Since when has FSFs neo-political activism been a "recent spiral". RMS has been a loud-mouth activist since before most/. readers were born (and hopefully, he won't be shutting up any time soon).
The authors opinions seem just as clueless as his non-facts.
If one wanted to counter this attack (which we don't because we're law abiding citizens, aren't we, but let's consider it as a theoretical possibility) the answer is to download (and share back by uploading).
The more you download (and share back by uploading), the lower the ratio of "attackers" to (il)legitimate [but protocol correct] uploaders/downloaders and the attack gets diluted.
Bittorrent scales, but centralised attacks/enforcement doesnt.
"It is obvious that this guy should have had an
anti-virus package"
So if a car randomly bursts into flame and kills the driver because of a manufacturing defect, then it's obvious that she should have been wearing a flame-retardant suit?
IMHO, the obvious thing is that the software companies fix their damn bugs - well, at least the f**king security flaws.
Blaming the victims for opening attachments is silly.
If it's that easy to tell the difference between hostile and benign content, then the differentiation should be done in the application in the first place. If programmers aren't up to doing this, what chance does Joe average user have?
Oh, wait, the programmers did do it, just not the ones that work for M$.
What idemnification does M$ give me?
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
If a patent holder sues me for using an (allegedly) infringing MS product, then what idemnification do my licenses with MS give me?
It's a while since I've needed to read a MS license, but my memory is that most of them are along the lines of "MS does not warrent anything about this software. MS is not liable for anything. Nadda, nothing. If the law forces us, we much refund your purchase price, but nothing else"
MS users might be better off than open source users if the patent holder is willing to settle with MS for gobs of cash. But a patent holder who wants to be disruptive (like EOLAS) doesn't have to sell a license to MS - in that case, MS users are really screwed - they have to stop using the infringing product, and don't have source code so they can't just remove an offending part, no matter how trivial.
M$ is fond of telling us about TCO of software, and how most of the cost associated software is indirect, primarily the people required to support software systems within an organisation.
So if open source is killing jobs then the total cost of ownership will be less, right, I mean less people to pay? But that's not what M$ claims about TCO.
Someone should get their story straight.
Oh, one real difference between open source and closed source, the open source jobs tend to be close to home, not outsourced to somewhere else. That seems to be an important issue for some...
precompiled binaries will never run as quickly as those compiled with the right optimizations for your own machine.
Actually precompiled binaries built by someone who knows what they're doing will almost always give a better performing system that those compiled with some random combination of compiler options that some 733t d0d@ mistakenly thinks work magic because a/. article said so.
Most of the bottlenecks on my systems are disk-io related. Compiler options matter fuck all, but gcc -Os rocks! gcc -O99 sucks!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has FSFs neo-political activism been a "recent spiral". RMS has been a loud-mouth activist since before most /. readers were born (and hopefully, he won't be shutting up any time soon).
The authors opinions seem just as clueless as his non-facts.
Think of the benefits to terrorists.
Bombs connected to RFID scanners.
They'll be able to "precision bomb" the targets they're aiming for...
As a person who might conceivably be mistaken for an American, I'm all for this.
If one wanted to counter this attack (which we don't because we're law abiding citizens, aren't we, but let's consider it as a theoretical possibility) the answer is to download (and share back by uploading).
The more you download (and share back by uploading), the lower the ratio of "attackers" to (il)legitimate [but protocol correct] uploaders/downloaders and the attack gets diluted.
Bittorrent scales, but centralised attacks/enforcement doesnt.
"It is obvious that this guy should have had an
anti-virus package"
So if a car randomly bursts into flame and kills the driver because of a manufacturing defect, then it's obvious that she should have been wearing a flame-retardant suit?
IMHO, the obvious thing is that the software companies fix their damn bugs - well, at least the f**king security flaws.
In the old soviet union they didn't have phone books because terrorists ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H dissidents might use them.
It's only a matter of time.
So Microsoft uses HotMail as it's internal email system? :-)
Here's the LHC home page for those who want more than a fluffy news media articlea ge/
http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-new-homep
Blaming the victims for opening attachments is silly.
If it's that easy to tell the difference between hostile and benign content, then the differentiation should be done in the application in the first place. If programmers aren't up to doing this, what chance does Joe average user have?
Oh, wait, the programmers did do it, just not the ones that work for M$.
If a patent holder sues me for using an (allegedly) infringing MS product, then what idemnification do my licenses with MS give me?
It's a while since I've needed to read a MS license, but my memory is that most of them are along the lines of "MS does not warrent anything about this software. MS is not liable for anything. Nadda, nothing. If the law forces us, we much refund your purchase price, but nothing else"
MS users might be better off than open source users if the patent holder is willing to settle with MS for gobs of cash. But a patent holder who wants to be disruptive (like EOLAS) doesn't have to sell a license to MS - in that case, MS users are really screwed - they have to stop using the infringing product, and don't have source code so they can't just remove an offending part, no matter how trivial.
What terms & conditions?
Is this flat rate, or are there extra costs?
Are you allowed to run servers at home?
Well my favourite is one that doesn't exist because it doesn't need to.
Most hated is one that exists despite the fact that it shouldn't.
M$ is fond of telling us about TCO of software, and how most of the cost associated software is indirect, primarily the people required to support software systems within an organisation.
So if open source is killing jobs then the total cost of ownership will be less, right, I mean less people to pay? But that's not what M$ claims about TCO.
Someone should get their story straight.
Oh, one real difference between open source and closed source, the open source jobs tend to be close to home, not outsourced to somewhere else. That seems to be an important issue for some...
Actually precompiled binaries built by someone who knows what they're doing will almost always give a better performing system that those compiled with some random combination of compiler options that some 733t d0d@ mistakenly thinks work magic because a /. article said so.
Most of the bottlenecks on my systems are disk-io related. Compiler options matter fuck all, but gcc -Os rocks! gcc -O99 sucks! :-)