEGAL and they all made decisions based upon their stated values.
#2. Linus chose to use BitKeeper knowing all of that. He still chose it because it seemed to be the best product around that would meet his needs. Linus did not seem overly concerned about the potential for losing the "free" client.
#3. Tridge did not break any laws when he started to reverse engineer the packets.
So
Where's the problem?
Well, Tridge should have known that his work would piss off McVoy and that it could result in the loss of the "free" client. Yet he did it anyway WITHOUT writing a SCM that was as good or better than BitKeeper.
So, the only thing that Tridge is guilty of is not having a replacement ready for when everything blew up.
McVoy decided that he didn't want to deal with Tridge's work and just pulled the "free" client to stop what he viewed as a threat to BitKeeper.
So the only thing McVoy is guilty of is attempting to protect his own project.
Which leaves Linus suddenly without an SCM and he blames Tridge for wreaking a working situation without having a replacement ready.
So, the only thing Linus is guilty of is venting publicly.
So why is everyone picking sides? That comes down to each person's values.
A.) Those who value Open'ness more than functionality support Tridge because they believe Linus was wrong to push a proprietary product.
B.) Those who value functionality more than Open'ness support Linus because the system was working and it was helping development and there isn't an equivalent system to replace it yet.
But those are simply judgement calls based upon each individual's value set. Neither is more "right" or "wrong" than the other, except in your opinion.
The LSB people would write the standard...
The various distributions would adopt that standard...
The various ISV's would develop to that standard.
I'm sure everyone can see the problems, right?
#1. The LSB people couldn't get a complete standard written and published. Their current "standard" still doesn't include GNOME or KDE so it isn't going anywhere on the desktop.
#2. The various distributions are different because the people running them have different approaches to solving the same problem. What incentive IS THERE RIGHT NOW for them to wait and adopt the LSB? That's right, they need an incentive.
#3. The ISV's, seeing the delays, skipped the LSB and formed partnerships directly with the distributions (like Oracle did with Red Hat).
So, what we have right now is a bunch of ISV's who are not writing LSB apps forming partnerships with distributions who are not abandoning their old ways to support the LSB which has not released a workable standard for either the ISV's or the distributions.
The LSB, as it is currently focused, will always be a failure. Even if they managed to release a standard, it would only hold back the current speed of development.
What the LSB really needs to do is focus on the things that would make a huge difference right now.
#1. Fix the FSB. Right now, the location of a file depends upon how I install it. If I compile it myself, it goes in one directory. If I apt-get install it, it goes in a different one.
#2. Expand the FSB (part 1). Standardize the naming of each file, right down to the version number. If some app depends upon libfoo-1.0.0.3 then that should be the same file, with the same name on each distribution.
#3. Expand the FSB (part 2). Standardize the packages that contain the files that were standardized in #2. Package foo-1.0.0.3 would be named the same for each distribution and contain the exact same files of the exact same versions.
#4. Get rid of the RPM requirement. Instead, specify the BASIC functionality that the package management system will have and the basic information contained within a package and the format. That way, the various systems can ADD that functionality to their existing systems.
And the best thing is that those can be implemented over time. No more waiting for the LSB standard to be published BEFORE the distributions can become compliant BEFORE the ISV's can write and TEST their apps on those LSB compliant distributions.
In the end, the apps can have stated dependencies that should be easily verified because of the file and package standardization.
If I have root access, I can change the data and you wouldn't even know that it had been changed unless you compared it with a known good backup.
Root puts EVERYTHING at risk.
Also, his car analogy is flawed because people DO accidentally drive into walls and trees and other cars. And many times, people DIE from that.
But we accept the risk because of the massive benefits of being that mobile.
What are the benefits of running as root instead of a regular account? I run Ubuntu and I never have a problem with my regular user account.
Then compare that to the number of compromised Apache systems.That may be so, but it still takes the carpenter to build the barn.
The jackass cannot. He can only break it.Why would he assume that? I can see him designing a barn without paying much attention to fire control, if fire control was not a stated requirement. But a jackass wouldn't even be able to get the barn built.That's possible. But it still gets back to needing a carpenter because the jackass cannot build the barn.Nope.
First - you'd have to identify which sites were used by the terrorists. How do you do that?
Well, you'd have to know some terrorists or terrorist supporters and monitor their communications.
But since you know the identities of those people, why go to the time/expense of training elite military cracker teams? Why not just have an agent work for the ISP feeding the site that those people use for email?
One agent with a sniffer at the ISP can do a LOT more than dozens of crackers in a cave.
And that is the problem we're having with our current Intelligence operations. We are spending time and money on electronic means rather than getting PEOPLE into the sites where they can find the information.
The terrorists are not restricted by that. Since they don't have unlimited funding, they have to use people in critical junctions. Which is why a few of them were able to crash planes into our buildings.
We could do SO much better by spending $1million on recruiting more mid-eastern agents and sending them to tech support school and setting them up a "sleepers" in the region's ISP's than we will ever do with a cave full of geeks with Matrix delusions.
My Linux box is frequently targetted, but it's all Windows exploits so it doesn't matter.Ah, so there is no such thing as "security" then.
Just "marketshare".
No matter how many software experts put in how much effort, the end result will spontaniously generate "flaws" as more people use it.
By that "logic", there is no difference between a browser ("A") written by a team of experts who focused on security
Flaws do NOT appear just because more people use the software.
Code is not magic.
If you blow it up, they'll deploy a less effective secondary system (I'm sure they have vehicle mounted systems like we do).
If you can have them process bad data, they won't necessarily know that their system has been compromised and they'll have to keep reacting to the bad data (or miss the good data in the noise of the bad data).
In which case, the people deploying it would not need to know much about the system. Just how to identify the correct wires and how to splice the unit into them. In theory, any commo guy could do that, with a bit more training.
A good security expert would also be a good cracker.
-but-
A good script kiddie is not a security expert.False dichotomy.
Spending time learning how to crack a Windows system would NOT mean that you knew anything about real security.
Being able to exploit flaws does NOT mean that you understand how to build a secure system.
Again, any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.
So we have our own jackasses to kick down their barns to "counter" their jackasses kicking down our's? There's not much progress in that.
Rather, hire more carpenters to build better barns.
The fact that they have laptops does not mean they have networks.
...
Their laptops can be connected to the Internet and they can use regular email servers to email each other with encrypted messages.
Focusing on networks isn't going to help.
Now, what would help would be if they were using an OS that was built by a US company that worked with our government to install backdoors in the security system of that OS.
Failing that, our government would have to get crackers/hackers to focus on breaking into the OS used on those laptops or identifying the email servers used and cracking those.
Now, assuming that our government can spot the IP address of the laptop being used, that information can be used to trace the physical location of that laptop.
If you have the physical location of the terrorists
Cracking a laptop wouldn't be as useful as just getting the ISP's support in tracing the email packets. And in most cases, getting the ISP's support would be SO MUCH EASIER.
Even if they couldn't get the ISP's official support, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to get an agent hired by the ISP who could then drop a sniffer on the line.
But that doesn't sound as cool and high-tech as a cave full of geeks busily cracking away at terrorist networks.
People do not want to take the time to do the work required.
It's all about how you want to spend your time. Whether watching TV or doing research into the issues.
They are both valid choices, but they are not equal in any other respect.
If such was the case, then SOMEONE would be able to tell me what hardware/software combination would yield Linux-like stability.While that is correct, it does not follow that Windows is unstable because it does not do that.
Windows is the way it is because Microsoft had OTHER goals and decided to achieve those goals.
Apple does not focus on monopoly maintenance or killing Netscape. Apple focuses on getting one set of hardware to work flawlessly with one OS.
If someone called you up to harass/threaten you after some public comment you made, wouldn't you contact the local police/FBI?
Yet there is no mention of a police report or anyone being arrested for communicating a threat to her.
Darrel said similar things.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595047068,0
It seems to be a popular claim amongst a certain group of people (including McBride and DiDio) but, somehow, the cops are never involved or informed.
I find that to be very, very strange.
And the fact that it seems to be a pattern amongst these people.
I'm sure they tell each other that. Particularly on
Or does that ONLY apply when the subject is Open Source?
If you're going to be biased, then don't complain about how others are biased. That's just hypocritical.
Which is the main problem with DiDio. She takes anything SCO said as gospel and discounted any contradictory evidence presented.
Do you need me to remind you of the "obfuscated" code that SCO was showing under NDA that she signed and then wrote about how it looked as if SCO's case was air-tight? Hmmmmmm?
What it does is format the information in a package that the recipient is willing to accept.
Some people are not willing to look at the information if it hasn't been pre-packaged and sweetened for them.
I believe that this because of a number of reasons:
#1. Ego (a): THEY are not going to waste THEIR valuable time learning something new. But YOUR time and effort is insignificant.
#2. Ego (b): They have an emotional commitment to their current setup. They will ignore any suggestion that other systems may be more efficient for their uses.
#3. Ego (c): They know their current system and they don't want to be the newbies on a different system. You have to feed them enough information for them to get over the newbie phase before they will consider changing.
#4. Intellect: They simply cannot understand the material. You have to break it down into pre-digested chunks.That's primarily the Ego (b) response. They have an emotional reaction to someone saying that their current system is LESS functional than an alternative.Simple. You never mention IE. You talk about how they surf and tell them about the features that Firefox has that make that experience better.
Do you ever click on links in a page and the new page breaks the back button? With Firefox, you can open the new page in a new tab and still keep your old page open. That way, badly designed pages won't stop you.
Have you ever clicked on a link and it brought up a registration page for a news site? Firefox has a cool add-on that will fill in that page with info that will NOT result in you getting more spam.
Some pages load too many ads. Those ads can slow down the page. Firefox has a cool add-on that will completely block most of those ads. The pages will load faster if the ads are blocked.
And so on. Salesmen do that all the time.
The question is, why is anyone trying to "sell" someone else on using Firefox (or anything Open) when it is free (as beer) to download and try?
And why does anyone need to be "sold" to try something new that is free? If they're not into upcoming technologies, then that's fine.
Firefox is Free (as speech, as beer).Do you apply that same logic to Microsoft?
If Microsoft publishes some FUD, do you immediately switch to an alternative?
Therefore, you lose.
Too bad. All you would have had to have done to show that you were right is to reference a Linux box that was cracked and spewing spam.
If someone sets up a Linux box and installs software that allows an open relay, that box has not been cracked.I think I'll just stick to the facts, if that's all right with you.
So, dispute my claim with a fact. Show me a cracked Linux box spewing spam.
Not one configured by the admin to be an open relay. Not one where the admin installed software that was configured as an open relay. No open relays need be mentioned.
If you handle the mail yourself, that shouldn't be too hard to do. All you have to do is check the spam that didn't come through a relay and find a Linux box that isn't legitimately owned by a spammer.
I'll give you a week.
Linux isn't perfect. And in your example, a stupid admin can install a service such as PHP mailforms without securing it correctly.
But, by default, those aren't installed/enabled.
will a post stating that security can defeat an attacker be mod'ed as "flamebait".
What did I say in my original post?
Yet your corner bank isn't robbed every day (or week or month or year). Gee, do you suppose that SECURITY can counter INCENTIVE?
Which was the ENTIRE point of my original post.So TECHNOLOGICAL solutions (the machine that dispenses the cash) are implemented to counteract the INCENTIVE.
Again, that was the entire point of my original post.It doesn't matter WHERE it is stored.
What matters is the SECURITY.
If a jewelery thief has to rob the storage site instead of the store, so what? The INCENTIVE is still there.
But the SECURITY measures mean that almost every attempt will fail, no matter what the INCENTIVE is.
Now, to bring this back around to the ORIGINAL article, filing LAWSUITS will NOT stop spammers the same way jail time does NOT stop robbers.
Lawsuits and jail time are not enough to counter the incentive of lots of easy money.
It takes well-designed and well-implemented SECURITY measures.
I think you stopped at the first line of my original post.
Robbing banks is VERY lucrative.
Yet your corner bank isn't robbed every day (or week or month or year).
There might be strong incentive to send spam and make lots of money, but the spam still has to go out on technological avenues. All you have to do is to identify those and limit their effectiveness.
#1. Zombies.
#2. Open Relays.
#3. Individual email accounts (30 day AOL free!)
#4. Sites owned by the spammer.
If you look at it that way, you'll see why MULTIPLE measures are needed. What will work against zombies will NOT work against Individual email accounts.
If you deal with the tech, then the incentive won't matter because there won't be any way to implement it.
Since this is about Microsoft's involvment, I'll focus on what they could do.
#1. Zombies. Microsoft announces a partnership with the ISP's and those ISP's block outgoing port 25 on their home connections. Microsoft offsets the cost of this with a couple $$Million$$ to each ISP for hardware upgrades and support calls. Anyone who needs port 25 access (people who work from home and don't have systems setup to handle it) can call and have enabled for their address.
#2. Open Relays. Microsoft forms a partnership with spamhaus, spamcop, etc to mirror the open relay databases of those people. Since Microsoft also has Hotmail and MSN, Microsoft is in a great position to identify new open relays and add them to the list as they are abused.
#3. Individual email accounts. Not much that Microsoft needs to do here. All the ISP's need to do is to limit the outgoing email to 10 unique connections per minute.
#4. Spammer sites. Again, Microsoft helps by hosting a mirror of the blacklists.
There, the spam problem is down to a tiny fraction of what it was. The spammers might still WANT to send spam, but HOW are they going to do it?
Why do you ask?
Okkkaaaaayyyyyy.... Do you have ANY evidence that such has resulted in ANY reduction of spam?
From what I've seen, spam levels haven't dropped at all.
So why do you believe that this approach is effective?How many cracked Linux boxes do you think the spammers use? None? Well, it would seem that the OSS community is dealing with the problem at the technological root.Again you go with your ASSUMPTION that lawsuits will result in less spam.
That's the THIRD time you've hit that ASSUMPTION yet you have not provided any EVIDENCE that supports it.Why do you Microsofties hang out here?
If the best you can do is, "Bill does some good things with the money he made from illegally leveraging his monopoly", then you've lost from the beginning.
When you're worth $50Billion, it's easy to put a few million on some pet causes. And the gullible hero-worshipers will eat it up.
Yay! Bill is taking some spammers to COURT!
But Bill is NOT working with the Open Source community to implement PATENT-FREE systems to improve email.
And THAT is the deciding factor. Bill makes a LOT of money from illegally leveraging the desktop monopoly.
Bill sells a LOT of crap software that is completely insecure by default (and makes a LOT of money from it).
But you think that other people don't understand because they still dislike him even though he is willing to take a tiny percentage of his money to do some nice things (as long as those nice things in no way, shape or form could ever harm his illegally leveraged monopoly).
So, would YOU feel sorry for those spammers if THEY were giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight hunger or disease?
Would you support their continued spamming efforts?
If you say "no", then you're a hypocrite.