Also - forgot to mention -.net is Microsoft's way of ensuring they can get their apps running on as many desktops as possible, WITHOUT needing to open the source code for people to port.
Support the ability of alternate OSes to run.net applications, and they gain some of the benefits of open source (operating system independence) whilst still being able to keep their source proprietry.
The writing is on the wall - maybe not this year, maybe not next year - but eventually, the open alternative operating systems will be "good enough" for use as a desktop OS. That market is lost to them.
They do well to kick-start.net application development and shift to a cross-platform stance (yes, this will take several years) whilst they're still relevant - once the "killer" alternative OS comes out, its too late.
Love them or hate them - MS is far from a stupid company (you don't grow to their size by being stupid). I'm pretty sure they're already thinking 10-15 years ahead...
smash (no huge fan of Microsoft's current software, but.net is a huge plus IMHO).
So we can catch up to where MS was 10 years ago?:)
Seriously - Win32 as an application framework is dying.
.net is where MS is pushing stuff, and considering that C# is being pushed as a standard, and MS is even supporting.net development on FreeBSD - I think that would be the direction to go.
Personally, I think MS may have realised that the OS market is stagnant. Can anybody see a pressing need to upgrade from Win2k/XP to longhorn? Please...:D
Application development is where the money is going to be, and if they can push.net to run everywhere, then thats a bigger potential market for them.
I think that the best things MS could do would be to support open file formats, and provide support for getting the windows forms API running in MONO.
My thoughts exactly, however - the network monitor i can live without (just use third party), and multiple users at the same time isn't a huge benefit for me.
My only desirable feature is cleartype for my LCD... and I'm starting to get over it due to the ridiculous number of patches...
I'm not too worried about a lack of drivers for Win2k. I'll be running Linux or MacOS X exclusively by then - as more and more applications move to a web-based / cross platform (eg, java/.net) framework, OS choice will become increasingly irrelevant - and the freedom to use what's comfortable (as opposed to which has application support) will become apparent:)
As for games... I haven't played anything on PC that grabs me in about 2-3 years - PC games now cater to the "shiny things" crowd, gameplay sucks...
Because there's other things you can do with openGL in the X server. They're just a demonstration or "test" to see how performance is going, no doubt.
As to what GL would be useful for? Live previews on your pager for desktop switching (ie, a little mini copy of your other desktop is rendered there live, in as much detail as your pager is big enough to display), or hell - get rid of the pager altogether, and just make a scrollable, zoomable virtual desktop.
Kinda like working with images in whatever photo retouching package you care to name. Key modifier + Mousewheel up = zoom in, mousewheel down = zoom out.
The windowmanager BS they're showing off at the moment is a toy, nothing more - but by no means is it a demonstration of the full potential of a GL desktop.
Your "solution" will break compatibility with a vast library of software, as well as script compatibility with virtually every other unix under the sun.
The solution, as implemented by OS/X, Ubuntu, etc - is to deny normal user access to the filesystem, except via either a package manager, or the root account.
Isn't it the system's fault if it allows me to do something it knows will be "bad" without warning me?
Nope.
This what package managers are for. If you can't be trusted to play with low level tools, with root access, then use the package manager provided to do things from a high level application, which WILL provide the relevant dependancy warnings, etc.
Logging in as root and playing with rm is deliberately circumventing the "protection" offered by package management (which, if need be, can be made to run SUID, instead of requiring root access, if you're REALLY that against typing a password in for it).
Put another way - is it the fault of Black and Decker if you remove the safety guard from your circular saw so you can go cutting things up "better", and you end up cutting your arm off with it?
root is all powerful. By deliberately and consciously logging into a shell as root, you're taking things into your own hands. All safeguards are off. There's no point in extra command line switches - you've already bypassed the safety net.
Your command line switch to rm could instead be implemented with sudo (funnily enough, as it already is with Ubuntu), and logging in without root access. To remove files that are likely to affect your system - you need to run sudo rm.:)
No, and a well designed distribution will not require this. Set permissions for users on the modem device, and you're set.
Most of the "but i need root access!" problems are caused by poor distribution implementation, not inherent problems with the restriction of user accounts.
See ubuntu for a good demonstration of how to do things correctly.
Run as root - you can lose your data *AND* your programs.
Programs can be reinstalled, sure. So can data, by this amazing technology called *backups*.
Plus, if you run as root, there's the potential that every other user on the machine has *their* data compromised as well, through your own incompetence/mistake/spyware, etc.
There's also the possibility that, when run as root, changes may be made to your system that you will not notice. Random example - lets say I build a trojan to modify your C library to install a backdoor into any code you *or any user on your system* link against it?
How about I modify your e-mail client's binary to silently attach copies of personal documents to any email it sends out?
You may not notice, until its too late. There's FAR more damage that can be done with root access than not - and its not *just* about restoring from backup.
The only *real* reason to require root access (other than dodgy code) is to allow direct access to devices - which is not addressed by your diff file system anyway.
Everything else you can do with paths and/or symlinks.
If you're only going to let users install programs for their own use (as your diff file system suggests) - this can already be done, but putting them under their home directory.
Programs that don't work this way, and require specific installation/library file locations are broken and should be fixed - there's no need to design a new file system.
Neat idea (diff filesystem), but I just don't see any real need for it. My 2c.
What the PC Mag writer neglected -- or was oblivous to -- is the fact that those other processes occupying the second (or hereafter known as "wasted") core use a hell of a lot of I/O.
It would depend on the context of the network whether or not the "false" positives are indeed a security issue or not.
From a security standpoint, its better to be made aware of things as a security risk that may not be an issue, rather than the other way around, and assume you're safe - when there is actually an issue.
How do you handle these 3rd-party security people who make mountains out of every molehill?"
You address the issues. That means: fix the problem, or provide a reason as to why things are this way, and *why* it is not a problem in your instance. Explain to the manager in question. Explain that to fix issue "x" may result in lost functionality, ease of use, or whatever - or that the risk has already been mitigated by some other precaution.
As someone else said - if you can't do that, there's a problem.
Yeah, like it's really hard to reimage your hard drive. The Lindows people rightfully pointed out that the most valuable thing a typical user has is his documents, and those aren't protected at all with the UNIX security model.
Ok, explain to me how you write garbage all over the BIOS, or mark blocks as bad on your hard-disk, etc as a normal user?
Root not only has the potential to render the O/S un-usable - it has hardware level access as well.
Not quite so easy to re-flash your bios when your PC won't boot from any devices now, is it?
Also (and most importantly), with sudo, you can allow ONLY SPECIFIC COMMANDS, for specific users (as listed in the sudoers file) to be run as root.
Ie, if a user needs the ability to start/stop some daemon, you could allow the init file for that daemon in/etc/sudoers, but not give them sudo access to anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Support the ability of alternate OSes to run .net applications, and they gain some of the benefits of open source (operating system independence) whilst still being able to keep their source proprietry.
The writing is on the wall - maybe not this year, maybe not next year - but eventually, the open alternative operating systems will be "good enough" for use as a desktop OS. That market is lost to them.
They do well to kick-start .net application development and shift to a cross-platform stance (yes, this will take several years) whilst they're still relevant - once the "killer" alternative OS comes out, its too late.
Love them or hate them - MS is far from a stupid company (you don't grow to their size by being stupid). I'm pretty sure they're already thinking 10-15 years ahead...
smash (no huge fan of Microsoft's current software, but .net is a huge plus IMHO).
So we can catch up to where MS was 10 years ago? :)
Seriously - Win32 as an application framework is dying.
Personally, I think MS may have realised that the OS market is stagnant. Can anybody see a pressing need to upgrade from Win2k/XP to longhorn? Please... :D
Application development is where the money is going to be, and if they can push .net to run everywhere, then thats a bigger potential market for them.
I think that the best things MS could do would be to support open file formats, and provide support for getting the windows forms API running in MONO.
Windows is dying. Its the past. Let it die :)
My 2c.
smash.
smash.
My only desirable feature is cleartype for my LCD... and I'm starting to get over it due to the ridiculous number of patches...
I'm not too worried about a lack of drivers for Win2k. I'll be running Linux or MacOS X exclusively by then - as more and more applications move to a web-based / cross platform (eg, java/.net) framework, OS choice will become increasingly irrelevant - and the freedom to use what's comfortable (as opposed to which has application support) will become apparent :)
As for games... I haven't played anything on PC that grabs me in about 2-3 years - PC games now cater to the "shiny things" crowd, gameplay sucks...
smash.
smash.
smash.
You have to read the original posting somewhere to get the context...
smash.
As to what GL would be useful for? Live previews on your pager for desktop switching (ie, a little mini copy of your other desktop is rendered there live, in as much detail as your pager is big enough to display), or hell - get rid of the pager altogether, and just make a scrollable, zoomable virtual desktop.
Kinda like working with images in whatever photo retouching package you care to name. Key modifier + Mousewheel up = zoom in, mousewheel down = zoom out.
The windowmanager BS they're showing off at the moment is a toy, nothing more - but by no means is it a demonstration of the full potential of a GL desktop.
smash.
All an open GL X server will do is make it EASIER for a window manager to accomplish such feats. P. smash.
smash
smash.
What about the hundred/thousand machines your box was used to compromise before you realised what was going on?
smash.
Care to give me some hosting space? :D
smash.
The solution, as implemented by OS/X, Ubuntu, etc - is to deny normal user access to the filesystem, except via either a package manager, or the root account.
Nope.This what package managers are for. If you can't be trusted to play with low level tools, with root access, then use the package manager provided to do things from a high level application, which WILL provide the relevant dependancy warnings, etc.
Logging in as root and playing with rm is deliberately circumventing the "protection" offered by package management (which, if need be, can be made to run SUID, instead of requiring root access, if you're REALLY that against typing a password in for it).
Put another way - is it the fault of Black and Decker if you remove the safety guard from your circular saw so you can go cutting things up "better", and you end up cutting your arm off with it?
root is all powerful. By deliberately and consciously logging into a shell as root, you're taking things into your own hands. All safeguards are off. There's no point in extra command line switches - you've already bypassed the safety net.
Your command line switch to rm could instead be implemented with sudo (funnily enough, as it already is with Ubuntu), and logging in without root access. To remove files that are likely to affect your system - you need to run sudo rm. :)
smash.
I think you'll have more success in adding a feature to a package manager than implementing/debugging/gaining support for a new filesystem though :)
smash.
Most of the "but i need root access!" problems are caused by poor distribution implementation, not inherent problems with the restriction of user accounts.
See ubuntu for a good demonstration of how to do things correctly.
smash.
However, your applications are also important.
Run as a user - you can only lose your data.
Run as root - you can lose your data *AND* your programs.
Programs can be reinstalled, sure. So can data, by this amazing technology called *backups*.
Plus, if you run as root, there's the potential that every other user on the machine has *their* data compromised as well, through your own incompetence/mistake/spyware, etc.
There's also the possibility that, when run as root, changes may be made to your system that you will not notice. Random example - lets say I build a trojan to modify your C library to install a backdoor into any code you *or any user on your system* link against it?
How about I modify your e-mail client's binary to silently attach copies of personal documents to any email it sends out?
You may not notice, until its too late. There's FAR more damage that can be done with root access than not - and its not *just* about restoring from backup.
smash.
Everything else you can do with paths and/or symlinks.
If you're only going to let users install programs for their own use (as your diff file system suggests) - this can already be done, but putting them under their home directory.
Programs that don't work this way, and require specific installation/library file locations are broken and should be fixed - there's no need to design a new file system.
Neat idea (diff filesystem), but I just don't see any real need for it. My 2c.
smash.
I'm only half serious :D
smash.
From a security standpoint, its better to be made aware of things as a security risk that may not be an issue, rather than the other way around, and assume you're safe - when there is actually an issue.
smash.
smash.
As someone else said - if you can't do that, there's a problem.
smash.
Root not only has the potential to render the O/S un-usable - it has hardware level access as well.
Not quite so easy to re-flash your bios when your PC won't boot from any devices now, is it?
smash.
Ie, if a user needs the ability to start/stop some daemon, you could allow the init file for that daemon in /etc/sudoers, but not give them sudo access to anything else.
smash.
The bitkeeper protocol is NOT an open standard.
smash.